Life is defined as....

Originally posted by ImaFungi

fear mongering if ive ever heard it,,, maybe we should all pray for the universe,, where would it be without us,, we gotta save it its gonna die... we talk about billions of years like its nothing,, we have a hard time holding on for dear life for 80 swings around the sun,, and that year is the base measure for all of our time and distance...

And here I've been holding on for just 80 swigs around the sun.

I must have missed the train.

Ribbit

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So the key here is that it has order and it fights entropy (by creating more order via repair, reproduction, or just plain conscious thought and work).

I'm going with this definition. The only thing I would add is that holon identity is what's being preserved by that which is "alive". And replication-procreation is how it preserves a logically acceptable % representation of that holon identity within the physically separate holon identity proxy that results from the successfully completed replication-procreation process. Identity is the one key to physical existence, and unless you approach all physical existence at this primordial level, you really can't unify all forms of physical existence at the imperative driver level - which is actually the point of this thread.

Life is the term we use to define physical existence that has achieved the capacity to migrate its own holon identity - to varying degrees depending on the survival strategy (either replication or procreation) that's been developed - into a new physical whole, thereby extending the length of time that the specific holon identity will logically exist (given the likely span of physical existence that's already been established for that specific identified holon). Replication extends a greater % of the original holon identity, but procreation serves the identified holon that is more sophisticated and consists of more layers of assembly and sub-assembly, by introducing additional potential for structural improvements (and added unique holon lifespan as a result) as well as simply progressing the specific holon identity in the same manner that replication does.

When realizing that corporeal existence is actually nothing more than matrixed structures of concurrent and consecutive event trajectories that have established survival associations (thereby each greatly extending their own identity survival as identified components within much larger holon trajectories) then the concept of pushing the epitome linear trajectory identity (the actual lifespan of the identified existential whole itself) forward as a component holon within the even larger event trajectory of an entire species (a much larger linear trajectory whole that can exist for thousands of years) makes brilliant survival sense. In this manner, the true existential identity becomes the species itself and not just the individual organism that lives, procreates (or replicates), and then dies once it's accomplished its part in the overall survival process.

This is the purpose of the biological imperative. Life is the survival strategy of what I call The Procreative Circumstantial corporeal existential expression (or TPC). This planet's version of TPC is trees, grass, flowers, bacteria, and whatever else pushes its own existential identity forward either by replication or DNA procreation. Of course, these simple forms of life haven't got brains, and in my own research, I make that aspect a delineation marker as I move forward and identify each form of progressive development within the corporeal realm.

I love topics like this.

Let me ask you this...

If you do not know what life means, or what life is, how can you know you have it?

Dogs are alive, but do you think they know what life is or means?

No they know eat, sleep, poo, fetch, sit, protect.

However humans have an uncanny ability to define things.

We cannot define life however, maybe life is simply finding the definition, in the mean time toning the soul.

Originally posted by sykonot
We cannot define life however,

We? Speak for yourself. I just did define it, and I even went so far as to acknowledge that carbon-based life probably isn't the only form of life that exists by focusing on the pre-elemental imperative (survival) drivers involved and how the strategy we refer to as "life" satisfies those drivers.

This is what pisses me off about this forum and literally every forum like it. It's as if no one here has the intellectual capacity to discern between a carefully considered, plausible notion and the sort of lazy, neo-philosophical ramblings that generally litter these places from day to day. Crap like "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" being used to prove that the fact of infinite existence is axiomatic, and the blithe statement "Perception is Reality" as a responsible explanation for claiming that reality and time and a whole host of other existential anchors don't really exist has reduced any serious attempt to present breakthrough thought anywhere on this sort of Internet communication platform to a point of being completely useless - thereby making the entire Internet platform itself worthless for anything other than entertainment and trivial expression.

No TPTB suppression will ever be needed to keep real change from ever happening. The thick layers of bland assertions will always bury any and every attempt to break through with whatever information it might've taken to awaken what's left of the human race to a way out of the mess we've all created here.

LMAO Jeez guy

You surely don't come off as the calm gentleman in your avatar, is that you displaying your perceived ego?

Hmmm

Listen I wasn't bashing you.

To be honest I don't listen to anyone's KNOWLEDGE and PERSONAL DEFINITIONS of Life.

The fact is Life is merely us trying to discern between basic existence, like animals, plants, elements, and consciousness, which is where we say to ourselves, wait a minute I AM HERE!

Then we question why? How? When? Who?

Why do we ask ourselves? Why do we think overly complicated thoughts that make sense but only to the point that the words defined mean something within perception. A thought.

Life is thought.

Let me ask you this? Were you here millions of years ago or am dead and are in some sort of after life?

Then you know nothing more than anyone else.

GOOWD DAY SIR!!! lol


and btw your God complex is showing.

I started out seeing what was going on in life but decided to take a holiday and work and play blindly for 30 years. Boy did things get more messed up in that thirty years. I have now opened my eyes to see reality but this reality sucks. My question is how do I get blind again?

reply to post by rickymouse


move to a community away from modern civilization, northern michigan should do, dont go on the internet or watch tv, have a job, some friends, and some hobbies,, and you will be blind, blissful, and free.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Or I could just start a Facebook account and get engrossed in BS like most everyone does around here. Farmers have always had to put up with a lot of BS and most of it didn't come from cows.

Originally posted by sykonot

Let me ask you this? Were you here millions of years ago or am dead and are in some sort of after life?

