Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
1–10 of 47 posts
Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
#2Reheated pure materialism. Not terribly interesting, and the only thing removing category distinctions here will do for you is give license to treat any organism however you wish - you have removed any semblance of moral consideration from the equation. And that, I think, few will accept: the experience each person has of living testifies against such a view. There is more to life, and to /our/ lives, than mere engineered material.
After all, what benefit is this article if it is simply one machine communicating to another?
Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
#3I think this is all another way to say life is emergent. It can’t be found by zooming in, but rather only by zooming out. And of course when you zoom out you lose your ability to be very precise about definitions and constituents.
Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
#4There’s a book called Life’s Edge by Carl Zimmer[0] that’s similar to this article but gets deeply into the history of various explorations of the concept of “life” as well as issues that come up around it (eg organ donation) and what it means. It’s worth checking out if you liked this article.
Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
#5Reheated pure materialism. Not terribly interesting, and the only thing removing category distinctions here will do for you is give license to treat any organism however you wish - you have removed any semblance of moral consideration from the equation. And that, I think, few will accept: the experience each person has of living testifies against such a view. There is more to life, and to /our/ lives, than mere engin…
I also struggled to find an interesting new thought in the article. It was a bit nihilistic to just say that there is no dividing line and leave it at that. Great... there is no clear-cut line, so what?
Categorization is a tool for scientists to use for comparison. It's kind of like k-nearest neighbors learning. We have to draw the line for categories somewhere initially, then we adjust where that line is over time and add more categories if needed.
Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
#6Reheated pure materialism. Not terribly interesting, and the only thing removing category distinctions here will do for you is give license to treat any organism however you wish - you have removed any semblance of moral consideration from the equation. And that, I think, few will accept: the experience each person has of living testifies against such a view. There is more to life, and to /our/ lives, than mere engin…
But morality only concerns itself a certain complex class of organisms, right? We don't weep for loss of innocent life we inflict when we take antibiotics.
Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
#7Reheated pure materialism. Not terribly interesting, and the only thing removing category distinctions here will do for you is give license to treat any organism however you wish - you have removed any semblance of moral consideration from the equation. And that, I think, few will accept: the experience each person has of living testifies against such a view. There is more to life, and to /our/ lives, than mere engin…
But morality only concerns itself a certain complex class of organisms, right? We don't weep for loss of innocent life we inflict when we take antibiotics.
Why is it necessarily an all or nothing question? Can't we simply say we concern ourselves more with complex organisms than less complex? That reveals the emptiness of this question of where you put the dividing line.
Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
#8Several writers have argued that Life is just what biologists study, which sounds circular but is really saying the subject is more interesting than the definition.
From “Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology”:
Indeed, it is our view that the quest to understand this strangest of biological phenomena is often hindered by a persnickety insistence on defining it. Biologists cannot even agree on a unique definition of life itself; but that hasn’t stopped them from unraveling aspects of the cell, the double helix, photosynthesis, enzymes and a host of other living phenomena…
Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
#9Reheated pure materialism. Not terribly interesting, and the only thing removing category distinctions here will do for you is give license to treat any organism however you wish - you have removed any semblance of moral consideration from the equation. And that, I think, few will accept: the experience each person has of living testifies against such a view. There is more to life, and to /our/ lives, than mere engin…
But morality only concerns itself a certain complex class of organisms, right? We don't weep for loss of innocent life we inflict when we take antibiotics.
I don't needlessly kill bacteria, only when they threaten someone I love more than them do I kill them.
So yes there is a hierarchy, but they are on the list of things that are alive.
And if I first found bacteria in Mars, I would probably dedicate my life to preserving them depending on how abundant they are.
Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)
#10Reheated pure materialism. Not terribly interesting, and the only thing removing category distinctions here will do for you is give license to treat any organism however you wish - you have removed any semblance of moral consideration from the equation. And that, I think, few will accept: the experience each person has of living testifies against such a view. There is more to life, and to /our/ lives, than mere engin…
[deleted]