A moment in space and time has no meaning unless experienced by an
observer whose sensible and rational constitution is such that it has
an experience similar to how we understand a moment in space and time.

This thus directly relates to a type of conscioussness as we know it
to which we ascribe the definition "life".

It is possible outside the realm of our sensibility (intuitions) and
understanding (processing of intuitions) that there may be a
conscioussness that experience simultaneousness and causal progression
(what we would call time) in a vastly different way unimaginable to
our restricted constitution.

That is why I laugh at postivists who positively exclude the
possibility of anything existing outside of our conscioussness
potential. A type of irrational reaction to the religious free-for-all
and creating the anti-thesis in a type of intellectual ultra-
restrictive dogmatism.

Cheers
Sam


On Jan 10, 11:32 am, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 epistemology@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- 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 epistemology@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.

Reply via email to