Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#21

Post by vjerancrnjak » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:42 PM UTC

Fellshard wrote: post #2

Reheated 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…

Is alternative to pure materialism "reality is mind"? Even from that perspective I currently cannot see how that simplifies the distinction between living or dead. When is there a moment where electron does not have a subjective experience but I do?

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#22

Post by philipov » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:42 PM UTC

Check out Assembly Theory, which is a neat way of defining life from the perspective of physics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9EUGVsKqdU

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#23

Post by pineaux » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

bluechair wrote: post #15

Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his philosophical discussions about language, argued that the concept of a "game" cannot be defined by a single set of characteristics. He suggested that games share a "family resemblance" rather than a strict definition, meaning they have overlapping features but no single feature is common to all.

The article can also be seen as a proto-structuralist argument. If you take this argument a bit further,you could say that trees do not exist. Could you point me out the defining characteristic of a tree? A structuralist would ask. Is it because it is big? But what of bonzais? Or banana trees? Can't we just name trees bushes? Etc. It's an interesting way of looking at things but it will not teach you a lot. It just shows you that definitions are relative, not absolute.

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#24

Post by pineaux » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #16

Fellshard wrote: post #2

Reheated 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…

> There is more to life, and to /our/ lives, than mere engineered material. Is there? Because we experience things that feel more profound?

Yes. That is one argument. It is the experience of life, we do not feel like automatons. Are you saying you had to write this reply? Or did you have a choice?

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#25

Post by nehal3m » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

claudiojulio wrote: post #13

I don't agree with the article. DNA and RNA are life. Viruses are only alive when they are inside the cells of other beings. Computer simulations are analogies and not life itself.

These are all statements that beg for an explanation, why not provide them?

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#26

Post by micah94 » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

I prefer to think of everything being alive rather than life not existing.

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#27

Post by librasteve » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

philipov wrote: post #22

Check out Assembly Theory, which is a neat way of defining life from the perspective of physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9EUGVsKqdU

yeah - that leads to the role of (lipid) membranes where you can partially reverse entropy and the Krebs cycle to drive it (for carbon based life forms)

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#28

Post by munch117 » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

Lawyers have a saying: "Hard cases make bad precedent."

I think a version of that applies here. ("Hard cases make bad definitions"?) We have a real and observable phenomenon surrounding us, and we have a name for it, 'life'. If we seek out border cases that may or may not be a part of this group of things, then that doesn't really help us describe what the main body of this thing is.

Life is not an abstract thing, it is something concrete that we see around us with cells and stuff. To some extent viruses and fire fit in the group of living things, but they're outliers. We can arbitrarily decide either that they are life, or arbitrarily decide that they are not life, if we want the word "life" to be precisely defined. But whatever we choose, it doesn't tell us anything about life.

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#29

Post by DFHippie » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

Fellshard wrote: post #2

Reheated 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…

> you have removed any semblance of moral consideration from the equation

I think rather we have invented the notion of life so that we can divide the world into things that are morally relevant and things that are not. People do this all the time: my phylum is better than all the other phyla, my nation is better than all the other nations, my species is better than all the other species, my race is better than all the other races, my gender is better than the other gender (or all the other genders -- I am not trying to make this an argument about gender). We decide there is a scientific basis -- we declare this by fiat -- for ourselves having ethical privileges.

Morality does not need to be centered around preserving the privileges of the winner. We don't need the concept of life to decide what is right. For instance, there is the balance of perceived harm. If something does not have interests or a means of pursuing them, we need not concern ourselves with harming it.

In any case, deriving our ethics from reason and facts is at least as good as deriving it from distinctions of uncertain basis that happen to always work to our own benefit.

Re: Why Life Does Not Really Exist (2013)

#30

Post by pineaux » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #19

Fellshard wrote: post #2

Reheated 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…

>Not terribly interesting >you have removed any semblance of moral consideration from the equation. And that, I think, few will accept >what benefit is this article if it is simply one machine communicating to another Are these arguments? What point are you making here? >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. Wh…

What would suggest it is strictly within the bounds of materialism? There must be some observation that underpins your idea that it is within the bounds of materialism to claim it is the simplest and most logical explanation. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think we should be open to other explanations.