On Aug 21, 4:57 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hmm... This is a point where I disagree with you Brent. Life is a fake > concept, I agree.
It's only 3-p fake. If it were truly fake we could not even have the concept that there were anything at all like 'life' or 'living' to consider fake or not. The concept that life is a fake concept is a fake concept. >Its definition can only be conventional, at least > for a mechanist. It is 3-p reproduction, basically. I consider > cigarettes to be alive, with a very complex reproduction cycle > including transformation of the human brain. That's why the mechanist position is critically flawed as a cosmological-ontological TOE. It amputates the 1p definition of life - which only marginally has to do with reproduction (I don't have kids, so I'm disqualified from being 3-p 'alive'.) Life is about feeling like you want to avoid dying, and that feeling is SIGNIFICANT. It's also about flourishing in whatever way you can - to feel like you are thriving. I would go so far as to say that all organisms experience this and that no inorganic materials experience this. That's not to say that inorganic materials experience nothing, I would hazard to guess that there is a bit of a blurred line with things like crystal growth and virus transmission where the degree of sensorimotive articulation approaches that of organic life - but my sense is that it is likely more sterile and mathematical. More of a monotonous drive in the sense of playing Solitaire or a turn based computer game or weaving an endless patterned rug. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.