|
|
|
minass
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2014 : 07:58:17 [Permalink]
|
Under the term “meaning” in life phenomena I am trying to say that people always think that life is a distinct thing/ entity with unique characteristics, properties etc. In other words, it is anything but chaotic. Instead there are some properties within it, and people are trying to figure out how everything started. This is a difficult question and perhaps you can explain me why is it so difficult.
However, what I am trying to say is that even if a system of random chaotic chemical reactions that occur for a long time period, when observed by “inside the system” reactions, they can be perceived in a way that resembles our own perspective of what is life…..and I explained why this happens. But aren’t we a sum of reactions inside the whole system of reactions that compose life after all? Thus not only life can have no meaning, but it actually cannot even exist as a distinct entity. It can as well be our own specific perspective of some random chemical reactions.
|
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2014 : 08:14:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by minass
Under the term “meaning” in life phenomena I am trying to say that people always think that life is a distinct thing/ entity with unique characteristics, properties etc. In other words, it is anything but chaotic. Instead there are some properties within it, and people are trying to figure out how everything started. This is a difficult question and perhaps you can explain me why is it so difficult. |
Because life does have, albeit highly generalized, specific characteristics. Now while this is a classification determined by humans, it is shared by all things we consider "alive".
The properties are pretty general. Ability to take in elements and convert them to cellular material. Ability to reproduce (as a species not individuals). To understand the conditions that tend to cause this "life", scientists are trying to determine how it came about (abiogenesis). Since science assumes natural processes and strives to learn about and discover more about natural processes, the question is complex because of the state of the research into the origins of life. Add to that opposition by religious groups which claim that life sprung out of the command of a supernatural entity, and you have difficulty getting people to research it.
However, what I am trying to say is that even if a system of random chaotic chemical reactions that occur for a long time period, when observed by “inside the system” reactions, they can be perceived in a way that resembles our own perspective of what is life…..and I explained why this happens. But aren’t we a sum of reactions inside the whole system of reactions that compose life after all? Thus not only life can have no meaning, but it actually cannot even exist as a distinct entity. It can as well be our own specific perspective of some random chemical reactions.
|
Not sure what you are getting at here. Without the correct environment, the random chemical reactions would not be sustainable. I think the thing I am struggling with here is the sustainability of those chemical reactions. Especially with more complex creatures. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2014 : 14:15:09 [Permalink]
|
"Life" is just a human-made concept. It's all just chemistry with varying degrees of complexity.
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2014 : 18:10:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
"Life" is just a human-made concept. It's all just chemistry with varying degrees of complexity.
|
I like that.
Made me think of Charlie Brown. I threw this together for fun...
 |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
| Edited by - Randy on 07/25/2014 18:11:36 |
|
|
|
will mcnoon
New Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2014 : 02:31:29 [Permalink]
|
| Look I'm so greatful for all you scincetific nerds but has anyone asked I a thinking person am GREATER than the impersonal universe that you say created me pure chance because I can think and IT can't. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2014 : 09:47:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by will mcnoon
Look I'm so greatful for all you scincetific nerds but has anyone asked I a thinking person am GREATER than the impersonal universe that you say created me pure chance because I can think and IT can't. |
Ok, let me see if I can understand you here:
Please correct me if I am wrong; you believe that:
1) you are a thinking person;
2) the universe is impersonal;
3) the universe lacks the capacity to think;
4) something that can think is greater than something that cannot;
5) we, on this forum, are saying the universe created you;
6) we, on this forum, are saying this creation occurred by "pure chance;"
7) it is somehow important for somebody to ask you about this; and,
8) by virtue of 1), 3), and 4), you are "GREATER" than the universe.
Do you have any evidence for these assertions? Specifically 2), 3), 4), and 6).
I will accept 1) and 5) without evidence, though the word "created" is somewhat loaded. If you can demonstrate, with reason and evidence, 3) and 4), I would be willing to discuss your conclusion 8). Keep in mind that your claim is analogous to saying that one grain of sand is greater than the beach. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2014 : 09:54:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Ok, let me see if I can understand you here:
Please correct me if I am wrong; you believe that:
.
.
.
5) we, on this forum, are saying the universe created you;
6) we, on this forum, are saying this creation occurred by "pure chance;"
7) it is somehow important for somebody to ask you about this; and,
.
.
.
|
Why does it matter for somebody to ask you about anything?
I find it interesting that you want to use the term "create," which implies a deliberate, or perhaps directed or guided, process along with the term "pure chance," which of course negates the implication of the first. Which one do you think we are saying?
In truth it is neither; rather, you could consider the events leading to your existence as a series of events without cause or direction, but still subject to specific rules. This means you were not created, and that is was not pure chance or random. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2014 : 09:57:41 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and welcome back will mcnoon/darwin alogos. Long time no see!
edited for formatting - B10 |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 07/27/2014 09:58:38 |
|
|
|
minass
New Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2014 : 05:54:39 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer:
Complex systems of random reactions would not be able to sustain themselves, as any complex living creature cannot live forever. However, in a growing system of random reactions:
a) There will always be systems of reactions.
b) Those reactions most frequently displayed would be those that repeat themselves and happen in a somewhat cyclical manner (reproduction?). This will prevent them from leading to a dead end and thus, they will prevent them from dissapearrance.
c) Those reactions with specific survival properties over others would eventually prevail exactly because of these capacities. After all, isn't the ability of a living creature to sustain themselves a basic property of what we call life?
d) A cyclical pattern of random reactions has nothing to do with individual organisms. They refer mostly on broader living systems, whatever that might mean. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
origin of life
