Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Trees are NOT alive.
- Thread starter Enmos
- Start date
- Status
Firstly, Merriam-Webster is hardly an authority
.Secondly, consider definition (1) on that link you gave. (The others refer to colloqial usages of the word 'alive', since the word has many meanings).
Following (1) we get to: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life
Now consider point (15).
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Which definition is it that you are relying upon? One of them is "having life" which trees certainly can have or "not inanimate" which living trees certainly are not.
The other definitions appear to be figurative uses based on that primary sense.
In any event, if Merriam-Webster *had* a definition of "alive" that categorically excluded trees, then clearly the problem would be with the definition, not with the trees.
The other definitions appear to be figurative uses based on that primary sense.
In any event, if Merriam-Webster *had* a definition of "alive" that categorically excluded trees, then clearly the problem would be with the definition, not with the trees.
It isnt a poor definition. The confusion comes from here:
1: having life : not dead or inanimate.
It is true but the main word here is actually inanimate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inanimate
1: having life : not dead or inanimate.
It is true but the main word here is actually inanimate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inanimate
A tree is closer to a snowflake than it is to a mountain lion.
Im guessing John99 is talking about whether trees are sentient or not. Trees are most definitely alive, but, they are not sentient life forms.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient
and since when did m-w become the standard dictionary everyone uses?
EDIT: i was wrong.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient
and since when did m-w become the standard dictionary everyone uses?
EDIT: i was wrong.
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You are going in circles.
"Inanimate" means, according to your dictionary, "not endowed with life".
Do you anything more to offer than vague dictionary definition that don't even support your point ?
Before you looked up these definition, why did you think trees were not alive ?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
That definition does not back up your assertion. dictionaries list all or many meanings of a word. This does not mean that something has to fit all meanings to fit the word.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, he means there are not alive, as in trees do not qualify as life.
Perhaps since John seems to think it supports his argument.
Firstly, Merriam-Webster is hardly an authority
Secondly, consider definition (1) on that link you gave. (The others refer to colloqial usages of the word 'alive', since the word has many meanings).
Following (1) we get to: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life
Now consider point (15).
I think of alive as being something with the capability to react or some form of immediate interaction.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No it isn't.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Trees do that... show me that trees do not interact with their environment.
Life and alive have separate meanings, that is why there are two words to describe them. Of course they qualify as something living.
Immediate reaction. You show me where a snowflake does not interact (react) with their environment. Is a snowflake alive?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
That's the thread right there. Someones a little confused on definitions?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Are you saying you are completely ignorant ?
I told you to defend you position, come up with some evidence that supports your argument.
This is not Philosophy, this is Biology & Genetics.
- Status