That takes us back to my simple definition of life---as "A MOMENT IN SPACE AND TIME". Which is obviously an abstraction from beingness--but since beingness can not be defined nor empirically accounted for except (metaphysically) by the conscious mind of the observer--it is simply a moment.
On 1/9/11, aM21 <amich...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I would have to simply say. We can not say what life is. With all the > unknown in the universe and even on earth one must accept the pure and > simple fact that we do not know. We do not know if the universe is > finite or infinite. We do not know how life came to be or where the > "first cell" came from in cell theory. We do not know the answers to > these questions. However, this does not mean we can not know or learn > the answers to these questions but for now I think people just must be > content with not knowing > > On Dec 28 2010, 2:01 pm, sasam <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote: >> Conceded that the word “life” as a concept is an abstraction and a >> plethora of meanings can be read into it. I should clarify that I read >> into the original question life with a specific meaning, namely as a >> physically sensible property of “something that lives”, which I sense >> the original poster may also have meant. The characteristics of this >> property are similar to the point of speaking of “life” in a universal >> sense. >> >> I suspect that the historical philosophical treatment of the question >> of (the property of) life is not simple and far from satisfying, >> putting this question on par with “freedom” – that is – outside the >> empirical realm. We can experience things having life (or lack of) and >> think of a life giving source, but never prove it (due to our rational >> and sensible constitution). We can experience and define life, but we >> can never identify that point where a chemical (or otherwise) >> construction “decides” to self preserve – thus obtaining a basic will >> of it’s own. We can experience and categorize the effects of this >> will, but we can never “know” what this “will” really is in itself and >> how it came into existence. We can ask questions relating to the >> natural cause of life in the first place, but never expect to receive >> a satisfying answer. >> >> I agree that "absolute" is not the right word to use for the idea that >> the way we think about living things is either on or off. Once off it >> can never turn on again - I suppose due to the principles of evolution >> of life (or rather organisms). >> >> Sam >> >> On Dec 27, 12:13 pm, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > Life always struck me as having an absolute property. A thing is >> > > either alive of not alive – there is no gradual progression in- >> > > between. >> >> > What is striking you here above is nothing else that a simple property >> > of any discreet chain/group, where there is nothing in between its >> > elements (actually the instance in between is not "nothing", but >> > "null") >> > For instance integers, ASCII, or the apples in that basket, if you >> > simplify enough, you get just one concept which is a discreet group. >> >> > So is not worth to say it so complicated as "the absolute property of >> > life", which besides is not as simple as you stated, why do you think >> > a "thing is either alive or not alive" ?, and why do you believe that >> > the answer has anything to do with Life. >> >> > When you say Life is a concept, and not a matter of words or >> > abstractions, what does that suppose to mean, will you describe a >> > concept which is not an abstraction. >> >> > > My personal inclination is towards the possibility of an unknowable >> > > origin and sustaining force of life itself. This force which keeps the >> > > whole from disintegrating into its constituent parts. It is >> > > “unknowable” in the sense that our reasoning faculties are part and >> > > parcel of “our being alive” and we can not objectively stand back to >> > > sufficiently examine the subject at hand. >> >> > > I would thus discard the phrases “meaningless” and “in language only” >> > > for the concept of “life” used by some responders while retaining the >> > > phrase “eluding definition” when such a definition is sought for the >> > > concept of “life” in general. We can at most define “life” for very >> > > specific applications as some responders have emphasized. >> >> > > On Dec 24, 12:11 pm, Awori <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > In heated discourse about the meaning of nature---I was one time >> > > > asked >> > > > to define life. This is what I said: "Life is a moment in space and >> > > > time". To my disappointment--I got no reaction from the group. Is it >> > > > because I was absurdly wrong? I have continued to use this response >> > > > as >> > > > my standard explanation of what life is. Has anyone in out there >> > > > given >> > > > this age old subject a better look? >> >> > > > AA- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- nubiaafrika.blogspot.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
