The definition of life is subjective

The other day a friend of mine asked me, "Why do all living things WANT to live... why do the mothers protect their young?"

My response was this. "The living organisms you see around you today are the results of billions of trial and errors. Trial and error circumstances that range from something as minute as the bonding of chemicals to something as complicated as the birth process of a human baby. Somewhere along the way there were traits that remained during this evolution of life. These traits were the building blocks of what we are composed of today. For example, if a mother gives birth to two and one has a strong drive to survive while the other a weak drive, the one with the weak drive will be more likely to die and fail to reproduce. That example can be applied all the way down to single cell organisms."

I continued, "Some might say that this places a trivial regard for life as we know it now, if you believe that all we are is the end result of such random processes. But that's not the case at all. In fact I believe it is the opposite."

"Our definition of life," I said, "is rather primitive and accute. You think the blue prints for life is set in DNA or RNA? No, the true location that all life patterns will follow is set in matter itself. You see, if you were to erradicate all life as you know it you would say that there is no chance for life to reform. But, that's the beauty of the universe; there is a chance- and we are the proof."

"Within the boundaries of our universe lies a specific recipe for life. There is a reason why the same basic 3 chemical compunds that form us is the same 3 that is most abundant in the universe. These atoms were formed by one dimensional strings vibrating at a specific frequency producing a perfect song heard in the third dimension."

"This recipe also has a specific temperature. Our universe is going through a cooling stage. And once it reaches a certain point there will be not enough heat to sustain life as we know it."

I told him that the point is life is all around us. Life is in the gasses of the sun, to the dirt in the ground. That is what life looks like when it doesn't want to become a sentient being, but it is life all the same because it is capable of producing sentient beings from itself.

My friend asked me, "So if the sun is alive then why doesn't it have consciousness?"

"But it does!" I replied.

"Consciousness begins with atoms. It is the process of quantum zero point energy that forms consciousness. In an advanced brain such as ours consciousness is formed through a series of waves. These waves consist of about 80 single moments of bursts of consciousness each second. In a chaotic storm of energy, such as a star, there is no neural network and responsive muscles. This means the atoms of the star will never have a consciousness that remotely rivals ours, but it is there."

"That's probably enough for the star however. Because the instant a photon leaves the star, it will land within the eye of a gazing human because photons travel at the speed of light and therefore they do not eperience time. And in that moment all of the stars of heaven would have sent a photon into the eyes of him. His brain would process the information giving consciousness of the entire universe that rides upon the single moment."

My friend looked up at the stars and smiled.

Of course it is. As with all other human terms, it is a subjective definition based on agreement between several parties.

It is not like there was a stone tablet given down from the sky that stated "This is the definition of life"..

Fun fact: there is no generally accepted definition of life.

I thought Mrs Gren determined whether something was alive or not?

i.e if something doesn't move, reproduce, sense, grow, respire, excrete and (extract) nutrition, it's not alive?

reply to post by Prezbo369


That would be what I call advanced architectural life. I imagine those types of life forms as vines growing up the side of a house reaching for the sunlight. The sunlight is higher levels of consciousness. My point is life will find away to achieve it, not strictly because it is able to reproduce or digest food or react to its environment, but because the possibility lies within the mathematical structure of the atoms themselves.

reply to post by Dynamike


The definition of life is subjective...
then in order to find something more concrete and less confusing...

lets just ask a super computer.

reply to post by Dynamike


"But it does!" I replied.


I think your friend is worse off after listening to you...


But that's just my opinion.


Thanks for the OP.

I agree with the assertion that the definition of life being subjective to every different individual. Our DNA holds a lot in regard to keeping with procreating as a species, but not everyone's reason for wanting to live is the same. Becoming a dad for the first time gave my life new meaning. It gave me a whole new reason to want to keep trudging on through this nasty, ugly world we all live in.

reply to post by Dynamike


If EVERYONE in life is having a "subjective experience," then it could also be argued that NO ONE in life is having a subjective experience, but...experience the ILLUSION of life, subjectively. (I hope that made sense.)

If one is simply a "cog in the machine," the best way to give them the illusion that they are free is by providing them the illusion of subjectivity.

Enjoy...

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Fun fact: there is no generally accepted definition of life.

Sure there is. But it depends upon the agenda of the definer. Pro-abortionists say life begins at some arbitrary point whereby a mass of tissue is able to live outside the womb of its host. Pro-lifers say it begins at conception. Both have a political and social agenda to require that people believe one definition or the other.

/TOA