The Concept of LIFE

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

life:
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional plant or animal from a dead body b : a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b : a specific part or aspect of the process of living <sex> <adult> ?-
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc

[This definitely is not my area of expertise, but I am interested in this subject and hope to learn from those members who are more up to speed. In other words, try not to be a jerk.]

Many people wonder about the origins of "life". (Was it a cosmic accident? Was there a creator?) I don't want to go down those roads (not too far, anyway). My question is on the concept of life, itself. Is it really all that mysterious?

It seems to me that every concept (be it a banana, or a cloud, or an ashtray) is a system, and/or part of a system, that we have defined and learned to recognize. More complex systems we call "life", and less complex systems we call "not life".

Going a step further, it seems that "consciousness" is attributed to even more complex systems. So, a (relatively) non-complex system would be considered "non-living and not conscious"; a moderately complex system, "living, but not conscious"; and a highly complex system would be considered "conscious life".

Besides the relative complexity, what is the difference?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 989 • Replies: 15

No top replies

Quote:

More complex systems we call "life", and less complex systems we call "not life".

We do? But the definition for life which you posted does not make any mention of the level of complexity. It merely mentions the characteristic abilities to metabolise, grow, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.

Mathematics are pretty complex, but they don't have any of the above characteristics, and are abstract.

Computers are also pretty complex, but they don't metabolize, grow, or reproduce.

0 Replies

Thanks, stuh.

Mathematics, like you said, are abstract, the product of human thought (at least higher math).

Computers and other machines, however complex, are still quite simple compared to anything considered "alive", wouldn't you say?

BTW, the definition I provided is just for reference. I don't mean to imply that it fits with my line of reasoning. Also, I have not reached any conclusions about any of this. I barely even know anything about Biology, which, I admit, may be the reason I have these questions!

0 Replies

I just can't conceive of the intent of this topic . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I just can't conceive of the intent of this topic . . .

First JLNobody and now you. (maybe I smoked too much herb in high school)

Let's see.....

The intent of this topic is to address the question: What is life? Not just how do we classify it, but what IS it?

I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in "souls". And I don't believe "life" has any real substance. (Does anybody believe that?)

I'm thinking that "life" is a characteristic that we recognize in material systems that contain a certain level of complexity.

I hope (and expect) to be educated in this thread....... not the other way around.

0 Replies

As in "Get a life"?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Computers and other machines, however complex, are still quite simple compared to anything considered "alive", wouldn't you say?

Hmm, that is an interesting question. Computers are definitely more simple than animals, but when it comes to something like a simple plant, where most of the cells behave in the same way, I'm not sure. I would definitely say a computer is more complex than some single celled organisms that we say are alive.

0 Replies

What about Coberst's or Cyracuz' notion of the "Living Everything"? It suggests to me that his criterion of energy (the fact of the atomic and sub-atomic character of everything, the fact that everything moves at some level--even lead) is a philosophical determination. To define life as the biologists do is one thing; to define it as Nietzsche does, as Will to Power, is another. The issue is wide open. Definitions are (inter)subjective constructions not absolute objective descriptions.

0 Replies

Uh . . . Echi . . . your thread title is The Concept of Life, so i said i can't conceive of the purpose of the thread . . . it's humor . . . i know, jokes don't work if you have to explain them, but then, that's not always the fault of the joke . . .

0 Replies

...
interesting thread...
dude, life is this moment and that's it ... THIS MOMENT!!! the present...
i think that summed up everything i wanted to say...
i hope u understand!

0 Replies

To me, more and more, the distinction 'alive/dead' becomes more and more superfluous.

There's existence and there's the concept of non-existence. To me, existence is synonym to life since I cannot say that MY life is entirely mine. I could not live were it not for gravity and other forces creating the womb in which we've evolved.

Life is a force, and it is not attributed to whatever matter it currently manipulates, but to the singularity that JLN likes to refer to as Brahma, and which I've come to call the living everything.

0 Replies

So, the Living Everything is another way of saying the Cosmic Force?
Life=Force
Everything=Cosmos

Brahma is just name given to it, llike Cyracuz.

0 Replies

I think you're right JL.

And though it might seem like a small thing, this... : "Brahma is just name given to it, llike Cyracuz." ...is an important fact. You have a way of clearing up things that I very much appreciate. Reminded me of what Srila Prahbupada (forgive my misspelling) said about Krishna in a book I have:

"We give things names after what they can do. If a man can make things out of wood we call him a carpenter. Similarly, we name the highest All-Attractive, because it corresponds to it's attributes."

Srila used much better words though.. Smile

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

. . . Life is a force, and it is not attributed to whatever matter it currently manipulates, . . .

Sorry, Cyracuz. I am not sure what you mean, here. Are you stating this as your belief or as a popular misconception? (I'm a little slow, sometimes.)

0 Replies

JLN,

The official definition is hardly any more concrete than the philosopher's. Although it lists some characteristic features of life, it leaves the final determination subjective.

We should remember that this definition was also conceived with the same elusively abstract concept of life that the philosopher's wrestle with in mind.

0 Replies

Echi

I am stating that as my belief. This is based on the fact that whenever something dies, life force vacates the thing. So life is a force, not an attribute of the matter it currently manipulates.

The interplay between this universal force, -life, and the matter it manipulates is the manifestation of creature. My sense of self is merely the result of this mystical force manipulating the matter that is my body.

0 Replies

The Concept of LIFE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know