• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Life Does Not Exist

Does life exist?

  • Yes, of course

    Votes: 32 94.1%
  • No, it is a concept which only exist in our minds

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • Total voters
    34

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's more a question of what is life itself. What is it that makes one thing dead or inanimate and another alive?

We identify life whenever we see its signature characteristics: collections of matter that are animate (at the subcellular level at least), channel energy (eat, absorb sunlight, maintain a far from equilibrium state = homeostasis), growth and development, reproduction and repair, adapt and evolve, made of cells, organic, chemically complex, etc..

It's not difficult to identify what objects possess these qualities and perform these operations, and we call those living.

So life exists as a definition of an object with a set of properties we decided such an object ought to have.

We choose definitions so that they include all items that we wish to consider collectively and exclude others. I don't know that we decide what properties a living thing ought to have, but rather, what properties we find clustered together in predictable and distinct ways.

life itself does not exist as a property since it is define as a set of other properties.

That's the case with abstractions in general. They have no existence outside of being an idea in a mind, but they derive from experiencing things outside of the mind that we would say do exist.

We create an concept and give it a name. Does that mean it has an existence separate from it's mental concept?

In the case of life, an abstraction, it exists only as an idea, but it refers to that collection of properties and activities that do exist. What we call living things exist, and we collect them under the abstraction life, because we find utility in considering that collection of things collectively and distinct from other things that don't get the name living. Maybe we want to consider the first thing that had these qualities, as when discussing the origin of life, or all of the extant ones as the tree of life.

I think the lines themselves are what the OP was questioning. We obviously get to draw them as we wish for our own purposes... but do the lines themselves really exist?

If that's what the question asks, then no, the lines are abstractions, and we choose where to place them according to our needs. Definitions are ours to choose. We can divvy off groups for purposes of discussion according to our purpose.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Emptiness_Anatta_No_Self.jpg

Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist


What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?

Thank you for breathing fresh life into this old argument.

Cogito, ergo sum.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Emptiness_Anatta_No_Self.jpg

Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist


What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?

Ferris Jabr says that "the inorganic can be converted into the organic both inside and outside the lab". But he states it as fact. He is being unscientific by doing that.

I think he is trying to philosophise his "hypothesis" with a lot of "quotes" like a shot gun. One bullet after another. Lot of information that seems to correlate with his idea but are only corresponding, not causal. Philosophically he is making some fundamental errors by trying to mix science with philosophy but ignoring philosophy of science and axioms. In my personal opinion, this is a whole mess.

Interesting though. Thanks.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I was going to write a whole schpiel about the Paradox of the heap, but then @It Aint Necessarily So did it much better than I ever could.

I agree that this is a fundamental problem with the binary logic we use to delineate terms and construct definitions, which is at odds with the way we human beings use language to communicate ideas and talk about problems.

Instead, I suggest a fuzzy logic approach, where we agree that our definitions are not binary, but set points on a spectrum or continuum with many possible in-between cases.
 

Tom62

New Member
Yes life exists as hydrocarbons. If you ask, "How can I know what is real?"
I have a hand. So I can know that what I see is real, because I have a hand.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Yes life exists as hydrocarbons. If you ask, "How can I know what is real?"
I have a hand. So I can know that what I see is real, because I have a hand.

I have a hand too.

robot-hand-sensors.png


Being real isn't the question.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member

What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?

Reality is DYNAMIC -otherwise nothing would have developed.
That is the basis of life -it allows for life.
If things were not dynamic -and interactive -in a simple way, then they could not be dynamic and interactive in a complex way/ANIMATE..

It could be said that everything is alive -because it is dynamic -or "life" can be defined as beyond a certain level of complexity which allows for specific sorts of interaction.

A stone might not be technically "animate" -but it is not actually still or motionless -there is a lot going on in there -which is why the same substance may be an active component of an animate life form.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Human conscious reality.

I am living irradiated by my own scientific machine user atomic changes. To God stones gases.

Lucky volcanoes and not stone owned heavens beginnings otherwise no human would even exist today.

The atmosphere owns attacking my life. I am in fact deceased.

As a total life summation.

Hence it is pure idiocy for a human scientist to claim a created bio thesis as I already told myself I am deceased.

Yet by time inference have not gained the future prophetic moment.

So I said C a holy letter is 100 life span.

From conceived baby life to my owned death due to atomic nuclear particle causes.

Self taught.
Self realised....however as I theory by intent want. Machine technology designs and Resources my life mind then lies when it told the OP theist theme. Life does not exist.

As I live I argue against rational advice. Awareness of self. As I am living.

Instead of simply quoting I already own bio death no thesis allowed.

