What is life?

[midas77]

[quote=boagie;15974]midas,

You cannot have been to observant of the wilderness, forest, plains or tundra, wild life is always alert to the dangers of death, the lacks get quickly selected out of the gene pool. It is true consciousness cannot imagine not being conscious, but then, the dead cannot imagine being conscious.
quote]

I'm not much of an outdoorsman boagie but in my observation of animal behavior and plant life, they are alert to dangers as dangers, thats is to those things that threatens life... and on the positive side to those things that will improve their present well being. What i am saying is that death comes and one must be prepared for it to come not with reluctance or forebearance. It is a fact of life that every "matured" living beings faced. I always admire elephants in this way that they go a long way to die in their sacred "burial" place.

Life feeding on life? You seems to look to life simply on the animal side. Plant life does not defend on living things on itself. Life for life to be depends not solely on other life but on the intricate relationship of beings. Human life is in a degree far superior to that, that it dwells also in the realm of the "thou" as the existentialists insists.

[boagie]

midas,

You need to rework your view of the way things are, even plant life depends upon the dead organic mix in the soil for the nutrients it needs for life. This life lives on life is not something of my particular perspective but is basic biology. True there are intricate relationships, evolution, coevolution of species ect.., but, they all live on the lives of others for their survival. There is no escaping that reality, even for the vegetarian, for vegetables are life forms, and are forms of consciousness. Man tends to be an omnivore, a creature of diversity, meaning he will eat all most anything organic. Also you need send some time in nature, as I stated earlier the lacks are soon removed from the gene pool. Nature is indeed, red in tooth and claw. How many creatures had to die for you to sit down to your dinner this evening------think about it!

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by boagie

even for the vegetarian, for vegetables are life forms, and are forms of consciousness

They must also consider how many animals were killed by the machinery used to harvest their vegetables. This escapes most vegetarians, and I giggle

[midas77]

boagie, i tend to look on life more on the point of view of the whole, I agree that in biology the cycle of prey and the hunter, of the eater and the food is inescapable, that in order to live living things must "eat" on other life. but we must also consider that life comes from non-life at least on evolutionary terms. To view a dogs eat dogs philosophical view of reality is unthinkable for me. When there are other ideas of love, truth and beauty more sublime than "survival of the fittest". It seems to me a very narrow view of the "world of beings" Life for me must be view in the ambit of every being, life and non-life, minerals, vegetables, animals, man, and in the possibility of other rational beings, may it be spiritual ones (angels, gods, demons whatever) or alien life forms.

As you say, vegetables depend on dead organism, exactly my point. organism that once has life are non-living things, just chemical composition that can easily be replicated in a lab.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by midas77

boagie, i tend to look on life more on the point of view of the whole, I agree that in biology the cycle of prey and the hunter, of the eater and the food is inescapable, that in order to live living things must "eat" on other life. but we must also consider that life comes from non-life at least on evolutionary terms. To view a dogs eat dogs philosophical view of reality is unthinkable for me. When there are other ideas of love, truth and beauty more sublime than "survival of the fittest". It seems to me a very narrow view of the "world of beings" Life for me must be view in the ambit of every being, life and non-life, minerals, vegetables, animals, man, and in the possibility of other rational beings, may it be spiritual ones (angels, gods, demons whatever) or alien life forms.

As you say, vegetables depend on dead organism, exactly my point. organism that once has life are non-living things, just chemical composition that can easily be replicated in a lab.

midas,

It is all well and good to appreciate life on different levels, it is however a disserves to oneself and others to deny the foundation upon which things are built. It is the reality of a common self, that enables humanity to access its sense of compassion, not only for his fellow man but, for his fellow creatures. However once you have graduated to angels, evil spirits and other beings of the mists, you have left the concept of being grounded in reality. Certainly view your world in as full a spectrum as possible, to deny any known aspect of it, is a disserves to it, to add to it what does not rightfully belong to its reality, is to, a disserves.

[midas77]

Boagie,

Deny the foundation upon what which things are built? I don't deny that, If i deny that how can even I have the face to "philosophize". I said "the possibility of other spiritual beings", are you denyinig that it is not possible? I always try my mind open to other views and in case to other forms of spiritual life. Do I believe in it. a big NO. I said possibility of other spiritual beings not the actuality of it. Our views of reality must include all possible realities. That is what Metaphysics is all about. Its principle encompasses what is actually real, and other possible real beings.

[boagie]

midas,

Perhaps I have been reading you wrongly. However speaking of metaphysics, metaphysics is a slippery slope kind of deal, without keeping at least one foot within the realm of reality, metaphysics slides easily into fantasy. As Schopenhauer stated of philosophers, if they build castles with abstract intangiables, they must frequently touch the earth, or lose crediability. You need stand on something solid to reach out.

[midas77]

I agree with you boagie, but without that abstract intangibles I can not see any other way to ground our basic experiences. Despite all the failure of Descartes his warning always ring on my ear when I think of things, "Eyes can be deceiving my friend."

[boagie]

Knownothing,

There is no time, there is but duration of temporal things, in covary of the relational cycles of the spheres. "The tick of time shuts out eternity, for eternity has nothing to do with time." Upanishads The river of time has been an analogy, in fact, it is one great ocean. "The salt doll walks into the cosmic of ocean." Upanishads "We are but creatures for a day" unknown. Life, life is community in reaction to its perceptions of the physcial world.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by midas77

I agree with you boagie, but without that abstract intangibles I can not see any other way to ground our basic experiences. Despite all the failure of Descartes his warning always ring on my ear when I think of things, "Eyes can be deceiving my friend."

midas,

Yes indeed, the senses are both enabling but also limiting, but what we consider truth in apparent reality is always biologically determined. Experience is never wrong, our understanding of it might be limited and our judgement poor, but experience is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.