Then you know nothing more than anyone else.

You don't need to have been here millions of years ago to know exactly what I just described to you. The logical structure is clear and you can examine it if you just know how to examine it. Just because you haven't got the capacity to do so does mean that I don't have that capacity. And the truth is that I do know more than most others about this specific subject.

In fact, I have yet to find anyone who's even doing the specific research that I've been engaged in for years now. I described my approach in my last post, and if you expend the time and effort in that direction, you can learn what I learned too. It's not rocket science. It's extremely simple and primitive. It still amazes me that no one else has done any work in this field to date, but the indication are clear that no one else has.

reply to post by NorEaster


Before i discuss your outstanding post, i need you to clarify the term "holon identity" so that i can place context to it as your are using it.

Life is a waste of time. A futile struggle. Pointless misery.

reply to post by MrUncreated


without it, youd never know.

reply to post by MrUncreated


All things give rise to something else. Nothing happens without cause. Some say that is reason enough.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Before i discuss your outstanding post, i need you to clarify the term "holon identity" so that i can place context to it as your are using it.

The identity of a definable holon. Each cell in your body is a holon within the holon that is your entire body. A holon is an identified whole that can be either seen as unique or as part of an assembly of other holons that combines to form a larger holon (definable whole). The specific identity of each holon within any assemblage of holons is the "holon identity".

en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy) explains where the term originated, and how it can be used as a conceptual identifier.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Chaos mostly happens without an identifiable cause but it still really does have a cause sometime in history.

reply to post by NorEaster


That helped me understand it, I thought I knew what you were saying but wasn't sure. You have to learn to translate your learned knowledge into laymans terms. That's the next step. I notice that you know many words and concepts extremely well in your posts but go over others heads easily with things. Please understand that some of us are tired of looking up definitions of scientific words. I don't like getting translations by people who think they know what a researcher says either. We have been conditioned to think big words are a sign of intelligence. They are a clue many times but these words have also been used extensively by deceivers.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by NorEaster

 

That helped me understand it, I thought I knew what you were saying but wasn't sure. You have to learn to translate your learned knowledge into laymans terms. That's the next step. I notice that you know many words and concepts extremely well in your posts but go over others heads easily with things. Please understand that some of us are tired of looking up definitions of scientific words. I don't like getting translations by people who think they know what a researcher says either. We have been conditioned to think big words are a sign of intelligence. They are a clue many times but these words have also been used extensively by deceivers.

I guess I'm not exactly sure what you're saying now. I actually do work really hard to be really precise in my statements, since it's usually semantics that confuse people when detailing a complicated premise. The term "holon" has been pretty well established within the community of people who dwell on issues of reality and physical existence. I generally use it to introduce it to people who may not be familiar with it as a term because it works so well to describe exactly (and only) what it describes, and prevents semantics issues in future exchanges. I will admit that sometimes my intense focus on precision does make for difficult sentence structure, but I'm tired of being forced to correct miss-translations that are due to word usage complications and phraseology vagueness. The American mutt version of the English language is really vulnerable to that sort of thing.

The other issue that I run into is that many of these concepts and notions are not concepts and notions that I acquired from other sources. Many of these ideas are originally my own, and they are just different enough from other, more established notions to warrant that difference to be highlighted in specific contextual applications. Due to this, it ends up being my responsibility to ensure that there is no ambiguity whatsoever between what I mean to say and what someone might infer from what I did say. Kind of like how a lawyer prepares a legal document to ensure that there are no legal loopholes contained within the document or that can be inferred as a result of what language is contained within the document.

Most people don't consider how much confusion has been created in this field of examination by inaccurately structured statements. Hell, there are physicists who claim that Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics can be used to prove the logically impossible notion of infinite physical existence. If physicists can get confused by something as obviously improperly derived as that, then what chance does the average person have? It may sound as if I'm trying to be complicated in my posts, but this is complicated stuff. I'm just trying to be accurate.

reply to post by NorEaster


I think as it pertains to the statement about Newton you made, that is more people hanging up on the illusions created by trying to express in words something so abstract rather than understanding the abstract thought that is being described

My teenage son does that a lot.

reply to post by NorEaster


There is much to comment on in this post. For this reply I am going to focus on your statements surrounding the fact that members of a species are intertwined into a larger organism (or, as i see it, members of this planet as well). It would support the "100 monkey theory", for sure.

In "The Mysteries" (the ancient esoteric "religions"), a common concept is to describe you as "1". 1 also represents the male aspect of God. Since the axiom of "As above, so below" is held sacred, it is natural that God and man are, numerically, the same (on a side note, man is also "5", when numerically placed in the same string context as God, for the obvious reasons identified by Leonardo DaVinci). Anyway, the male God is 1 (the monad), and cannot exist alone as there is nothing that can verify its existence Therefore, there must be "another", or 2. 2 is the female aspect, and together they are the "duad". Destructive and Creative aspects, which together yield the Triad ("Holy Trinity" in the Christian Mysteries).

My point here is, if the axiom of "as above, so below" holds true (which is my own personal belief), then it would make sense that all individuals of a system are completely interrelated. I am "self", everyone else is "other". I am, in this realm, a collection of experiences guiding electrochemical processes. If i am essentially a collection of experiences, then you are also me as you are now part of my experiences.

Seems kind of kooky. I understand. However, it is something i wholly believe to be a truthful and accurate representation of the truth.