What is life?

[Sonofason]

What is fundamental about gravity is the fact that it is present everywhere even at the atomic level. Without gravity there would be no planets, no stars, no you or I. Life is not vital or fundamental to the existence of the universe, gravity is. The right conditions for life would never come about without gravity.

What is fundamental about life is the fact that it is present even at the microscopic level. Without life, there would be no puppy dogs, no flowers, no you or I.

 

[Sonofason]

Why do you limit life to being only on one planet? There are billions of planets.

Your life is distinct from your father's and mother's life. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

My life, your life...you're applying the wrong definition. The life that was my fathers and my mothers did not end when I began to exist as a separate entity from my parents. There is no evidence to suggest that the life in me is not the same life that is in my father. There is only one life.

When you discover life somewhere else other than on this planet, I will stop limiting life to this planet.

 

[Sonofason]

I did look it up......no life has been shown to exist that does not metabolize.

That's because metabolism is necessary for life to exist. No gravity has been shown to exist where matter doesn't exist. So is matter gravity? No, its not. And neither is life metabolism.

 

[Sonofason]

Perhaps. I don't know much of the Bible's views on there being a life before the life we have now on earth.

And I don't know much about the Koran saying there is life before the life we have now on earth. When you spoke of it, you spoke of this life, and the one after, not one before this life. If I am mistaken, show the verses of the Koran that suggests we had lives before this life?

 

[Sonofason]

Did you catch my point about the chimp outperforming every human he went up against in the memory test? More recently I heard there is now evidence chimps mourn the loss of family and friends. Do you think God might have breathed life into them as well, but it just didn't get mentioned?


It is probably just because I am an atheist that none of this seems plausible to me. Science provides so many more answers. It doesn't bother you that you are rubbing shoulders with the intellectual currents of the Bronze Age?

Bronze Age men had bigger brains than we do. You keep acting like they were stupid. We are dumber than they were.

 

[Marsh]

Bronze Age men had bigger brains than we do. You keep acting like they were stupid. We are dumber than they were.

Neanderthals had larger brains than we do, perhaps that is what you read. Bronze Age men did not have bigger brains than us. They were clever, yes, but they were not more knowledgeable about the nature of the natural world. Nice try though. Their understanding of the world was archaic.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What is fundamental about life is the fact that it is present even at the microscopic level. Without life, there would be no puppy dogs, no flowers, no you or I.

The universe would function just fine without life, therefore life is not fundamental. Not so with gravity or electromagnetism which are truly fundamental forces.

 

[ArtieE]

Marsh-

Did you conclude that the Bible teaches a flat Earth ?_____

Of course it does.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

"The Biblical picture is clearly geocentric. The earth has the shape of a flat disc so that if one were able to travel far enough, one would eventually arrive at the ‘ends of the earth’"
http://louisjacobs.org/articles/jewish-cosmology/

 

[ArtieE]

What is fundamental about life is the fact that it is present even at the microscopic level. Without life, there would be no puppy dogs, no flowers, no you or I.

If we hadn't decided to start calling organisms that fulfilled certain criteria "alive" there would be no "life". Both are just words we have invented to distinguish certain organisms capable of doing certain things that we have specified from other organisms or things.

 

[Sonofason]

What distinguishes a functional being from a so-called inanimate object is it's ability to interact with it's environment in a complex manner. Life does not exist, it is merely a label we use to categorize certain complex interactions such as metabolism and reproduction which certain physical forms display. There is no unique "thing" or unique "force" that is life, it is all interactive, Fundamental Forces forces at work on an intricate level. Metabolism isn't life, reproduction isn't life, they are all complex interactions. What is lost when you "die" is the ability to interact in a complex manner because your form changes and therefore your ability to interact with your environment changes. The only difference between so-called life and so-called death is they are two different interactive states. We never stop interacting in some way with the universe. There is no true "life", nor is there true "death", or even consciousness for that matter...it is all interaction. I don't consider myself to be "alive", I am merely interacting in a complex manner via those Fundamental Forces which allow things to exist. There was never an emergence of life, there was an emergence of complexity. When this form (my present body) expires, my form will change and I will interact differently, that is all.

