The nature of life replied by Arandur @ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:28:19 -0000

Arandur — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:28:19 -0000

I’ll look up the scientific criteria that I got back in high school biology, but something had to meet all the requirements. The only inanimate “object” that even comes close is fire, and then only by loose definitions, and then (like all inanimate objects) lacking perception.

The nature of life replied by FiNiX @ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:33:00 -0000

FiNiX — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:33:00 -0000

OK, I’ll start with something parents sometimes ask their children, “ARE YOU ON DRUGS?!” You said you weren’t in other threads, but I’m beginning to have some doubts.

Nope. No drugs. Pinky promise.

P.S. And, who is “Feef”?

http://feef.deviantart.com/

There are decent scientific definitions, involving ability to reproduce, consumption, growth/development, some method of perception of surroundings.

Reproduction, consumption, growth, perception… By those definitions… There is actually very little that isn’t alive…

The nature of life replied by Arandur @ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:13:41 -0000

Arandur — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:13:41 -0000

I’ve always wondered what the definition of “life” is. What’s the difference between an animate object and a living thing?

Clinically? There are decent scientific definitions, involving ability to reproduce, consumption, growth/development, some method of perception of surroundings.

As for how humans are any different?

Self-awareness. Abstract thought. Reason.

The nature of life replied by kookookachoo @ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:38:42 -0000

kookookachoo — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:38:42 -0000

OK, I’ll start with something parents sometimes ask their children, “ARE YOU ON DRUGS?!” You said you weren’t in other threads, but I’m beginning to have some doubts. Or, maybe, I could take the other tack “Have you considered TAKING some drugs?” I know you’re young(er), so this is all in fun. Esoteric fun, but fun all the same, I guess…

P.S. And, who is “Feef”?

The nature of life replied by FiNiX @ Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:42:57 -0000

FiNiX — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:42:57 -0000

I’ve always wondered what the definition of “life” is. What’s the difference between an animate object and a living thing? Is there a difference? I’ve always wanted to know. The more I see, the more I think there is no difference.

What if our world has no point, and life is but an illusion of automation? What if there is nothing more? To some, these may seem depressing thoughts, but to me, this isn’t so. Why should we hide in fear of such ideas? Why do we feel that if there is no point, if it does not matter, that we should not do our best regardless?

—

Is life important?

This is something that I’ve had trouble answering myself, and what it really comes down to is: what is the definition of “important?”

In a sense, it depends upon the level from which you are speaking: to us, the life (if you even consider it to be that,) of a bacteria is nothing. Yet you can bet, to that bacteria, it’s life is very important.

This leads me to believe that there is no such thing as a universal definition of importance.

—

“Life is self important.” It is very difficult for a living thing to think of itself as equal to non-living matter. However, I think it may well be.

Life seems but to be an illusion of automation. We are but a construct of matter. A type of construct which has thrived due to its ability to reproduce and defend its existence.

—

“Rights” and “property.” Both are fairly ludicrous.

First: life (and subsequent) isn’t a right, really. It’s a privilege, I think. One that may, in our eyes, warrant protection. But the view upon life as a right seems to be a warped one.

Second: one lump of matter comes upon another lump of matter and says “this lump of matter belongs to me.” Then, another lump of matter comes along and says “hey, if I give you these lumps of matter that I got for helping another lump of matter farm his lumps of matter, will you give me your lump of matter?”

—

Feef wrote:
The difference between an animate object and a living thing is all in the distinction memes. For example, the widely popular the beliefs that living things evolve and robots are created. Only when you step back, or throw away those kind of beliefs do things get eerily similar.

Why do we do things even though there may be no point? Well, such a godless questions requires a godless answer, and that’s straightfoward enough. Just like bacteria, we have the programming that tells us to make copies of ourselves. Everything else grew from there. Pain to feel danger, eyes to see danger, brains enough to know danger when we see it.

I mean, there are those that do manage to kill themselves, or die without procreating, but for the most part the drive is there. Consciously, I accept that yeah, there may be no point to life, but I feel that if I died it would cause my human buddies distress, and I probably would be better off living.

Recent Posts in 'The nature of life' | GOD STILL LOVES US

The nature of life replied by Arandur @ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:28:19 -0000

The nature of life replied by FiNiX @ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:33:00 -0000

The nature of life replied by Arandur @ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:13:41 -0000

The nature of life replied by kookookachoo @ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:38:42 -0000

The nature of life replied by FiNiX @ Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:42:57 -0000