Life is the emergence of complex but functional behaviour from a large collection of simpler interacting parts.
I find every other definition of life being too narrow. The categories we use to define what is alive and what isn’t don’t translate well beyond our own scale.
Now you have the problem that you need to define "complex" and "functional".
And by your definition, a single cell organism wouldn't be life, as it is just one of the "simpler interacting parts".
Even an early multi-cellular organism still wouldn't be life as it's behaviour would hardly be complex.
And all of nature is emergent. Been reading and building around this concept. Complexity is dynamic and requires complex solutions.
For life, I've stopped thinking in terms of objects and now think in terms of a one singular substance. Now, following along Heraclitus, Spinoza, Bergson, Whitehead and Deleuze, i think about just flux and processes interacting at differing speeds and intensities. One might call that panpsychism (consciousness everywhere at all scales), I think about it more as pansemiosis (meaning everywhere at all scales)
Rocks are alive in the same sense that organisms are alive, the difference is in temporal scale. Emergence doesn't happen through "axioms" or rules, it happens at the boundary between differing fluxes that must encounter another. The coastline "emerges" through land and sea slamming into together, just as mountains are formed from earth slamming into itself.
The tensions I feel from interacting with people and ideas I may not agree with. It is the forcing of myself to sit with the ideas, not trying to dominate or run away, that I become a better person.
According to my Bio textbook, which I bought used for $3.50 ("tree fiddy" fo realises), life is currently defined by 7 characteristics.
- cellular organization (seems debatable IMO)
- ordered complexity
- sensitivity
- growth and reproduction
- energy utilization
- homeostasis
- evolutionary adaptation (also IMO seems debatable, but not for the creationist reasons)
I think the most valuable lesson here is that used textbooks can be cheap.
And if you had picked philosophy books you would see life be defined differently. I guess my point is that all those categories are too narrow.
I read philosophy books every day, and often write my thoughts about it here. Very few people ever respond. I read, summarized, and uploaded to nostr (for as long as relays keep it) the entire book of the Dao de Jing. I'm currently reading Zhuangzi and the "Asclepius, Perfect Discourse of Hermes Trismegistus" - though my focus is on Zhuangzi right now. If you're into philosophy, you're welcome to tell me what you think. Anyone is. Follow #philosophy and #gnostr for my philosophical notes and musings.
Followed. Also #philosophy . What is #gnostr?
Idk what it originally was - it was used for something like 2 years before I started using it, but hadn't seen any new posts for a couple years. But I use it for anything I'd categorize as gnosis related, as in gnostic spirituality. I suspect that's why the Christians hate me, but I'm not changing myself for them.
Well I just noticed nostr:nprofile1qqsd6ejdteqpvse63ntf7qz6u9yqspp4z7ymt8094urzwm0x2ceaxxgpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumrpdejz7qg3waehxw309ahx7um5wgh8w6twv5hszxmhwden5te0w35x2en0wfjhxapwdehhxarjxyhxxmmd9uyn3x3h's note in #gnostr and I think I know the answer now. Git nostr. If they want their tag back, I'll just stop polluting it. I thought it was kinda clever though...
Nope. I think your use is much more correct even if I am generally not a fan of gnosis.
