What is life?

[boagie]

I was looking for something a little more tangible in reply! I am sure you will not harm me, even if you are not one of us

[Fido]

Originally Posted by boagie

Fido,

I believe you are saying a number of things here, not all of which I think I agree with, but perhaps most. The first paragraph seems to enlighten us to the fact that most of reality we are unaware of. The second premise here seems to state that these things we are unaware of are still objective realities--------yes? That which is not conscious to a subject has no meaning nor any value, this is what consciousness brings to the objective world [read physcial world] So that which is not known to an organism on any level of consciousness in effect does not exist. It is an interesting problem you present, for are not the conditions the organism is subjected to, even if the organism is unaware of them, effective elements in the state of the organism? This I think causes us to wonder just how extensive consciousness is, and/or how extensive the organism is. This is I find a very stimulating post Fido------well done!

I think when we begin to make judgements on what we experience that we make them subjectively. Now, if we recognize something in the stream of experience we are likely working with socially acquired knowledge, and what we recognize as a tree or a mountain is objectively what all people would consider to be tree or mountain. We do not give to the things we see a personal and subjective value, or meaning, unless we see they are likely to effect our lives, so they are neutral qualitatively. If the question is: Do we see what we see objectively and in agreement with others; I would answer, usually yes.

The second paragraph, you are speaking of the physcial realities of change as in the arch of the sun, the rotation of the earth. You ask does this give meaning to our lives or do our lives give meaning to these physical happenings. The most obvious answer, if we are thinking in terms of cognitve concepts and meaning, would be of course, all meaning is the property of the subject, and it is the subject that gives meaning to the physical world---in a rather egocentric way. The idea of meaning though is intrigueing for what we experience on a lower level, on a biological level, example how we are effected by the physcial world, cannot be simply what we are cognitively aware of. This is delightful Fido!! You state life is meaning, this is a little shakey, how much meaning do you think an earth worm brings to the world, the earth worm is in effect the relations it has with the world and little else, though that might be said of us as well. I think in the discussion it is going to be essential to expand our idea of organism, and/or individual ect.., "It is life we have to reckon time by. The world is filled with life which gives time its meaning." Indeed without the conscious subject there is no time, time is a concept, and only conscious beings can form concepts. A lot of stuff here to ponder and play with, great post Fido!!! Even this post is a little rash on my part, but it should be an interesting discussion.

Life objectively is meaning. My life means nothing to you, and the meaning I give to it seems subjective. I don't view anything about my life as subjective, but as the objective reality, and even while I tend to look at your opinion regarding your life as subjective, I think I cannot do so with reason. Is it reasonable to believe that my objective reality, the truth of all truths, my life, is in my case objective and in your case subjective? We all feel the same about our own lives as the objective reality, and in this we are all correct.

A worm would find more meaning in my death than in my life. What I find objectively of value he does not. Weeding my garden invariably results in him or one of his burrowing buddies becoming divided. C'est le guerre. But, for the worms, like myself, it is life, each ones life- that gives to all thing of life their meaning. Not everything that has identity necessarily has meaning, or a value of note to our lives. It is life which gives meaning to time. We have a sense of time that is biological, and we have a value for time which is social, but it is the relation of time to life- that people seem to sense before they can know- that gives such value to time. And just as with life itself, I judge time objectively, and think you judge it subjectively and in the end see we each judge from the same point in the universe, and so, are both correct in regard to self. If together we should reach for a clock to tell us the time, it is not because we each do not know exactly what the time is (now), but are using the clock as an easy path to agreement with others, which we do because each of us finds meaning and value in agreement in light of our own lives and needs.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Fido

I think when we begin to make judgements on what we experience that we make them subjectively. Now, if we recognize something in the stream of experience we are likely working with socially acquired knowledge, and what we recognize as a tree or a mountain is objectively what all people would consider to be tree or mountain. We do not give to the things we see a personal and subjective value, or meaning, unless we see they are likely to effect our lives, so they are neutral qualitatively. If the question is: Do we see what we see objectively and in agreement with others; I would answer, usually yes."quote

There is the commonality of the means of perception to consider,we experience the physical world much the same because we are precieveing and processing with like apparatus. Is that your point?