Word use the teacher. How to explain factually without theory.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Life, as we know it, is made with DNA.

What about life as we don't know it? Perhaps life outside of earth?

What would happen if you were on another world and a blob of energy came up to you and started talking? Is that alive? If it understands, it is alive.

Can we ever create AI (Artificial Intelligence) smart enough to be considered alive?

It seems as though a dumber creature can create a smarter creature.

Evolution is a very dumb process and it has produced all of life.

You raise a good question in my mind...why is DNA associated with life? Why not the whole cell?

Is life required for consciousness? If we take away the ability of something to communicate under what circumstances would we say it is alive? Is it easy to say that something intelligent is also alive?

Organic molecules? What makes them unique?

It seems complexity which isolates itself yet adapts its self to its environment and is able to persist with some significant freedom from environmental conditions tends to become "life-like". Intelligence, difference, persistence.
 

Pudding

Well-Known Member
Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented.
Definition of life:
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Life is a term we created use to label those things which fits the description and definition of the term "life".

Those humans, tigers, lions, plants, gorillas...etc. which have the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death, these beings which are call life, they don't exist? Really?

That is a strawman and non sequitur in saying that scientists cannot find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate because life doesn't exist.

I can also create a strawman and non sequitur saying that scientists cannot find a specific physical/spiritual property or set of properties that clearly separates God from the non-God because God doesn't exist. So there, proof that God doesn't exist.

On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist
On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life or WHATEVER else, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive or WHATEVER else and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind.

There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, rich, green, smelly, phoney, hilarious, cabbage, carrot, banana...etc., no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, the rich and poor, the green and red, the smelly and fragrance, the phoney and genuine, the hilarious and boring, the cabbage and non-cabbage, the carrot and non-carrot, the banana and non-banana...etc., no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life or whatever anything else because there was never anything to define in the first place.

Now we can throw every dictionary and label to the rubbish can. We'll have fun at communicating with each other what we want to tell each other without any term, label or the dictionary. Because life, alive, rich, green, smelly, phoney, hilarious, cabbage, carrot, banana...etc. all of them don't exist.

What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?
No. Life is a term we created use to label those things which fits the description and definition of the term "life".
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Emptiness_Anatta_No_Self.jpg

Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist


What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?
I hope it does not exist. That will considerably reduce my disappointment of losing it sometimes in the future.

Ciaoi

- viole
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?
The scientific definition of "life" changes and updates over time.
The more we learn, the better we understand the difference between organisms, materials, species, etc.
The we understand, the better we can define what we mean by saying "life".

But in the broader sense of "life", we can refer to humans as a living system inside our planet which is, itself, a living system, which in turn is part of our solar system, galaxy and so on.
You, as am I, are hosting to trillions of life systems that host inside them, other systems and so on.
So in a sense, everything is one huge "living" system.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
As consciousness a human who by human behaviour said I own dominion over all things.

States it by naming what he observed by not being it.

So looks directly deep into another human body claiming I am not this body.

His brother intelligent said all humans are equal. For that very reason.

I observe what I am not.

So if you say God is mass various energies and gases. You observe what you are not.

I can observe by natural science.

Men with artificial machines use machine sight plus their own.

Hence what they see is never nor ever will it be equal.

How you claim humans lie.

You listen to their words.

A man said energy is exactly the same form energy today as it was in the beginning. Same substance.

The beginning not just one topic a list of various explanations.

So his destroyer brother wouldn't claim a human was energy and send us to hell.

To equals in the beginning the higher mass burst burnt to become energy unchanged but in a lower form.

As he applies the themes that he then invents by his machine to take everything back to the smallest body I can see theme.

Big bang theme gigantic enlargement of something smaller and colder.

Why he got us destroyed by giving us a Second death. When science said humans do not by science exist as we already owned death. Known prophecy. Prophecy maths.

Conditions said as we are not energy. The reason.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
If anyone wants an interesting perspective from a scientist working on questions like this, look up Sara Imari Walker.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
My philosophies do not require that anything be alive, but I find it much easier if everything is alive. A physical object is the thought of what its doing and a thought is expressed by a physical object that represents it.
Even if not conscious, rocks themselves don't stay still forever.





All things are dynamic, interrelated and intertwined.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Emptiness_Anatta_No_Self.jpg

Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist


What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?

Life has to do with the second law; entropy. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, with life a constant and large source of this entropy. A rock will change entropy until it solidifies than the entropy changes slows drastically; maybe erosion by wind and water. But life is constantly replicating and metabolizing thereby compounding the increasing entropy.

Entropy is often associated with increasing complexity. Life and consciousness evolves and alters the environment, leading to even more complexity, that goes beyond the natural changes not connected to life.
 
Top