And now I have to ask the question. If life doesn't actually exist, then it should also be true that consciousness does not exist either. Or consciousness is present in all entities, both physical and spiritual, assuming of course that those entities actually exist. Whether or not the entity is alive wouldn't matter if as you say life does not exist. After all, consciousness is defined as:

- the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
- the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness)

Is the sun, the moon and the morning star aware of us? It certainly seems apparent that we (non-living highly complex and interactive globs of matter) are aware of them.

Perhaps you are suggesting that we are not aware of our surroundings, as if all interactions whether simple or complex are not the very nature of consciousness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

And now I have to ask the question. If life doesn't actually exist, then it should also be true that consciousness does not exist either. Or consciousness is present in all entities, both physical and spiritual, assuming of course that those entities actually exist. Whether or not the entity is alive wouldn't matter if as you say life does not exist. After all, consciousness is defined as:

- the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
- the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness)

Is the sun, the moon and the morning star aware of us? It certainly seems apparent that we (non-living highly complex and interactive globs of matter) are aware of them.

Perhaps you are suggesting that we are not aware of our surroundings, as if all interactions whether simple or complex are not the very nature of consciousness.

This is how I explain consciousness...It is the ability to interact in a complex manner with oneself and one's environment. The Sun and the Moon are interactive no doubt, but a human brain is highly interactive. The only thing that distinguishes that which is "conscious" from that which is not is by the degree and complexity of its interactions. If something happens to change how those interactions are taking place ( a blow to the head for example) within the body, it is possible to lose consciousness.

 

[Sonofason]

This is how I explain consciousness...It is the ability to interact in a complex manner with oneself and one's environment. The Sun and the Moon are interactive no doubt, but a human brain is highly interactive. The only thing that distinguishes that which is "conscious" from that which is not is by the degree and complexity of its interactions. If something happens to change how those interactions are taking place ( a blow to the head for example) within the body, it is possible to lose consciousness.

consciousness is defined as:

- the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
- the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness)

If we take "a blow to the head" we become unconscious.
unconscious is defined:
- not awake especially because of an injury, drug, etc.
- not aware of something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unconscious

Do you see that? The second definition of unconscious states that we are unconscious if we are not aware of something. It does not say that we are not aware of everything. The first definition states that being unconscious includes "not awake". So if we are sleeping we are considered unconscious.

Just because you are not conscious to the sound of music playing in the background while you are asleep, does not suggest that you are not conscious enough to feel someone punch you in the face.
Just because you may not be conscious of the man who punches you in the face while you are sleeping does not mean that you are not in some way conscious of every single breath you take.

And then there is the subconscious.

A medical definition for subconscious defines subconscious as:
- imperfectly conscious : partially but not fully aware.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subconscious

It is my understanding that everything is in some way aware of the interactions it encounters with other entities, whether alive or dead, whether simple or complex. Everything has consciousness. And the words we use are constructed simply for the purpose of distinguishing the degree of consciousness something or someone might have.

 

[Runewolf1973]

consciousness is defined as:

- the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
- the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness)

If we take "a blow to the head" we become unconscious.
unconscious is defined:
- not awake especially because of an injury, drug, etc.
- not aware of something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unconscious

Do you see that? The second definition of unconscious states that we are unconscious if we are not aware of something. It does not say that we are not aware of everything. The first definition states that being unconscious includes "not awake". So if we are sleeping we are considered unconscious.

Just because you are not conscious to the sound of music playing in the background while you are asleep, does not suggest that you are not conscious enough to feel someone punch you in the face.
Just because you may not be conscious of the man who punches you in the face while you are sleeping does not mean that you are not in some way conscious of every single breath you take.

And then there is the subconscious.

A medical definition for subconscious defines subconscious as:
- imperfectly conscious : partially but not fully aware.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subconscious

It is my understanding that everything is in some way aware of the interactions it encounters with other entities, whether alive or dead, whether simple or complex. Everything has consciousness. And the words we use are constructed simply for the purpose of distinguishing the degree of consciousness something or someone might have.

Those definitions which you stated are all nothing more than different degrees or levels of interaction. To be fully conscious is a highly interactive state. To be unconscious is a semi-interactive state. While sleeping we are in a semi-interactive state. While awake we are in a fully interactive state unless something physically or chemically impairs that ability for us to interact.

 

[Sonofason]

Those definitions which you stated are all nothing more than different degrees or levels of interaction. To be fully conscious is a highly interactive state. To be unconscious is a semi-interactive state. While sleeping we are in a semi-interactive state. While awake we are in a fully interactive state unless something physically or chemically impairs that ability for us to interact.