"Life objectively is meaning. My life means nothing to you, and the meaning I give to it seems subjective. I don't view anything about my life as subjective, but as the objective reality, and even while I tend to look at your opinion regarding your life as subjective, I think I cannot do so with reason. Is it reasonable to believe that my objective reality, the truth of all truths, my life, is in my case objective and in your case subjective? We all feel the same about our own lives as the objective reality, and in this we are all correct."quote

Solipsism. Life objectively is not meaning, in fact the objective world is devoid of meaning. Consciousness creates meaning and applies said meaning to the objective world. It creates a value, a meaning for the relation between itself and the object.



"A worm would find more meaning in my death than in my life. What I find objectively of value he does not. Weeding my garden invariably results in him or one of his burrowing buddies becoming divided. C'est le guerre. But, for the worms, like myself, it is life, each ones life- that gives to all thing of life their meaning. Not everything that has identity necessarily has meaning, or a value of note to our lives. It is life which gives meaning to time. We have a sense of time that is biological, and we have a value for time which is social, but it is the relation of time to life- that people seem to sense before they can know- that gives such value to time. And just as with life itself, I judge time objectively, and think you judge it subjectively and in the end see we each judge from the same point in the universe, and so, are both correct in regard to self. If together we should reach for a clock to tell us the time, it is not because we each do not know exactly what the time is (now), but are using the clock as an easy path to agreement with others, which we do because each of us finds meaning and value in agreement in light of our own lives and needs.

I agree for the most part, we have a bit of difference in our favoured terminologies, hopefully that will not create difficulty in the future.

[Fido]

Have you ever seen a Robin weep?

[boagie]

Did you ever hear a robin weep when leaves begin to die, that means he's lost the will to live--------I am so lonesome I could cry! Yeah!!

We understand one another I think.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by boagie

Did you ever hear a robin weep when leaves begin to die, that means he's lost the will to live--------I am so lonesome I could cry! Yeah!!

We understand one another I think.

I grew up on Hank Williams. The silence of a falling star. A poem does not have to rhyme as a song, but a song needs no great complexity to say, and in the case of the above song, to paint a stark picture of loneliness.

Some of what I was trying to say before, is that, in the process of learning all the common words, which are concepts in their own right which refer to the reality around us we are also learning the objective meaning of what we see as experienced by all others. We do not subjectively label what we experience. The labels are there telling us we are seeing nothing new, and nothing unique to us. Only when we begin to judge on the basis of factors common to ourselves and others like us does the experience of experience really become subjective.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Fido

I grew up on Hank Williams. The silence of a falling star. A poem does not have to rhyme as a song, but a song needs no great complexity to say, and in the case of the above song, to paint a stark picture of loneliness.

Some of what I was trying to say before, is that, in the process of learning all the common words, which are concepts in their own right which refer to the reality around us we are also learning the objective meaning of what we see as experienced by all others. We do not subjectively label what we experience. The labels are there telling us we are seeing nothing new, and nothing unique to us. Only when we begin to judge on the basis of factors common to ourselves and others like us does the experience of experience really become subjective.

Fido,

I could not agree more. I recall when I was much younger when faced with a lack of enthusiasm from my limited social circle. I thought, there is some kind of unconscious conspiracy that states that reality is rather humdrum, life is a gray monday morning. This is just what you are speaking of here I believe. There is also the idea that context defines, and it certainly applies in what you have pointed out above. Funny though, that perhaps there is always someone that will not be happy with the given meaning, particularly if it is in fact unrewarding, indeed anti-life.

PS: I grew up listening to Hank myself, indeed I still do. I heard a rumor that this son is going to release some new material. Actually I already have some unrelease material from his Mother Best radio show. To your point, Hank always said in reguarding song writing, keep it simple.

"Only when we begin to judge on a basis of factors common to ourselves and others like us, does the experience of experience really become subjective." quote

Fortunately or unfortunately I think it does, for the most part we claim it for ourselves, we make it our own, is this not the character of a social creature?

