What is Life?

[Perfection]

Disagree compleately. Natural processes do not have a purpose. Life reproduces because that is the nature of life, not because life is meant to reproduce. There is no intent behind nature.

I'm not unsympathetic to that view. One might say that would have to imply some sort of intelligent creator to give something purpose.

Some things to consider:

An interesting question would be to ask about bird nests, or ant hills, do they have purpose?

If we accept naturalism me building a doghouse is a natural process. And yet we can talk about the purpose of said doghouse. Clearly there has to be some way for natural processes to produce purposeful objects. What is it? Perhaps evolution can create purpose.

We should note that it seems very much that organs are treated as objects with purposes. What are our eyes for? For seeing! When a kidney no longer filters blood it has failed. Why has it failed? Maybe because it doesn't serve its purpose anymore. It's failure to filter is in the same sense that a failed air filter doesn't filter air anymore. It's extremely common to treat organisms and their parts as purposeful objects. Perhaps that's not a misguided intuition, a holdover from a view of God as an architect, but a recognition that somehow these objects are endowed with purpose, just through means other then a great intelligence.

Anyways, I don't have to much an ideological axe to grind here, maybe we need to be less liberal in our use of "purpose", but I don't think it's unwarranted to use a looser definition.

 

[Borachio]

Ah, what is the purpose of life is a different question from "What is life?". It's more "What is life for?"

If we talking about purpose, I tend to think in terms of small purposes.

My purpose at the moment is to write a post for CFC to the best of my admittedly poor ability.

My purpose in sitting on a chair at the moment is to be more comfortable while I write this post.

My purpose in eating breakfast this morning was to satisfy my hunger.

I wonder whether talking about bigger Purposes has much meaning.

Isn't it like small children who continually ask "Why?" to every answer that's given to them? It's legitimate to ask the question but in the end you reach a point where there's no answer to give any more.

 

[civver_764]

Life is being. There is no purpose until you decide there is one, and I encourage you to do so. Treat it like a game but you need some self-discipline.

Unless you're content without a purpose, then by all means ignore me.

If you ever feel like killing yourself then do so by redefining who you are. Who you think you are is never permanent.

 

[El_Machinae]

If you ever feel like killing yourself then do so by redefining who you are

I like that. I like that a lot.

 

[onejayhawk]

I looked at this thread and expected biology and physics, not meta physics and theology. From a scientific perspective, life is remarkably hard to define.

J

 

[Souron]

I'm not unsympathetic to that view. One might say that would have to imply some sort of intelligent creator to give something purpose.

Some things to consider:

An interesting question would be to ask about bird nests, or ant hills, do they have purpose?

If we accept naturalism me building a doghouse is a natural process. And yet we can talk about the purpose of said doghouse. Clearly there has to be some way for natural processes to produce purposeful objects. What is it? Perhaps evolution can create purpose.

We should note that it seems very much that organs are treated as objects with purposes. What are our eyes for? For seeing! When a kidney no longer filters blood it has failed. Why has it failed? Maybe because it doesn't serve its purpose anymore. It's failure to filter is in the same sense that a failed air filter doesn't filter air anymore. It's extremely common to treat organisms and their parts as purposeful objects. Perhaps that's not a misguided intuition, a holdover from a view of God as an architect, but a recognition that somehow these objects are endowed with purpose, just through means other then a great intelligence.

Anyways, I don't have to much an ideological axe to grind here, maybe we need to be less liberal in our use of "purpose", but I don't think it's unwarranted to use a looser definition.

I'm not generally against using purpose in a looser way. It can actually aid in explaining evolution or animal behavior, or a variety of other things. However, the looser use of purpose is necessarily a metaphor for human intent. With such a broad question such as the OP it seems inappropriate to answer with a contextually sensitive explanation of what life does.

 

[Perfection]

I'm not generally against using purpose in a looser way. It can actually aid in explaining evolution or animal behavior, or a variety of other things. However, the looser use of purpose is necessarily a metaphor for human intent. With such a broad question such as the OP it seems inappropriate to answer with a contextually sensitive explanation of what life does.

"Purpose" only meaning human intent seems rather arbitrary to me. If we say a chimp does something on purpose do we mean that in a real sense or a metaphorical sense? What about ant colonies, plants, or computer programs? What is the core requirements of something to be purposeful? I'm not sure that if we follow that line of inquiry as to what purpose is and where it comes from that we would consider evolutionary adaptations without purpose.

 

[Narz]

If there is no "intent" then how comes there are "laws"? In order for evolution to be possible life must happen within universe with laws...

Laws are just the way things work, they are not rules that "must" be followed. Laws is just the best word we have to describe the order of the universe.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Because the univerce is not random. "Law" in a scientific context means what "pattern" means in a lay context.

To me it sounds all the same if you call something a pattern or a law. The point is that randomnes or chaos are by these very restricted. But how or why? Every single particle of the universe is subject, participant or vehicle of some force and law.

The univerce works in a particular way, which says nothing about how it was intended to work, or if there is anyone to indend anything about it.

But there seem to be sufficient clues which allow no blind attempt for deduction...

Life is being. There is no purpose until you decide there is one,...

I think the lifes purpose last no matter if you are asleep or awake which to a great extent rules the individual consciousness out....

I looked at this thread and expected biology and physics, not meta physics and theology. From a scientific perspective, life is remarkably hard to define.

J

This thread is going to be whatever we are going to make it...

Laws are just the way things work, they are not rules that "must" be followed. Laws is just the best word we have to describe the order of the universe.

Sure every rule has an exception, can be broken or surmounted. That doeasnt mean it cost no effort to do so.... The "must be followed" is clearly mental conception becouse in life there seem to be constant change and dynamic movement....

 

[madviking]

Sure every rule has an exception, can be broken or surmounted. That doeasnt mean it cost no effort to do so.... The "must be followed" is clearly mental conception becouse in life there seem to be constant change and dynamic movement....

as defined by the second law of thermodynamics

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

as defined by the second law of thermodynamics

I was more pointing out to the fact that any laws or rules cant be an absolute figures or that they cant carry absolute value/purpose in themselves but rather are a mediators or means to something else - so there is probably way they cant be adjusted or nullified...

 

[Perfection]

Can you provide an example?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Can you provide an example?

I guess its different when you want to negate some law or if you are want to temporary or permanently surmount it. Force of gravity can be even negated by some other force of gravity. But to be master of some universal law it would seem to me one has to go before the point of inception of the universe. I dont think physical science is very close to that achievement but it would seem to me that it can be done on non-material level(at least partially) through the alternation of state of consciousness. That would require that consciousness in some form has existed before the Big bang...

 

[madviking]

there wasn't a "before the big bang" as far as i know

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

there wasn't a "before the big bang" as far as i know

Only magician can supposedly create something out of nothing....

 

[Farm Boy]

I've been looking for a word. A big, complicated word but so sad.

 

[Perfection]

Only magician can supposedly create something out of nothing....

Who are you to dictate laws about what can cause what?

 

[AdamCrock]

"What is life ? .... babe don't hurt me , don't hurt me ... no more"

I think it was some sort of a lyrics - first came to my mind when I read the topic ^^


edit: or was it ..... love .... anyway love , life just the same hopeless and futile ! xD it is the rythm that get stuck in Your head hmmm.....

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Who are you to dictate laws about what can cause what?

Dictate? I must be the goddes of Perfection...

Well at least I am not aware of any science or philosophical school pointing out to the possibility of "something out of nothing".

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well at least I am not aware of any science or philosophical school pointing out to the possibility of "something out of nothing".

Check out Quantum Mechanics.