Life Does Not Exist

[Nakosis]

​

Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist

What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?

 

[Orbit]

Can a rock communicate? That is the difference between you and a rock. An amoeba can respond to stimuli, so can a plant. But a rock can't. That's the difference between being alive or not.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, life exists. I can point to many things that are alive with no doubt.

That the definition is tricky at the edges isn't a surprise. That is often, even usually the case when dealing with things in the real world. that doesn't mean that there is no real phenomenon there. it just means that it isn't as definite as many people think.

An example: do liquids exist? Clearly, the answer is yes. But, for example, glass will flow of many years in a way that makes it act like a liquid with very high viscosity. Is it a liquid or a solid? that is a classification issue at that point, like whether Pluto is a planet or not. But planets do exist.

 

[RestlessSoul]

All living things can reproduce, and have other qualities such as the ability to grow. When something living dies, it immediately begins to rot, and to be consumed by other living things. Though perhaps you could say that of all matter. Astronomers certainly talk about stars dying. Can they reproduce?

 

[Twilight Hue]

​

Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist

What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?

I think it depends on ones view.

There's no doubt matter can be enabled both anamate and inanimate.

 

[exchemist]

​

Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist

What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?

I would agree that life is not a "special property". There is no one thing that can determine unambiguously whether or not a system is alive. Definitions of life involve possession of combinations of a number of properties. Nonetheless, life is a useful concept that does not lead to difficulty in the vast majority of applications.

 

[savagewind]

But, because Live is uniform, it has to be real.

How to explain that we are all seeing the same stuff? It's real.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What do you think?
Are we just fooling ourselves thinking that life is some special property that only an object above a certain level of complexity possesses?

I get it, and barring mere "feelings" I might have to the contrary, I feel it is true. We are, indeed, possible configurations of matter and energy within the universe, and whether or not we are "more" than that honestly remains to be seen. Other features of the universe also go on about their business, acting and interacting with their matter and energy fellows - how can we claim to be "so much different?" Because we have awareness of what is going on for the time during which we are deemed what we call "alive?" Before and after that time, what are we? Matter and energy, with no "self"-serving mobility or autonomy. Our matter and energies just simply "going with the flow" along with everything else out there. Are we so sure our state of being "alive" isn't just more of that same "flow?"

 

[Nakosis]

All living things can reproduce, and have other qualities such as the ability to grow. When something living dies, it immediately begins to rot, and to be consumed by other living things. Though perhaps you could say that of all matter. Astronomers certainly talk about stars dying. Can they reproduce?

A rock wasn't always a rock. It came from somewhere. Rocks can melt form larger rocks.
Perhaps life is just matter that has a quicker cycle of change.

We can't really reproduce ourselves. I mean we can't grab a bunch of materials and make a new human. It's just a process material at our level of complexity happens to be capable of.

How would life, other than what you said? Matter which has a complexity which allows it grow? Rocks can be formed and reformed from molten lava or environmental pressure like sandstone. It is more a matter of the scale in which these things take place.

 

[savagewind]

A rock wasn't always a rock. It came from somewhere. Rocks can melt form larger rocks.
Perhaps life is just matter that has a quicker cycle of change.

We can't really reproduce ourselves. I mean we can't grab a bunch of materials and make a new human. It's just a process material at our level of complexity happens to be capable of.

How would life, other than what you said? Matter which has a complexity which allows it grow? Rocks can be formed and reformed from molten lava or environmental pressure like sandstone. It is more a matter of the scale in which these things take place.

Like a diamond. Right?

 

[savagewind]

Black to clear stone like a glass. Why does it happen if it isn't real?

WHY?

 

[Nakosis]

But, because Live is uniform, it has to be real.

How to explain that we are all seeing the same stuff? It's real.

It's more a question of what is life itself. What is it that makes one thing dead or inanimate and another alive?
We can define it as a set of properties but then we are simply saying something with this set of property belongs to a set of objects we label as alive. Not that life itself is a property.

So life itself does not exist as a property since it is define as a set of other properties.

 

[RestlessSoul]

A rock wasn't always a rock. It came from somewhere. Rocks can melt form larger rocks.
Perhaps life is just matter that has a quicker cycle of change.

We can't really reproduce ourselves. I mean we can't grab a bunch of materials and make a new human. It's just a process material at our level of complexity happens to be capable of.