[nameless]

Originally Posted by boagie

Nameless,

That business of motion being an illusion is most interesting, it could be a topic in itself. Why do you say that motion is illusion?

If it were it's own topic, if anyone were interested, I could support the theory from many angles.
For the moment, though, it seems that existence is a synchrony of quantumly discrete 'Planck moments'. A Planck moment is what one has when a 'moment' is whittled down to its tiniest 'size' where it no longer contains any temporal qualities. In that 'moment', there is no longer any 'time', for anything.
Example;
When an electron is said to 'jump' from one energy level to another, in an atom, it has recently been 'observed' that there is no electron to be found 'between' the energy levels. No electron in 'motion', no electron travelling. One moment it exists on an energy level, next moment it is no longer found on that energy level but there is now an electron to be found on the next energy level. No evidence in the least that it is the same electron. One moment 'created' as it is, another moment 'created' as it is. All simultaneously existing. Like, in a way, the static cells of a movie. Seen individually, they are static, motionless, but seen from a particular perspective, there appears to be 'action', 'movement'. That perceived 'motion' is illusion, appearances. Like 'here' in existence. So called 'motion' is an appearance of 'memory', of which the illusion of 'life' appears. It is also from this illusion that we fantasize 'linearity' and thusly 'time'... all illusion. All part of this great dream tapestry of existence, but not 'real'.

Well, thats a 'hint' from one perspective. As soon as I get out of this library and get my computer fixed, I can give you a bunch of interesting links for your intellectual enjoyment, if you are interested.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

In addition to boagie's question, I would also like to ask nameless - why reduce the definition of life to "motion"; seems that change would be more appropriate.

The appearance of 'change' is a subset of 'motion'. Motion seems to be the set that incorporates all the particular subsets (growth, reproduction, evolution...).
It seems to me that everything appears to undergo 'motion/change'. Can everything be 'life' under that definition.
I reduced the definition of 'life' to 'motion' with a judicial application of Occam's razor.

Motion is relative to location, which can be difficult to pin down on it's own. Meanwhile, change is only relative to the previous state of things.

Common useage of the term 'change', as something being in a different state then it 'was' at some time in the 'past' implies motion. If we accept that the atom didn't 'change' (other than as compared to another momentary atom) and that the electron didn't 'move' to the new energy level, but that the atom and electrons are quantumly unique in both moments. Nothing actually 'changes' because nothing 'actually' moves. Our hero in the film doesnt actually change, it is just an appearance of memory that causes him to appear to 'move' and 'change'. All 'moments' of the film are in synchronous existence; linearity is an illusion.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Fido

Life primarily is time, which explains movement,

Both being illusion, a 'perspective of memory'. Life, time, motion.. all illusion of memory/perspective.

but as time is the same for those who live a minute and those who live beyond their minds,

Actually, there are quite varied perceptions of 'time'. Sometimes it seems to move quite slowly, etc.. No, it isnt the same perception for everyone.

Since we have nothing other to judge reality by,

There are many perceptions and definitions of 'Reality'. The one that I like is from the Vedanta and says that;
"Reality mist rigidly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of universal permanence." That certainly leaves out the 'illusions'...

life is everything,

That would certainly be true if life were defined as 'motion'.
But it is still illusion.

What use has a memory when the mind for memories dies?

I don't understand your meaning.
All is 'memory', there is nothing 'out there'!

Why take from another his path to meaning, and his everthing to have only a something for yourself.

To what are you refering? I'm not talking about taking anything from anyone.

All things are the thing: Life.

I understand the perspective, but, as I see it, all is still illusion, as is 'life'.
One can definitely enjoy the dream as it is, but being 'lucid' in the dream is the arising of (otherwise non-accessable) 'options'. When you become lucid in a 'night dream' you can fly away from danger, or transform it... Non-lucidity will keep you trapped within the 'rules' of the dream-world. The same holds true with becomming lucid in the dream to which you 'awaken' in the morning.