what causes something to be living

[psychoslice]

I can agree with this. I do however take this a step further by defining what specifically causes things to be lifelike or develop those characteristics of living things. What is the CAUSE of those animate or lifelike interactions....The answer to that quite simply and in my opinion, is to allow enough time and just the right conditions to sustain those complex interactions within matter we call Life. Those fundamental forces in nature are what caused those interactions to take place. We can not leave physics out of the equation. As Max Planck would say..."All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force..." This MUST include those highly animated, highly evolved, and highly interactive forms of matter we call Life.

The reason why humans experience problems with artificially creating life is because they are leaving out the first primary condition or element....and that is time. No amount of chemistry can replace that.


---

yes I like that, also there are forces such as adhesion, attraction and repulsion these all work together holding everything together what we call life, at the end of life repulsion takes first place.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Can't go that far with you.
Animation (movement) might appear to the line drawn.

But we humans are much more than our chemistry.

We have simply evolved into much more, but ultimately it is just more complex chemistry.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Alternatively, you could say that everything is alive to some degree and that nothing is completely dead. I don't take it that far myself, though.

I don't necessarily believe that everything is alive to some extent, but everything is to some extent lifelike or animate. Atoms are not alive, but they are animated and in some small way lifelike due to the fundamental forces which allow them to interact. To say that something is alive to some degree is not quite the same as saying something is lifelike. Perhaps it could be said to be alive-like, but I prefer the terms animate and lifelike. A cartoon character may be lifelike, but it is not In fact alive to some extent. Creatures may appear alive, but it is merely the complexity of their interactions that make them more lifelike than other simpler forms.

 

[Runewolf1973]

On a side note, I will say that as much as my ideas concerning Life may sound rather mechanical or materialistic, this does not mean there is no possibility of a spiritualistic side to the whole matter. On the contrary, the fact that there is no true life or death means there is the possibility that some of those interactions (part of our consciousness perhaps) has the ability to succeed that transformational state we call "death". Those fundamental forces or interactions which result in our consciousness never truly cease, they merely change form. There may well be such thing as a conscious (to some extent) afterlife. As materialistic as I sound sometimes, I believe rather strongly in non-physical things such as ghosts or spirits and I do believe very strongly in a type of reincarnation where that spirit or that part or remnant of our own animating force is reborn into a new body or incarnation. To me these may amount to natural unknowns to science for I do not believe the "supernatural" exists.

 

[Thief]

We have simply evolved into much more, but ultimately it is just more complex chemistry.

I must contend and say...'nay'..

If chemistry is all that we are then each and every action would be prompted by chemistry.
Art would then be a mystery.
Music a collection of nonsense.
The desire to exceed and excell as much an insanity as any other.

Humour is considered irrational.
There are no survival schemes to it's being.

A pie in the face.....to eat?.....or to laugh?
Ask Buster Keaton about that sack of flour!!!!
Harold Loydd was insane no doubt.

And what was Albert smoking when that equation popped into his head?

 

[bobhikes]

What causes something to be a living thing? Any news or recent articles that you know? Any ideas,thoughts?

How about the ability to choose.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I must contend and say...'nay'..

If chemistry is all that we are then each and every action would be prompted by chemistry.
Art would then be a mystery.
Music a collection of nonsense.
The desire to exceed and excell as much an insanity as any other.

Humour is considered irrational.
There are no survival schemes to it's being.

A pie in the face.....to eat?.....or to laugh?
Ask Buster Keaton about that sack of flour!!!!
Harold Loydd was insane no doubt.

And what was Albert smoking when that equation popped into his head?

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I feel science would disagree. All those things you mentioned are products of a complex brain that thinks and experiences and in the process learns to be creative. It is all due to highly organized chemical interactions and every individual is unique because every one of those interactions are unique.

 

[Thief]

I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I feel science would disagree. All those things you mentioned are products of a complex brain that thinks and experiences and in the process learns to be creative. It is all due to highly organized chemical interactions and every individual is unique because every one of those interactions are unique.

I think you're confusing the chemistry as something in control.

If your chemistry was altogether in control....you wouldn't have a thought beyond the acquisition of your next meal....
or the smell of your mate....
or the urge to run when scared...

Animals are alive....sure they are.
So are plants and viruses.

They consume, absorb, eliminate, and reproduce.

We humans do quite a bit more than that.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I think you're confusing the chemistry as something in control.

If your chemistry was altogether in control....you wouldn't have a thought beyond the acquisition of your next meal....
or the smell of your mate....
or the urge to run when scared...

Animals are alive....sure they are.
So are plants and viruses.

They consume, absorb, eliminate, and reproduce.

We humans do quite a bit more than that.

Sure we do...because our chemistry is just that much more complex. The ability to consume, absorb, elliminate and reproduce are characteristics of a very complex order of chemical interactions. On a very fundamental level, chemistry is not in control. What is in control are the fundamental animating forces within nature. Those fundamental forces which underly everything in existence and allows us to have those chemical reactions or even matter to begin with. It is both ceaseless and formless. Some call it Brahman or Tao, or some call it Universal Consciousness or some still even call it God. I choose to call it the Animating Factor. For one science knows these fundamental forces or that underlying sort of "substratum" to exist. Second, it is a part of nature, not something in the least "supernatural".

