[Rury]

The thing is, people don't realize this argument fully. If you are to accept that life could take countless forms, most which we could never recognize or begin to understand, then it's quite possible rocks are lifeforms, as we don't recognize them as life now nor understand how they could be living. Since most people seemingly don't like the argument that rocks are living, then this shows that this argument (along with others) is flawed with very definition that they want "life" to have.

[cogs]

We managed to recognise stromatolites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite

[andsoitis]

> quite possible rocks are lifeforms

Humans are closer to fungi than rocks are to life.

[Rury]

This statement has nothing to do with what I am saying.

[andsoitis]

To posit that rocks are quite possibly life forms takes the meaning out of what we mean when we say “life”.

[Rury]

That's my point, and by extension, to say that life could take forms that we don't even understand, is flawed, because what life means is whatever definition we want to give it. Do we not understand our own definitions?

[andsoitis]

Right. I’m doubling down on your point. We’re singing in chorus.

[bufferoverflow]

Have you ever seen rocks do anything interesting? I don't mean outside forces acting on rocks, but rocks themselves?