RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pmYou're kidding, right?
Attributes like size and weight have a clear origin within the scope of space and time. The same cannot be said of 'life'. Therefor, there must be a special reasoning to do so.
Your reasoning is essentially '
it is alive thus it is life'.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pmIf there were no living organisms, there would be no life. "Life," is the word that is used to differentiate between all those entities in the universe that are merely physical and those very rare entities which exhibit behavior which are described as "living." That is the meaning of the word life based on the only actual evidence for life that anyone can observe. There is no evidence for life apart from living organisms.
Everything else said or believed about life is mystic superstitious nonsense with absolutly no objective evidence.
Essentially, your argument is that life has no meaning because there is no empirical evidence for it. Therefor, life can at most be considered an attribute that one just has, just like weight or size.
I do not believe that that perspective can be valid. The perspective would imply that life finds is origin within a causal context on the level of an individual, which implies that life would need to be predetermined towards its environment, which is absurd.
The simplest departure from pure randomness implies
value. This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world - from the simplest pattern onward - is value.
The origin of value is necessarily meaningful but cannot be value by the simple logical truth that something cannot originate from itself. This implies that a meaning of life is applicable on a fundamental level (
a priori or "before value").
Based on this logic, it would be invalid to consider life meaningless beyond the notion as 'empirical attribute'.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pm
Well, whatever that mumbo-jumbo recitation of academic jargon is supposed to mean, my description of life has nothing to do with, "determinism," or the, "origin," of life, or empiricism, or any other philosophical nonsense.
Well, at least it can be said that you consider life meaningless beyond the scope of the empirical, which is an empiricist perspective.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pm
theory wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:26 am
At question would be: what would justify the idea that one can take his/her 'life attribute' with him/her on travel through space?
Well, I suppose if you could travel in space without your head, you could travel in space without your life--in your science fiction world.
You consider life to be an attribute that one just has, and therefor, that one logically can 'take' life with him/her during space travel. (it would be nonsensical according to you to even consider otherwise).
At question in this topic is: how sound is that idea really?
Can life find its origin on the level of an individual? Your argument is that it is nonsensical to consider that question because life is like an attribute like weight and size, however, there is no indication that life can be explained within the context space and time so there is an indication that life may not be like an attribute.
Essentially, the idea that life is like an attribute can at most be based on the following reasoning: "
it is alive thus it is life".
Is it justified to hold such a view? And why is such a view not questioned to such an extent that it would have been tested in 2021 whether life is possible farther away from Earth?
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pm
theory wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:26 am
Logically, the origin of life cannot be found within the scope of the individual. If it were to be so, causality would need to find its origin on the individual level and a human life would need to be predetermined towards its environment, which is absurd.
I'll try to make it easy for you. Forget all the nonsense you've been taught in your philosophy or psychology or religion classes or books you've read and ask yourself one simple question. Have you ever observed life separate form a living organism?
When it is considered that life cannot find its origin on the level of an individual, then, it is out of the question whether life can be observed as a physical substance.
For example, in the Neutrino-biological cell theory of life, life would arise out of interaction between Neutrino's and matter. Life would not originate directly from the Neutrino. Essentially, the 'essence of value' (that what precedes value and thus can be considered 'the observer per se') is transferred onto the level of an individual at the moment of interaction (the origin would lay between the Neutrino and matter).
Moon, which seems crazy!
fire?
Earth / 
Mars in 2035.
Sun is the origin of life, then humans (e.g. 
asteroid threats that could perhaps damage the part of the Sun facing Earth which would potentially disrupt the 
Neutrino stream that Earth life may be dependent on.