Awesome, then for purposes of conversation, I am correct...all entities, physical and spiritual, whether dead or alive, whether highly animated or not, whether simple or complex, have consciousness. Thus it is as I have said, that consciousness is synonymous with interactive with regard to states of being and states of existence.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Awesome, then for purposes of conversation, I am correct...all entities, physical and spiritual, whether dead or alive, whether highly animated or not, whether simple or complex, have consciousness. Thus it is as I have said, that consciousness is synonymous with interactive with regard to states of being and states of existence.

Everything interacts in some way true, but not everything interacts in such a highly complex manner that we would consider it or label it as being living or conscious.

 

[Sonofason]

No, not everything is highly interactive to the point which we would consider "conscious".

Obviously, you are not a single celled life form. I am quite certain that a single celled organism is as conscious as it needs to be or perhaps can be considering its state of interaction with other entities in its surrounding environment. It is highly conscious I would suppose compared to a single atom. And perhaps a single atom is highly conscious when compared to a photon. You are a human being, definately more complex than single atoms and single celled organisms. Try not comparing everything to yourself, and you will see that all things are conscious of themselves and those entities that influence them in their environments. We are all completely conscious until for some reason or cause we become less conscious than we were, such as when a person falls asleep, gets wacked in the head, or even dies.

 

[Sonofason]

Everything interacts in some way true, but not everything interacts in such a highly complex manner that we would consider it or label it as being living or conscious.

What I am getting at here is that you had said that life does not really exist. And now you suggest that not everything is as conscious as us because we are highly complex beings. However, that is what the definition of life is. It does exist, because we have drawn the line in the sand as to what life is, or rather what sorts of complex beings are actually alive. What life actually is, is the question. I am perfectly fine doing away with the term life, as it is indeed as you say just a word that we use to distinguish one set of molecular interactions with another. If it is fair to draw such a line, then life does exist, and we defined it. If it is not fair to draw the line, then we can say that either everything is alive to some degree, or nothing is alive and we're being petty making such distinctions.

 

[idav]

What I am getting at here is that you had said that life does not really exist. And now you suggest that not everything is as conscious as us because we are highly complex beings. However, that is what the definition of life is. It does exist, because we have drawn the line in the sand as to what life is, or rather what sorts of complex beings are actually alive. What life actually is, is the question. I am perfectly fine doing away with the term life, as it is indeed as you say just a word that we use to distinguish one set of molecular interactions with another. If it is fair to draw such a line, then life does exist, and we defined it. If it is not fair to draw the line, then we can say that either everything is alive to some degree, or nothing is alive and we're being petty making such distinctions.

The premise that life comes from life can't always be true. Chemistry manages to make new things that don't exist until combined. For example water is Hyrdogen and Oxygen neither of which have properties of water on their own. So new properties can happen. I do think the potential had to have always been there, so the earth had potential for life without actually being alive. I'm fine with just saying energy is alive but isn't life, certainly gives potential for organism though.

 

[Sonofason]

The premise that life comes from life can't always be true. Chemistry manages to make new things that don't exist until combined. For example water is Hyrdogen and Oxygen neither of which have properties of water on their own. So new properties can happen. I do think the potential had to have always been there, so the earth had potential for life without actually being alive. I'm fine with just saying energy is alive but isn't life, certainly gives potential for organism though.

The fact is that we do not know exactly where life comes from. Every single instance of life that we know of has indeed come from former life. So we can't say that the premise that life comes from life can't always be true. It just may be true. And of course the Bible tells us that this is indeed the case, that a living God is the source of the life that we see in all living beings.

 

[Sonofason]

Neanderthals had larger brains than we do, perhaps that is what you read. Bronze Age men did not have bigger brains than us. They were clever, yes, but they were not more knowledgeable about the nature of the natural world. Nice try though. Their understanding of the world was archaic.

I did not mean to neglect your post here. You may be right about the Neanderthals vs. Bronze Age men with regard to brain size. You know, sometimes archaic is better. Consider looking up the meanings of words that were used by those archaic Bronze Age men. Surely, you'd want to consider definitions that today are considered archaic. It may also be true that those archaic people, especially those who wrote under the inspiration of God, were indeed more knowledgeable with regard to those things they wrote about. Sometimes the beauty of a flower is more important, and more relevant than all of the understanding one might gain by dissecting it into little tiny pieces.