Philosophy Now Forum

Well, Pluto, the surface is watery, but mostly it's dirt...cold dirt, hot dirt, molten dirt.

Quoted from

Post by Dalek Prime » Tue Jun 28, 2016 6:19 am
“ I really don't like the term 'life'. I prefer 'existence'. Though non-living things exist, so perhaps 'existence of consciousness'... Meh, too long. Perhaps 'excon' for short? “

That thought has crossed my mind also, and the need became apparent here when some entries tried to amuse us by referring to different meanings of the word life.
In my effort of trying to explain the crucial point for the ABORTION issue i.e. the difference between “being alive” and “having life”, I included some lines referring to death as the end of “life”.
The most relevant alternative label that came to my mind is “individual”. The new individual enters our world at birth and departs on death. Where life/the individual comes from, and thus returns to, may open a new topic.

It is noteworthy that no one on this thread has produced contra evidence of a human life being the result of an ALIVE cell multiplying, guided by its DNA, until its DNA triggers the birthing sequence which culminates in taking its 1st breath, showing that LIFE has entered and a new individual has joined mankind.

Is an amputation of one’s leg, an alive body part appropriately dearly missed by the individual, murder ? No it is not murder because one’s leg, although alive, is not an individual with its own LIFE.

Life is the thinest of biological scum that forms a thin stratum on the surface of the earth. As yet there is no other known example of this apparent anomaly.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Life is the thinest of biological scum that forms a thin stratum on the surface of the earth. As yet there is no other known example of this apparent anomaly.

Life is probably inevitable in the right conditions. We haven't even properly explored the solar system. I'm hoping NASA's plan to send a probe into Europa's under-ice waters works out.

Otherwise, yes, biology is a thin, gooey, watery and carboniferous film on the planet's surface that basically grew from geology dissolving in water - extended geology.

Consider what clumps of organic chemicals might have been like not long before abiogenesis. Did abiogenesis occur quickly, as in the birth of stars? Or was it slow - like the development of humans, with many transitional forms developing before life as we know it became so dominant that the semi-living forms were all consumed, creating an apparent gulf between life and non-life? (just as Homo sapiens out-competed other hominids).

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Life is the thinest of biological scum that forms a thin stratum on the surface of the earth. As yet there is no other known example of this apparent anomaly.

Do you not recognise a difference between "being alive" i.e. NOT an individual, and having life i.e. being alive after its life has entered to make it an individual ? And please leave any beliefs out of it.

Ferdi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Life is the thinest of biological scum that forms a thin stratum on the surface of the earth. As yet there is no other known example of this apparent anomaly.

Do you not recognise a difference between "being alive" i.e. NOT an individual, and having life i.e. being alive after its life has entered to make it an individual ? And please leave any beliefs out of it.

It's the difference between science and superstition.

Ferdi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Life is the thinest of biological scum that forms a thin stratum on the surface of the earth. As yet there is no other known example of this apparent anomaly.

Do you not recognise a difference between "being alive" i.e. NOT an individual, and having life i.e. being alive after its life has entered to make it an individual ? And please leave any beliefs out of it.

no
Life does not "enter" like a burgler. Life is a consequence of particular conditions of matter.

Hobs Choice.
You stated that “Life does not "enter" like a burgler. Life is a consequence of particular conditions of matter.” I agree but the question then arises: when do those particular conditions for life start; what can we observe?
To avoid side tracking, let us confine our discussion to a human life.

Ferdi wrote:Hobs Choice.
You stated that “Life does not "enter" like a burgler. Life is a consequence of particular conditions of matter.” I agree but the question then arises: when do those particular conditions for life start; what can we observe?
To avoid side tracking, let us confine our discussion to a human life.

Look back and re-phrase the question you asked in terms that you now agree are suitable. Life is not a thing which enters! So what exactly is your question?

for HobsCh.
If life a consequence of particular conditions of matter, when do those particular conditions for life start; what can we observe?

Ferdi wrote:for HobsCh.
If life a consequence of particular conditions of matter, when do those particular conditions for life start; what can we observe?

Consult the science of Biology.
What else is on your mind here?

One of my favourite TED talks. Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dySwrhMQdX4

This talk called "Inevitable Life?" takes a geochemical approach to analysing abiogenesis and, despite being rather dry, presents fascinating angles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElMqwgkXguw

What of the state of matter be just prior to abiogenesis? Was the emergence of biology a gradual process or sudden? If it was gradual, what would be the nature of of the pre-life interim forms? Maybe like viruses or prions, or different again?

Ferdi wrote:

What is LIFE ? My answer: Life is that abstract concept which is present in and drives any of the various individual creatures on planet earth for the duration of their existence on this planet.

Is it really so abstract? IMO the question first requires agreement on what "being" is. Only then can the relativity of life be appreciated as the relativity of being. Unfortunately discussion would be impossible where a source for "being" is denied. It is unfortunate because the "Great Chain of Being" is a mind expanding theory in which Plato, Plotinus, Aristotle. and others have had a part. You've raised a good question but IMO it is better avoided since it requires conversation that would not be acceptable.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Ferdi wrote:for HobsCh.
If life a consequence of particular conditions of matter, when do those particular conditions for life start; what can we observe?

Consult the science of Biology.
What else is on your mind here?

I do not know what you are driving at. Consulting biology is an open end.
Lets go back to my basic observations.
My question is very simply: do you accept that there is a difference between 'being alive' and 'having life' ?
Prior to birth a foetus is alive with heart beating. It is so as an 'alive' part of the mother. After a successful birth the baby has its own 'life', its heart then driven by its own life. The baby is then a new individual added to our world.

Ferdi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Ferdi wrote:for HobsCh.
If life a consequence of particular conditions of matter, when do those particular conditions for life start; what can we observe?

Consult the science of Biology.
What else is on your mind here?

I do not know what you are driving at. Consulting biology is an open end.
Lets go back to my basic observations.
My question is very simply: do you accept that there is a difference between 'being alive' and 'having life' ?
Prior to birth a foetus is alive with heart beating. It is so as an 'alive' part of the mother. After a successful birth the baby has its own 'life', its heart then driven by its own life. The baby is then a new individual added to our world.

Like I said consult biology. What sort of answer are you looking for? This is a question about consciousness, not life. Life exists regardless of you being conscious of it. Your gut has more individual lives in it than the total number of stars in the galaxy. And each one of your cells is a dependant though autonomous living thing, which does not die at the same time you do. You can take the cells from a dead man and culture them in a dish. You could also clone a dead man, and give a life a new consciousness.
So your question seems to be about being conscious of life, not of 'being alive/having life'.