Philosophy Now Forum

I recently asked the question 'What is the farthest distance that an animal has traveled in space?' on diverse fora, including https://forums.space.com/threads/what-i ... ace.39327/

As of today, not even an insect or bacteria went farther than the Moon, which seems crazy!

Why wouldn't it be one of the first things to test whether Earth life is possible farther away from Earth and for example, considering the planned Mars mission in 2035, beyond Mars?

Humans (people at NASA, in Russia's space agency etc.) never even considered that life may be bound to a proximity to Earth, or a region around the Sun!

Humans (which includes top scientists) appear to naturally presume that life has a 'start' in time that is somehow relevant to life in its actuality. I.e., that life is something that an individual can possess because of it, and for example, something that one can take with him/her during space travel.

What would be the basis for the idea that life started at some point in time and is passed on like a fire?

Since there is no evidence for the origin of life, one is to make an assumption. From that perspective it seems logical to question whether it would be valid to assume that life is something independent from the Solar system. But for some reason, no one has done so until today (2021).

Is there at least one clue that life is independent from the Solar system?

It appears logical that the Sun may be the giver of life and the Neutrino particle or "Ghost Particle" may be the origin of life.

The fact that until 2021 no scientist has even considered to test whether Earth life is possible farther away from Earth or outside a region around the Sun, may be evidence that a scope limited to the empirical may be flawed, and how important philosophy may be.

As it appears, philosophy has been increasingly suppressed to a level comparable with that of religions.

Some recent perspectives on philosophy by scientists at a forum of a University in England (Cambridge):

Naked Scientist forum wrote:Philosophy is bunk.

...

You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of "truth", preferring "repeatability" as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.

...

Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.

...

Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.

...

Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think - scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we "do" science, nobody "does" philosophy.

...

Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.

...

Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?

When science is practiced autonomously and it intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the 'knowing' of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it apparently is not.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 - We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.

The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime - which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master" - what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

...

in the end, however, one must learn caution even with regard to one's gratitude, and put a stop to the exaggeration with which the unselfing and depersonalizing of the spirit has recently been celebrated, as if it were the goal in itself, as if it were salvation and glorification - as is especially accustomed to happen in the pessimist school, which has also in its turn good reasons for paying the highest honours to "disinterested knowledge" The objective man, who no longer curses and scolds like the pessimist, the IDEAL man of learning in whom the scientific instinct blossoms forth fully after a thousand complete and partial failures, is assuredly one of the most costly instruments that exist, but his place is in the hand of one who is more powerful He is only an instrument, we may say, he is a MIRROR - he is no "purpose in himself"

It shows the path that science has pursued as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy with as a consequence that the scope of evolution of ideas for research and exploration has increasingly been restricted to the 'empirical', with as a result that humans in 2021 assumed that they would suffice with some Earth / Moon based testing to conclude that they can safely explore the Solar system and are already investing trillions of USD for a mission to Mars in 2035.

As it appears, the empirical nature of Science has resulted in a dogma that is so strong that humans in 2021 didn't even consider to test whether Earth life is possible at a further distance from Earth.

The Big Bang theory for example is 'religiously protected'. I was almost banned on forums.space.com for addressing the subject that the Big Bang theory is considered a religion by an increasing amount of scientists.

The Big Bang theory appears to be a highly sensitive subject in the space community that results in 'suppression' attempts.

Sabine Hossenfelder wrote:Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics: You will find the three main problems of the Big Bang theory religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.

There were already many serious replies that addressed the content.

moderator wrote:This thread has runs its course. Thank you to those who contributed. Closing now.

The post was deleted for 'religious content'.

My post did not contain religious content. Thread: Big Bang theory a religion?

The Big Bang theory lays at the root of the idea that life is something that can be explained within the scope of causality.

Space movies such as Star Trek are also based on the assumption that life is something that can be 'owned' on an individual level, for example to allow deep space travel.

At question in this topic:

What is the origin of the idea that life is like a fire that is 'owned' on an individual level and why isn't that idea officially questioned to such an extent that it would have resulted in a test whether Earth life is possible further away from Earth?

Why it matters: if the Sun is the origin of life, then humans (e.g. space force) will need to address the security of the Sun a.s.a.p. to secure existence of the human specie. They cannot hope to 'escape' the Solar system. If they were to consider investing trillions of USD (i.e. their 'security resources') in a escape plan, it would have been better spent on security that includes the Sun, e.g. a satellite and monitoring system that protects against bigger 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.

a diet of habaneros is passed on like a fire

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 5:14 pm a diet of habaneros is passed on like a fire

-Imp

Do you believe that the idea that life can be 'owned' on an individual level is valid? If so, why/why not?

