The problem here is that I don't enjoy thinking this way;
However, I'd like to point out that we are no different from a rock, ecosystem, or orbiting Sun. How can we know this to be true?
At the most fundamental levels of the universe, there exists basic building blocks which has constructed our reality
All objects are constructed of strings.
Strings are either alive or dead (according to your perception).
All objects are alive or/and dead.
I contend that any labeling of matter to be alive or dead simply because of its atomic make up is arbitrary (IE a cell, plant, 'organic' atom).
It is a very interesting idea Riordan. While I agree that fundamentally we are all made out of the same stuff,
I would disagree with this. There is something about life that presents a stark contrast with non-life. If a rock were placed in the far depths of space, it would remain a rock. Put a blue whale in the the far depths of space, it soon stops being a blue whale. You do not see isolated life, but you see isolated non-life. Life is a unique system of the universe.
Really? Care to share? Support your assertion?
Are you referring to the 'strings' you mention below?
Nah... rubber bands! Wait, Lego blocks!! Oh well, we can let it be strings if you like. Or angel sweat?
All quite unsupported and unsupportable assertions on your part.
'Strings' are someone's unsupported and unevidenced theory, and your "alive or dead" dichotomy allowes no in-between states why? Biology does!
The foundation upon which you build your theory is shaky at best, unsupported logically and evidentially.
'Atoms' are neither 'organic' or 'inorganic'. A pile of sodium atoms is a reactive metal that bursts into explosive flame (massive exothermic reaction) upon contact with water, yet your lymphatic fluid, tears, sweat... is loaded with sodium atoms in the sodium chloride mix commonly called salt.
Usually, 'motion' of some sort is required in any definition of 'life'; like reproduction (why the masturdon died off so quickly! *__- ), or growth, or something along those lines. There is no one definitive definition of 'life'.
Learning some science will aid you in your attempt to use it in a philosophical discussion. Or at least research the bit of science that you want to present; understand it, be able to support it with evidence or logic or humor or poetry or something...
So what is life? do you think we could reproduce this life?do you think it is a formula of chance or design? We see none life in every cranny of the universe but never life, so it must be more than just dead.
The problem I have here is the use of the word "just". Life is another system in the universe. But is it just another system?
I mean -
I understand the idea of life as a physical system.
But why is it illusory?
A life dies. A plant dies. One system to another. One thing to another.
The difference between life and death is real. If it is not, I would like to know. It would mean I wouldn't have to bother watering my plants.
What is the response to this? Who cares about the life of plants? I do.
life is just system,tell me a similar system?
A robotic system is the same as life..Can it reproduce itself? is it self sustaining? can it modify itself under varying conditions?can it repair itself? is it aware of it existance? I dont think your robot can cry let alone imagine what life is..Sorry but you have not considered your statement for any length of time.
Those things can be replicated and are not impossibilities. All of the things you mention are physical entities because they exist as physicality in our brain. The qualities you are mentioning simply suggest that it has different qualities.
You are guilty of looking at life through the eyes of a human (understandably). Watch what happens when you change the definition of life from a human centrist world to an orbital system.
Your qualities for 'life' are very arbitrary.
And please don't do yourself a disservice by saying I haven't thought about this at considerable length.
These things can be replicated , can you give me examples?Whats this orbital system can you explain?Im not doing myself a disservice by saying you have not consider your reply , im making an observation you need to answer.