I think this has little to do with narrow-mindedness or anything along those lines, and a lot more to do with the fact that definitions for words exist to facilitate communication. If I redefine life to include, say, my computer, I ought to have a very good reason to do this; otherwise, I'm just going to confuse people, and end up giving a full explanation every time I use the term 'life'.

Basically, this concept looks at the causality of language in reverse.

This is so true, and key. So many people think about themselves and systems in general as being separate when logically there isn't even such a thing, at least not in the relevant context. You're looking at a a system and how it interacts with a larger system its a part of, how does that interaction take place? Well, either both systems are actually one, or there is absolutely no interaction, and looking at both systems at once is only interesting maybe to see what is similar or different between them. Basically, its always all or nothing, part of the whole, or not.

This is just a language issue. A fun technique: try to have this discussion with someone while banning the word “life” and its derivatives from the discussion.

It usually turns out that you’re arguing over the preferred definition of an English word, and you can actually find a point of agreement on the underlying models.

Banning the root word of the domain is my favorite way of discussing any controversial topic.

Try discussing religion with someone of a different faith without invoking God(s) or any specific prophets. It turns out that you're left with origin theories, a system of morals, and a mostly observations-based prototype to modern science.

Now try international politics without using the terms war, peace, or border.

Now we should ban the word favourite here.

Exactly. The definition of life that is taught in school and widely cited is very limited to simply what we traditionally consider alive. But where are fr he lines drawn? Must life be conscious, or at least experience qualia? Does conciousness get more "real" in more complex organisms? (Is a fly just as alive as a horse is?) Why do we consider viruses to be not alive? Are our own bodies' cells alive? In what way? The system is very complicated and we answer is with a hand-waving simple definition.

The lines are drawn based on what biology we have available to us. If we ever discover alien biology, the lines might be drawn more broadly. But we don't know until then.

It's still a bit arbitrary. Why is the water cycle in a mountain/coud/river not a living process, but the ATP cycle in a cell is?

I think you may be familiar with the Global Brain hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_brain): what if the Earth is a large network system? And you know, the network is the computer...

Given the current empirical evidences we have, it's not particularity persuasive, but an extremely interesting imagination and proposal indeed.

The mice would like to have a word with you[42]

[42]https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/1MmQjXrkwp98jNdc17...

What if even stars in a galaxy form a communicative network, communication meaning sending and reacting to signals on a purely physical basis which doesn't translate to a meaning to us yet. Gravity waves, electromagnetic signals, signals we are not aware of... I am not saying stars talk gossip but that there could be a signal exchange and a systemic reaction. We see it in practically all life forms on Earth and a in a way in the non-alive world as well when you look at the climate, for example.

I mean, when I speak I physically interact and transmit signals through air vibrations which we developed to both detect and interpret. Other perceptive "life" forms would have a hard time telling what we communicate about as well. Hell, we can barely if at all understand what other mammals communicate about despite their biophysical systems being incredibly similar to our own. Plants communicate with chemical signals and root/fungi networks.

Predicted pictures of the universe at large look eerily like the brain's structure as well.

Certainly everything with gravitational mass or electromagnetic energy communicates with others via the waves and particles of physics. The question is only in the complexity of these messages compared to biological and psychological processes.

You're changing the meaning of the word to suit your philosophy.

Conflating life with the ability to communicate is like conflating computing with browsing the web.

Sure. But you have nothing to sustain your argument. It is very broad and given how big the Universe is, probably, unverifiable. That's like a cell with cell resources trying to find out its place in the human body.

> Life is everything.

No it isn't, a rock is not alive.

> Just because we can't consciously communicate with something it doesn't mean it's not alive.

Strawman, no one thinks life requires communication.

> Why wouldn't Earth be alive?

Because it's not, it's a big rock, it has life on the surface, but is not itself alive.

> We love separating things by arbitrarily naming and defining them, but the universe is completely connected, we can't exist outside of it or disconnected from it.

More strawmen.

> If anything, the only life that exists is the entire universe and we are just tiny tiny pieces of it with a very limited view and awareness of the whole.

The universe is not alive.

What's clear is that you just don't know what you're saying, you're just pontificating woo woo.

Life self replicates, metabolizes something for energy, and grows through cellular division. None of the things you just called alive do that, so they're not alive; you don't get to change the meaning of the word life to suit your narrative.

Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to Hacker News? You've done it a lot, and it's tedious and grating.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html