Do you have an idea why people in general believe that they 'own' life on an individual level, and for example can take it with them during deep space travel (e.g. Star Trek)?

theory wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:18 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 5:14 pm a diet of habaneros is passed on like a fire

-Imp

Do you believe that the idea that life can be 'owned' on an individual level is valid? If so, why/why not?

Do you have an idea why people in general believe that they 'own' life on an individual level, and for example can take it with them during deep space travel (e.g. Star Trek)?

validity is a circle

humans experience the egocentric predicament...

-Imp

theory wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:18 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 5:14 pm a diet of habaneros is passed on like a fire

-Imp

Do you believe that the idea that life can be 'owned' on an individual level is valid? If so, why/why not?

Do you have an idea why people in general believe that they 'own' life on an individual level, and for example can take it with them during deep space travel (e.g. Star Trek)?

"Life," is not a thing or substance. Life is an attribute. It is the attribute that differentiates mere physical entities from living entities (called organisms). Like size, and weight, and all other attributes of an entity, life does not exist independently of the organims it is the attribute of.

Life is not, "owned," anymore than one's size or weight is, "owned." It's exactly like any other attribute or faculty, it, "belongs to you," in the same way your shape, or hair, or consciousness, or tastes belong to you, just because they are "your" shape, hair, consciosness, tastes, and life and only exist as part of you.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 12:40 am "Life," is not a thing or substance. Life is an attribute. It is the attribute that differentiates mere physical entities from living entities (called organisms). Like size, and weight, and all other attributes of an entity, life does not exist independently of the organims it is the attribute of.

What is the basis for that idea?

It appears to be a shallow description of life that is intended to adhere to a pure empirical explanation, i.e. 'causality' as origin of life, which can only be possible with a belief in determinism, which is questionable to say the least, so how could such an idea have become generally accepted?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 12:40 amLife is not, "owned," anymore than one's size or weight is, "owned." It's exactly like any other attribute or faculty, it, "belongs to you," in the same way your shape, or hair, or consciousness, or tastes belong to you, just because they are "your" shape, hair, consciosness, tastes, and life and only exist as part of you.

It appears to be a strange idea to view life in such a way.

At question would be: what would justify the idea that one can take his/her 'life attribute' with him/her on travel through space?

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.

theory wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:26 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 12:40 am "Life," is not a thing or substance. Life is an attribute. It is the attribute that differentiates mere physical entities from living entities (called organisms). Like size, and weight, and all other attributes of an entity, life does not exist independently of the organims it is the attribute of.

What is the basis for that idea?

You're kidding, right? But, just in case you are not:

If 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.

theory wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:26 am It appears to be a shallow description of life that is intended to adhere to a pure empirical explanation, i.e. 'causality' as origin of life, which can only be possible with a belief in determinism, which is questionable to say the least, so how could such an idea have become generally accepted?

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.

theory wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:26 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 12:40 amLife is not, "owned," anymore than one's size or weight is, "owned." It's exactly like any other attribute or faculty, it, "belongs to you," in the same way your shape, or hair, or consciousness, or tastes belong to you, just because they are "your" shape, hair, consciosness, tastes, and life and only exist as part of you.

It appears to be a strange idea to view life in such a way.

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.

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?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pm
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.

...

a ship without a head could get messy

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 8:15 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pm
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.

...

a ship without a head could get messy

-Imp

Yes! Yes it could.

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).

theory wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 2:04 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 3:13 pmYou're kidding, right?

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.

No. I'm not making an argument, I'm only describing what is so simple any reasonable individual can understand it. The, "empirical," evidence for the attribute life is every living organism that obviously has that attribute that no non-living entity has.

Nothing has any meaning or purpose except to living organisms. Meaning and purpose begin and have meaning only to beings for which there are alternatives. The existence of a living organism, as a living organism, depends on the behavior of the organism. No organism, "just has," life. Every organism must act to sustain its own existence. That is what living is.

theory wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 2:04 am I do not believe that that perspective can be valid.

That's fine. You don't have to agree with it.

If you are interested in learning the true nature of existence and life you might find these articles interesting. Otherwise, ignore them.

Ontology Introduction


The Nature of Life

The Nature of Consciousness

Perception

The Nature of the Mind


The Physical, Life, Consciousness, and The Human Mind—A Preface

RC

theory wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 1:55 pm The fact that until 2021 no scientist has even considered to test whether Earth life is possible farther away from Earth or outside a region around the Sun,

What in the world are you talking about? Aren't you familiar with astrobiology/exobiology, SETI, etc.? That stuff isn't new.