"The definition game is very dangerous. So many people seem to assume there's a right answer that life is a true category in nature and objects carry union cards to declare whether they're alive or not. That's a mistake. The universe is filled with trillions of unique phenomena, some of which we all agree to call alive, some of which we're not so sure. But it's not that they are or aren't alive they're just what they are; no more and no less. Life is an invented concept."
haha! yes the corpse is alive, the reason YOU are not alive once reduced to a corpse is the living systems in that corpse are not the same lineage, tracing continuity, as you... however, a fresh corpse does still have remnants of your actual living system still alive, so you are not quite dead, I guess, until your last cell goes... and if you procreated... sending a living cell (sperm or egg) into an independant body, it gets rather complicated eh? we are very old indeed.
It does get rather complicated, especially when you consider that many of the living systems that remain in the corpse, while not of the "same lineage", are direct descendants of systems that were symbiotic with YOU before the corpse state.
However, I see that objection as moot and irrelevant in the context of "person as metaphor for the universe being alive".
I believe anything that needs to metabolize fuel to remain viable is alive, or "life". Within that there are two forms of life, sentient and non-sentient. Sentient life is all life that has a higher brain function, and is capable of choosing variable responses to stimuli. While non-sentient life is incapable of choosing how it responds to stimuli.
That is not a complete treatise on life, but a guideline I have come to adopt.
I prefer not to classify things as sentient vs. non-sentient, but rather as degrees of sentience. However, this is also problematic because sentience is not a single phenomenon, but a conjunction of related phenomena that different organisms express in different combinations of levels. (That was a mouthful.) :-)
As I said, the treatise is not complete. I included non-sentience as a distinguishing factor between animals and plants, or perhaps even fire, which does meet my requirement of metabolizing fuel.
Of course among sentient forms of life there are varying degrees of sentience, that is a given. An ant for instance, has a limited set of responses to stimuli, based primarily on instinct. While an adult human has nearly an unlimited response to the same type of stimuli, based on rational thought.
I was going to ask you about fire before, but now I HAVE to. Why exactly doesn't fire meet your requirements?
Of course, if sentience is responding to stimuli, than even organisms that lack brains can do that. Plants respond to stimuli all the time (they respond to light, heat, chemicals, etc. and of course, the venus flytrap is the most extreme example of that).
ps--I'm not picking on you, I'm just throwing Q's your way to make you think more. All definitions of life are open to that. :-)
As I said, PERHAPS fire can be considered a form of life. It metabolizes fuel, and responds to stimuli, but it is most definitely not sentient.
I cannot consider plants as sentient either, as their response to stimuli is not a choice, but an automated response based on a genetically encoded need to metabolize fuel, and to a minuscule degree, avoid harm. On the other hand, sentient life, from the lowliest insect to the smartest human, makes certain choices based on either thought and/or instinct
I thought it very interesting for you to mention cartoon and animation coming to life, because they are actually trying to create a virtual reality where people actually have their life there, completely different to what it is now.
Existence is alive in the sense that the components of our cells, our environment, and our own brain, are being 'directed' towards results. This Teleological Explanation, which has been reduced by science, in particular physics; For it is in conflict with the electric law: opposite charges always attract & like charges always repel
"The definition game is very dangerous. So many people seem to assume there's a right answer that life is a true category in nature and objects carry union cards to declare whether they're alive or not. That's a mistake. The universe is filled with trillions of unique phenomena, some of which we all agree to call alive, some of which we're not so sure. But it's not that they are or aren't alive they're just what they are; no more and no less. Life is an invented concept."
-Steve Grand
Canteatpancakes 2 years ago
Reading
What is Life? by Erwin Schrodinger (1944)
What is Life? by Ed Regis (2008)
Mjhavok 2 years ago
to me it means not being fucking dead.
popebenadict16 2 years ago
haha! yes the corpse is alive, the reason YOU are not alive once reduced to a corpse is the living systems in that corpse are not the same lineage, tracing continuity, as you... however, a fresh corpse does still have remnants of your actual living system still alive, so you are not quite dead, I guess, until your last cell goes... and if you procreated... sending a living cell (sperm or egg) into an independant body, it gets rather complicated eh? we are very old indeed.
pyrrho314 2 years ago
It does get rather complicated, especially when you consider that many of the living systems that remain in the corpse, while not of the "same lineage", are direct descendants of systems that were symbiotic with YOU before the corpse state.
However, I see that objection as moot and irrelevant in the context of "person as metaphor for the universe being alive".
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
I believe anything that needs to metabolize fuel to remain viable is alive, or "life". Within that there are two forms of life, sentient and non-sentient. Sentient life is all life that has a higher brain function, and is capable of choosing variable responses to stimuli. While non-sentient life is incapable of choosing how it responds to stimuli.
That is not a complete treatise on life, but a guideline I have come to adopt.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
I prefer not to classify things as sentient vs. non-sentient, but rather as degrees of sentience. However, this is also problematic because sentience is not a single phenomenon, but a conjunction of related phenomena that different organisms express in different combinations of levels. (That was a mouthful.) :-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
As I said, the treatise is not complete. I included non-sentience as a distinguishing factor between animals and plants, or perhaps even fire, which does meet my requirement of metabolizing fuel.
Of course among sentient forms of life there are varying degrees of sentience, that is a given. An ant for instance, has a limited set of responses to stimuli, based primarily on instinct. While an adult human has nearly an unlimited response to the same type of stimuli, based on rational thought.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
I was going to ask you about fire before, but now I HAVE to. Why exactly doesn't fire meet your requirements?
Of course, if sentience is responding to stimuli, than even organisms that lack brains can do that. Plants respond to stimuli all the time (they respond to light, heat, chemicals, etc. and of course, the venus flytrap is the most extreme example of that).
ps--I'm not picking on you, I'm just throwing Q's your way to make you think more. All definitions of life are open to that. :-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
As I said, PERHAPS fire can be considered a form of life. It metabolizes fuel, and responds to stimuli, but it is most definitely not sentient.
I cannot consider plants as sentient either, as their response to stimuli is not a choice, but an automated response based on a genetically encoded need to metabolize fuel, and to a minuscule degree, avoid harm. On the other hand, sentient life, from the lowliest insect to the smartest human, makes certain choices based on either thought and/or instinct
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
"...but a conjunction of related phenomena that different organisms..."
Isn't that a bit like what Hume's conception of consciousness was?
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Very interesting and challenging question.
I thought it very interesting for you to mention cartoon and animation coming to life, because they are actually trying to create a virtual reality where people actually have their life there, completely different to what it is now.
This is going to be fun but hard to put in 10min.
PS. Your eyes!
AwaitingPulse 2 years ago
"PS. Your eyes! "
Then you'll really like my newest video--or "half" like it. ;-)
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Something does not have to be alive to have a life. To be alive is to experience this moment.
upshall 2 years ago
I like that.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Existence is alive in the sense that the components of our cells, our environment, and our own brain, are being 'directed' towards results. This Teleological Explanation, which has been reduced by science, in particular physics; For it is in conflict with the electric law: opposite charges always attract & like charges always repel
CammieSpectrum 2 years ago
Interesting.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
I'll give it a shot. On Friday of course.
Orygyn 2 years ago