Talk:Life

Prions as a life form?

A while ago I got into a dispute with another editor about the inclusion of "non-cellular life" in the infobox. I suppose their reasons were good enough but the list had since expanded to include prions. Has anyone ever described prions as alive? I'm not trying to debate here; I would just like to know if there are any reliable sources that support this. I've found some sparse results on Google Scholar but these discussions are generally part of an abstract philosophical discussion about what the definition of life can extend to, often including computer viruses, which I can't imagine will ever be added to the infobox (although I suppose stranger things have happened). Anyway, I'm interested in getting some input on this. — Anonymous 01:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This is NOT A FORUM, and we cannot go on editors' opinions. I've bever seen a reliable source that says so, and reliable sources are all that matter here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, I don't think prions should be listed; I'm asking if anyone can justify their inclusion (otherwise they should be removed). — Anonymous 04:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The same goes for the numerous other random "non-cellular" particles that have been added over the years. I didn't really want to get back into the previous dispute, but IIRC the justification for including most other particles besides viruses seemed to be leaning into OR (i.e. the sources were not explicitly calling them alive). However it's been a while and my memory's foggy. I could also use a short rest from Wikipedia after a long day of editing. — Anonymous 04:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You're asking for removal not addition, I see. I've removed a listicle from the infobox as off-topic and not discussed in the text. Thanks for drawing it to attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

"Life is matter"?

The very first sentence begins, "Life is matter." Later, the article states that "life is a process, not a substance." Those two assertions contradict each other.

"Life is a process" is supported by citations and comports with the way the word "life" is actually used. "Life is matter" is not, and does not. While we may speak of some material thing as being "alive," we would not speak of the thing as "life," except in a casual, poetic, or less analytically rigorous voice.

For these reasons, the first sentence should be changed to something more like, "Life is a process, characterizing certain forms of matter, which can be defined by the capacity for biological processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction." ~2026-27746-64 (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing, and welcome to Wikipedia. The article has a whole chapter on why "life" is hard to define, so it's a bit of a hiding to nothing to try to define it in a few informal words up front. It's hard to pretend, however, that it's just one process. I've tweaked the lead, but ... lead engineering is never a great place to start anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

As revised, it now speaks of life as a capacity for those hard-to-define processes. But isn't life the process itself, rather than the capacity for it? The assemblage of body parts that Dr. Frankenstein sewed together had the *capacity* for life, but it did not have life until lightning struck. Or, to use another analogy, an empty suitcase has the *capacity* for luggage, but the capacity is not the luggage.

Are you tired of my nitpicking? You should be. I promise to switch to decaf after this and to live with whatever you think the lede should say. Thanks for being a tolerant, gracious host! ~2026-27746-64 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)