I do not agree with bradys interpretation of the definitions. Not the definitions themselves in the context of explaiing qualititys of life.

There are many other things you misunderstand about what I say.

Universal
And how was it inaccurate, according to your philosophy, for me to say that a corpse is alive?\"[/b]
It is inaccurate that the corpse is alive in the context that you are speaking about the life of a human being. When a human 'dies' as we call it. The corpse is a result. That is why we say it is a dead corpse. It is the definition of 'dead' we are getting confused about. We could replace the word dead with passed on, Or whatever, the word implies a transistion of leaving one form to starting something else. A great portion of the individual cells in the body indeed do not stop living immediately after 'death' of the entity. Overall the individual cells of the body will decay and die themselves in the same way that the entity did. Thats when the corpse goes into being matter, which is another form. Because the life has gone out of it that was once in it. Things have transistioned into another state. But nothing has ultimately died. As I have already said. What did not have a beginning can not have a end.
The form of the physical bodys make up had a end because it had a beginning. But the consiousness that used it did not. Thats why it is said ultimately all matter is an illusion. Something consiousness has created for its own purposes. I'm not saying a corpse is a new form of life. It is in a different state than that of a living human.

universal
It also seems to me that you think a human can be murdered if one is converted to that new form of life, so why can't a rock be murdered if it is transformed into a new form of life by being chemically altered?[/b]
We say a human is murdered. Because another lifeform of similar character ended the entitys life in that form. A rock does not have the ability to do this to another rock. The quality of matter is more simplistic than a consious human. When fire consumes a piece of wood. You don't say that the fire murdered the wood. Because we understand fire does not have a consiousness like we do and so it cannot apply here.

In the same way when someone who kills another human being for example. It is just another process of this life, but more complicated. In this case called 'murder' With the more complex consiousness of this human lifeforme, comes more complicated results and situations about life. We have labelled this 'murder'. But Once again its your understanding of the concept murder and how it applies to the process of life that matters here. If you are confused about the true definition of the word murder in its proper context. You will also be confused about how you cannot 'murder' a rock.

Universal
Most importantly though, I still don't understand why you don't agree with science's definition of life.[/b]
I do agree with science's definition of life.