Life or to experience the phenomenon of living is a subjective construct--made up by an observer. The phenomenon of life does not, (just like an electron)--exist a physical entity but as an abstraction of the mind of the observer.
n Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:14 PM, sasam <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote: > 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. > > -- 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.
