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.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to