How would life, other than what you said? Matter which has a complexity which allows it grow? Rocks can be formed and reformed from molten lava or environmental pressure like sandstone. It is more a matter of the scale in which these things take place.

A rock, or a rock strata, is a convergence of phenomena in a temporary state of equilibrium, I get that; and so, you may say, are living things like us. But even if you ignore things considered to be necessary for the creation of life, such as amino acids - isn’t the real difference between a living thing and an inert object something to do with agency? That living things are driven by some identifiable force from within - the will to live, in fact.

The quote in your OP says there is no “Frankenstein spark” that distinguishes the living from the nit alive, but I think there is; though I also think that the otherness by which I perceive myself a being separate from all that surrounds me, is illusory. So perhaps the whole swirling molecular dance is in some sense alive..,

 

[savagewind]

It's more a question of what is life itself. What is it that makes one thing dead or inanimate and another alive?
We can define it as a set of properties but then we are simply saying something with this set of property belongs to a set of objects we label as alive. Not that life itself is a property.

So life itself does not exist as a property since it is define as a set of other properties.

Oh! To confuse me as I enjoy Southern Blueberry Whiskey. I might understand that if there was never any blueberry whiskey, but, maybe not.

Life breaths. Rocks don't! Why not for goodness sake? They have not lungs.

 

[savagewind]

But! Do they wish that they do?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why is defining life so frustratingly difficult? Why have scientists and philosophers failed for centuries to find a specific physical property or set of properties that clearly separates the living from the inanimate? Because such a property does not exist. Life is a concept that we invented. On the most fundamental level, all matter that exists is an arrangement of atoms and their constituent particles. These arrangements fall onto an immense spectrum of complexity, from a single hydrogen atom to something as intricate as a brain. In trying to define life, we have drawn a line at an arbitrary level of complexity and declared that everything above that border is alive and everything below it is not. In truth, this division does not exist outside the mind. There is no threshold at which a collection of atoms suddenly becomes alive, no categorical distinction between the living and inanimate, no Frankensteinian spark. We have failed to define life because there was never anything to define in the first place.
Why Life Does Not Really Exist

What do you think?

This is a restatement of the sorites paradox. A grain of sand is not a heap, a million grains are. Which grain made it a heap? There is no single grain that makes it a heap.

This paradox applies to all transitions that are gradual. How many hairs do you need to not be bald yet, the loss of one more making you bald? At what instant did night become day? Which the first human, before which there were no humans beings? We can't answer, but we don't say that baldness, daytime, and humanity don't exist because we can't.

Likewise with increasing complexity and the emergence of life. The fact that there isn't a fine line between life and nonlife doesn't mean that life doesn't exist or is an illusion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I found the second poll response fascinating: "No, it is a concept which only exist in our minds"

If you think it possible that life does not exist, which is the premise of the thread, after all, then it also seems that you think your mind has nothing to do with being alive.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I found the second poll response fascinating: "No, it is a concept which only exist in our minds"

If you think it possible that life does not exist, which is the premise of the thread, after all, then it also seems that you think your mind has nothing to do with being alive.

I think it would be more that "the mind" has to do with transitioning matter and energy that produces an ongoing (as someone else termed it, aptly) "agency." What we would call "agency" anyway. But whether or not all the matter and energy going into support of that "agency" is literally separate from the rest of the universe in some particularly important way is part of the question. Such that "the mind" being able to be temporarily suspended within some not-so-important (nor unimportant) pieces of the matter and energy of the universe doesn't automatically qualify it all as a "special" thing. It may merely be another common/possible/probable function of the matter and energies present in the universe - like crystals that form, or atoms the glom onto one another to form new molecules/substances - albeit maybe more "complex" from an observer's point of view.

 

[The Hammer]

New Can a rock communicate?

Yes

 

[Nakosis]

This is a restatement of the sorites paradox. A grain of sand is not a heap, a million grains are. Which grain made it a heap? There is no single grain that makes it a heap.

This paradox applies to all transitions that are gradual. How many hairs do you need to not be bald yet, the loss of one more making you bald? At what instant did night become day? Which the first human, before which there were no humans beings? We can't answer, but we don't say that baldness, daytime, and humanity don't exist because we can't.

Likewise with increasing complexity and the emergence of life. The fact that there isn't a fine line between life and nonlife doesn't mean that life doesn't exist or is an illusion.

I liked everything except the bald example. I didn't like that one much.