 

[Thief]

Sure we do...because our chemistry is just that much more complex. The ability to consume, absorb, elliminate and reproduce are characteristics of a very complex order of chemical interactions. On a very fundamental level, chemistry is not in control. What is in control are the fundamental animating forces within nature. Those fundamental forces which underly everything in existence and allows us to have those chemical reactions or even matter to begin with. It is both ceaseless and formless. Some call it Brahman or Tao, or some call it Universal Consciousness or some still even call it God. I choose to call it the Animating Factor. For one science knows these fundamental forces or that underlying sort of "substratum" to exist. Second, it is a part of nature, not something in the least "supernatural".

I see you have completely confused the difference between flesh and spirit.
The flesh is terminal.

I am not given to my chemistry.....altogether.
I have made denial on many occasions.

(and some would doubt my sanity for 'cause' of it)

 

[Runewolf1973]

I see you have completely confused the difference between flesh and spirit.
The flesh is terminal.

I am not given to my chemistry.....altogether.
I have made denial on many occasions.

(and some would doubt my sanity for 'cause' of it)

There is no difference between flesh and spirit. It is all spirit.

 

[Thief]

There is no difference between flesh and spirit. It is all spirit.

Nay.
Ever have a conversation with someone...apathetic?

And the Carpenter did say....'Let the dead bury the dead.'

I get the point.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Nay.
Ever have a conversation with someone...apathetic?

And the Carpenter did say....'Let the dead bury the dead.'

I get the point.

I don't know what point you are trying to make, but it seems that you are disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. Tell me specifically what you disagree with without all the metaphors.

 

[Thief]

Well gee....
I have no confusion between something alive as compared to something dead.
But previous generations did.

If it moved....it lived.
If it made a loud noise....it lived.
If it made bright light...it lived.

So then someone taking a closer look discovered otherwise.
And the line drawn had to be considered.

Does it consume?....fire does.
Does it grow?....lava seems to.
Does it eliminate?.....the sky holds water and then it doesn't.
Does it reproduce?....

There was a famous philosopher that held life as spontaneous.
Pile grain in storage and mice will appear!
Any dead animal will make flies!

Oddly enough that notion held for a long time.
Even though the egg was well known.
And then that persistent question...which came first?...the chicken?

But know better...don't we?

That you hold spirit to chemistry works for now.
How about plants?.....any spirit there?
How about people in comma?....still present?

Shall pull the plug?.....or let go?
Shall we learn to eat dirt that no plant will die for our sake?
Shall we worship the wind and thunder?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well gee....
I have no confusion between something alive as compared to something dead.
But previous generations did.

If it moved....it lived.
If it made a loud noise....it lived.
If it made bright light...it lived.

So then someone taking a closer look discovered otherwise.
And the line drawn had to be considered.

Does it consume?....fire does.
Does it grow?....lava seems to.
Does it eliminate?.....the sky holds water and then it doesn't.
Does it reproduce?....

There was a famous philosopher that held life as spontaneous.
Pile grain in storage and mice will appear!
Any dead animal will make flies!

Oddly enough that notion held for a long time.
Even though the egg was well known.
And then that persistent question...which came first?...the chicken?

But know better...don't we?

That you hold spirit to chemistry works for now.
How about plants?.....any spirit there?
How about people in comma?....still present?

Shall pull the plug?.....or let go?
Shall we learn to eat dirt that no plant will die for our sake?
Shall we worship the wind and thunder?

There is no confusion, only a different way of looking at the same thing. All that exists is animate or lifelike. Some things are more lifelike or animate than others. Simple as that. Why make it more complex or myterious than that. There is no great mystery about it at all.

 

[Thief]

There is no confusion, only a different way of looking at the same thing. All that exists is animate or lifelike. Some things are more lifelike or animate than others. Simple as that. Why make it more complex or myterious than that. There is no great mystery about it at all.

Not all things are animate.

The planet we live on moves...is it alive?

The 'point' of the discussion is that line drawn.....the cause for which something lives.

Lots of chemical reactions going on right now....lots of things moving.
Most of it...is dead.

 

[idav]

Not all things are animate.

The planet we live on moves...is it alive?

Animate doesn't equal Alive. All matter is animate in that it is full of energy and animate particles.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Not all things are animate.

The planet we live on moves...is it alive?

The 'point' of the discussion is that line drawn.....the cause for which something lives.

Lots of chemical reactions going on right now....lots of things moving.
Most of it...is dead.

The point I am making is that all things are in some way animated by those fundamental forces. Everything that moves is animated by something. There is only that which is dynamic, energetic, forceful, animate, or lifelike. There is no alive or dead, only that which seems alive or dead.

 

[Thief]

Animate doesn't equal Alive. All matter is animate in that it is full of energy and animate particles.

Not all chemistry is compatible.
(animate, I thought meant to move by volition)

Plants don't move a lot....but they live.
They don't scream when we chew on them....but they die.

And eating anything really dead (inanimate) can be risky.

Still want to lean on chemistry as a sign of life?
Or keep it simple and say it moves and therefore lives?

I think we agree for the most part.
But is there denial of spirit?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Not all chemistry is compatible.
(animate, I thought meant to move by volition)

Plants don't move a lot....but they live.
They don't scream when we chew on them....but they die.

And eating anything really dead (inanimate) can be risky.

Still want to lean on chemistry as a sign of life?
Or keep it simple and say it moves and therefore lives?

I think we agree for the most part.
But is there denial of spirit?

No denial of spirit. To me spirit is those ceaseless and formless fundamental forces in nature. That which animates all things. It exists naturally.