: : : We view everything only in the human context, limited. : : : How do we define life, E.T. and non E.T.? Can we say : : : that planets, stars, atoms, protons, neutrinos everything : : : big and small can be viewed as a life form? What constituits : : : life??

: : : Tön : : :

: : my idea of, "what constitutes life"...

: : The opposite of entropy. Increasing complexity for : : the purpose of itself.

: : tell me what force is it in nature that "responds" : : to this coding of information? Why does life spring : : about merely by the presence of the correct arrangement : : of protien chains?

: : this question ponders in the minds of many evolutionists...

: : many respond in stating that this "force of nature" : : is just another natural law that we have not uncovered...

: : my rebuttal:

: : By what presupposition are you supposing a force of : : nature? Why is it this life giving force is even present : : in nature? It seems uncanny that such a beautifull : : and amazing "force" would constitute itself in bringing : : forth the astounding intricacies of life... aside : : from chance...

: : probability comes about only because there is the : : presence of this "life giving force"... Life would : : not exist merely on the arrangement of protien chains. : : Life requires the "decoder" of information as well.

: : I sometimes question that the "decoder" of life is by : : far more astounding than the information in presence; albeit : : the information encoded is indisputably amazing.

: : I won't bother announcing why or how I believe I am : : here. I'm sure you have pondered this same question. : : I pray that you come to the understanding of the : : one and true God. Its awesome to be a Christian. : : I'm not ashamed whatsoever. What joy there is in life! :)

: : Godbless...

: _____________________

: Agreed, agreed.

: The question is directed more to perception and : understanding of life. We obviously justify : logic and understanding in the most human way. : Indeed, it is somewhat limited but not at all : a false way.

: The question was on life on other planets. : Life as we define in earth terms have the : constraints of a structure, logic...again, : only as we know it. To me, life means the : opposite of NO life. I believe that the : universe itself is a living entity. We are : not seperated nor isolated from it.

: To question, is there life on other planets : seems to me is unquestionable. Since the : universe is life and therefore planets are living.

: I view life and the universe as a whole and : not dualistically. Do you see physical and : metaphysical as two seperate entities, at best : as cause and effect? This is a very European : philosophy and dominates western science and : religion as we know it.

: Decoding ?? Why? Trying to make sense of life : by breaking them apart into convenient categories, : labels, numbers, and hierarchies that merely : pacify our curiosity and insecurities.

: Indeed, life is wonderful. The whole lot of it! : I'm Taoist...and God is great.

: Tön

I would disagree with your view regarding the universe as a whole is a living entity.

I would define life a bit more scrupulously. To state that planets, stars, or the entire universe is 'alive' would really cause a problem as to how we now define life...

I would define life as follows. I believe that any life form has a 'centeredness' that consciously or unconsciously strives to keep itself from harm and to promote itself in reproducing after its kind.

A rock or substance, to my knowledge, does not possess this 'centeredness'.

I think life is how you define it. Some, who are from the pantheistic world view would state that all of life is god and god is all of life... I disagree.

I believe the creator is separated by his creation and is neither bound by his creation, nor manipulated by it.

I think creation and life reveals God's nature, but I strictly do not believe that god is nature.

: Decoding ?? Why? Trying to make sense of life : by breaking them apart into convenient categories, : labels, numbers, and hierarchies that merely : pacify our curiosity and insecurities.

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood where I was going with that. I have no problems with observing life or labeling it ect. My point was the following:

It seems as though living life needs not only DNA/RNA as its genetic coding, but also a 'decoder' to interprete what is coded.

It is somewhat synonomous with this example.

Take a cd. a music or software one, doesn't matter. That cd, by itself is just information. It does nothing or cannot do anything by itself. However, put that music cd into something that was designed to decode it and what happens? Music! Same with software which is in turn read by hardware.

DNA genetic coding needs a decoder, period. :) that was my point.

I am merely trying to stand outside of life and look in from a purely objective standpoint.

My point that I was trying to make was to state that, life as I see it (from an objective standpoint) consists of matter that is strictly organized and follows a pattern of intrinsic design. Not random unassisted design.

It seems that you have encompassed all of matter as life. I respect that, however I have to question why.

How and why did pure matter or chemistry impose to convince your mind that it in itself is life?

Matter has no characteristics that would, upon discovering, strike one as life. (when in comparing itself in context with life as we observe it on earth.) Matter is matter. It is merely the opposite of space. It does not reproduce, defend its existance, or consume to stay alive.

• Re: "What constitues life..." - Tön/">Tön - December 30, 1998 - 01:42 UTC
  • Re: "What constitues life..." - nåte - January 12, 1999 - 17:31 UTC
    • Re: "What constitues life..." - Tön - January 18, 1999 - 23:01 UTC