41–47 of 47 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
"...within the scope of the human mind."
Once we humbly accept the finite nature of human intellect, the answer to the question of existence is available within the community if faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
How can a tapeworm be considered life if it can't live outside another lifeform? How can a human be considered life if it can't live outside an atmosphere oxygenated by plants? How can a tree be considered life if it can't live outside of soil full of bacteria and worms?
For all the author's time studying lifeforms, it seems odd that they see the interdependence of life as a stumbling block to its own existence.
That being said, I do think that the author is onto something. I think that people romanticize organic life because it is mysterious and complicated and some life forms do truly special things - some people go so far as to conflate life and sentience when trying to parse the meaning of it all.
So, let's cut through the nonsense and try to distill the central thesis of the article. The author claims that life isn't a thing because the qualities that jive with our intuitive sense of what is "alive" don't neatly conform to the boundaries of our categories and labels. On the other side of that same coin, some simple organisms that exist neatly within the boundaries of the label are reducible to their component parts just like our own inorganic inventions and there remains very little mystery about how they work and where's the magic in that? And since life isn't a thing or it is a thing sometimes but it's not very special, our anchor for judging the value and specialness of our own existence dissolves and OMG emotional crisis. Aren't they a brilliant and edgy thinker.
So here's what I think we should really take away from this:
Life in the colloquial sense is mysterious and awesome. There is no reason to limit our sense of wonder to biological life. I would say that doing so is actually limiting and harmful - people build relationships with inanimate things by anthropomorphizing them all the time. I wouldn't want to lose the unique emotional appreciation that arises from seeing "magical" things through an unscientific lens.
Life in the scientific sense is a label with defined boundaries, not always agreed upon, which can and will exclude "special" things because the universe is infinitely complex and labels and categories are limiting. Seeing life through a scientific lens also forces us to reckon with the notion that simply being scientifically recognized life is not enough to make one regard something with wonder and appreciation.
Indeed, if I understand the author's intent, I think they might agree that bacteria cleanly fit the definition of biological life and are nothing more than tiny complicated self-sustaining machines, which doesn't sound very special anymore. But I would argue that they are special. And since just being life in the scientific sense doesn't seem very special now that we've mastered complex things, we're going to have to parse out why they are special with a little more precision and intent.
Bacteria are special because those simple little machines form the basis of an enormous food web, because they shape our thoughts and emotions when they live in our guts, because they simultaneously make us sick and keep us healthy, because they are some of our most ancient ancestors.
Life at the colloquial macro level is special because it's mysterious and powerful and everywhere. Life at the scientific micro level is just a subset of all the wonderful complex things in the universe with which we enjoy special relationships. Colloquial life and scientific life are two different things that must be appreciated two different ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Even if we are open to other possibilities, many are unfalsifiable and therefore they cannot be proven. Unprovable theories have limited value. Certainly not enough to discount what can be observed when the physical brain develops and decays.
TO
Here are the observations and they are consistent with living things/solid matter/etc.
The categories are cultural; they are in your mind, not in the world.
This is not the most important thing to teach at the start of a subject, but anyone who really pushes the frontiers of understanding has to deal with it.
Is Pluto a planet? - is not a purely scientific question, it's deeply cultural as well.
Does String Theory really explain anything in the real world? - is a somewhat settled question at this point, but it was a live problem for quite a while, and it was a live problem in scientific culture as much as anything (mainly because experimentation proved to be ... difficult)
Is light a wave or a particle? Does it change it's behavior? - Probably better to say, "We have made observations consistent with both particle and wave characteristics, trying to enforce a satisfying explanation does not help scientific understanding".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You assert there is 'more' without evidence beyond subjective experience. Even if we are open to other possibilities, many are unfalsifiable and therefore they cannot be proven. Unprovable theories have limited value. Certainly not enough to discount what can be observed when the physical brain develops and decays.