There is no such thing as life...

[BrianEtrius]

....because there is no such thing as death.

Time to go into philosophy kids!

What is death? Death is considered the end of life, that's it. End of story. But does it actually happen? How do we know death is there? A person may be dead, but we can't be sure. Besides, who has come back from being dead to prove death exists? (Besides, Jesus and other religious figures, history has the tendency to change the facts a bit)

Since we think so much with our minds, if our minds simply "die" do they disappear? What happens to them? We cannot prove anything.

So if we can't prove death, how can we prove life exists? Life is the opposite of death, so we can't prove it either.

So what should be call this state of mind where we are active?

[Al6200]

It's quite impossible to prove a negative, no matter what that negative is.

[reviewer-general]

Semantics.

life
-noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

death
-noun
1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.

So, even though we don't know precisely what being dead entails (afterlife, spirit, etc.), we can still have a conceptual grasp on the subject enough to discern the state from life (see definition above).

You don't need to be able to describe and understand every nuance of a word in order to be able to define and use it.

Think of all the words used to describe emotion. Can you tell me what the state of being "happy" is? I imagine not very well. But does this mean that happiness does not exist? Of course not.

;

[Another-User]

While you are babbling about circular logic philosphy, I'll be using scientific definitions to disprove you. Here are the qualifications for life, copy pasted from wikipedia.
Homeostasis:
Organization:
Metabolism:
Growth:
Adaptation:
Response to stimuli:
Reproduction:
Generally is most of the members of a species possess most of these qualities, they are alive. For a living human, I'll be checking off the list.

Homeostasis: Our body attempts to maintain comfortable conditions, so yes.
Organization: The body of a human is quite organized! Yes.
Metabolism: We need to eat to have energy, another yes.
Growth: The body is always prepared to grow, it mught not always be upwards though. =P
Adaptation: Sure, just at a fairly low rate.
Response to stimuli: Indeed we do.
Reproduction: Most members can. =D
Now let's compare that list to a dead person.

Homeostasis: The body can no longer maintain itself, as it is dead.
Organization: Sure, the cells are still kinda organized for a bit after death.
Metabolism: Nope.
Growth: Not anymore beyond bloating is body is throw in water.
Adaptation: Not a chance.
Response to stimuli: Besides zombies, nope.
Reproduction: Hopefully not. O.o

7/7 qualities over 1/7 means humans can most certainly be dead or alive.

[BrianEtrius]

At 2/15/09 07:21 PM, Another-User wrote: While you are babbling about circular logic philosphy, I'll be using scientific definitions to disprove you. Here are the qualifications for life, copy pasted from wikipedia.

Stop.

Stop right there.

Wikipedia =/= valid source.

And the point of this thread is philosophy, not science.

Also, that may be fun and dandy, but hey, it could be something made up. Our mind has nothing to do with the current living conditions of our body.

[stafffighter]

At 2/15/09 07:25 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
Also, that may be fun and dandy, but hey, it could be something made up. Our mind has nothing to do with the current living conditions of our body.

Now you're just spitting in the eye of science. Apart from it's obviose job of regulating our bodily functions the mind has been able to show signifigant influences on how our bodies work from day to day.
As for the question of the topic, it's ridiculous to view life merely as a companion peice to death. Life is life. It's what 's going on sand what you expereince. Death is just the nasty bit at the end.

[KeithHybrid]

If you're breathing, your heart is beating, and your body isn't getting stiff and rotting, then you're not dead, hence, alive.

The brain, where the mind permiates from, is dependent on the body it is in to be alive so it could live too. If the body does, so does the brain and, by extention, the mind.

[wildfire4461]

The following statement is true.

The preceeding statement was false.

[dySWN]

I think, therefore I am.

Next.

[Al6200]

At 2/15/09 07:25 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

Stop.

Stop right there.

Wikipedia =/= valid source.

Dude, seriously. What a minor nitpick. You could go anywhere and get definitions of life pretty similar to his.

And the point of this thread is philosophy, not science.

Philosophy is just formal logic. And deciding that something exists because you cannot prove that it doesn't exist is quite illogical. I cannot prove to you that martians do not exist if you do not define them in a specific way. I cannot prove that there is not an invisible alien right in front of your right now.

[Dawnslayer]

Am I the only one who thinks this thread doesn't belong here?

Someone lock this, please.

[Dawnslayer]

At 2/15/09 10:28 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Am I the only one who thinks this thread doesn't belong here?

Someone lock this, please.

Crap; I just realized it was against the rules for me to say that. Sorry!

[Brick-top]

You body is made up of cells and numerous chemicals.

When the cells in your body dies, so do you. Different parts of your body will cease at different rates. However unless someone has come back to life after decomposing for a year let me know.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/15/09 09:20 PM, dySWN wrote: I think, therefore I am.

And what do you think about the existance you've percieved until now? Is breathing and thinking and feeling bringing you a value? Why?

Next.

Dot.

[RommelTJ]

When did the Politics board become the Philosophy board?

[Earfetish]

People get too caught up in 'proof'. Replace 'proof' or 'prove' with 'provide enough evidence for' and the question becomes meaningless.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 2/15/09 09:20 PM, dySWN wrote: I think, therefore I am.

Next.

I prefer "I am, therefore, I'll think."

[aviewaskewed]

At 2/15/09 07:25 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Wikipedia =/= valid source.

It can be if what it posits as fact matches up with the kind of information you'd get from other more tried and true sources. For many many things wiki doesn't really work, and if that's the only source someone will use in a debate where what is "fact" may be slightly open to interpretation, it can be used in situations like explaining definition so long as it matches up with what we tend to know to be the definitions. So in this case, I think Wiki is perfectly valid as those definitions look like what I learned in science class.

[blackattackbitch]

At 2/15/09 07:25 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 2/15/09 07:21 PM, Another-User wrote: While you are babbling about circular logic philosphy, I'll be using scientific definitions to disprove you. Here are the qualifications for life, copy pasted from wikipedia.

Stop.

Stop right there.

Wikipedia =/= valid source.

And the point of this thread is philosophy, not science.

Also, that may be fun and dandy, but hey, it could be something made up. Our mind has nothing to do with the current living conditions of our body.

But the problem is this: You're debating a word with a clear definition. When someone brings those definitions, this "philosophical" thread becomes moot because what's the point of debating something that essentially has no meaning? You'll spend most of the time debating the meaning rather than the question of whether it exists. Since it does have a meaning though, this thread becomes moot once again since it's meaning is purely scientific rather than philosophical.

And I doubt there will be many people willing to debate whether life, as you see it, exists or not.

[yinyangman]

I think if we drown into the Great Depression II, there's no such thing as life. Get me?

[MachShot]

Reminds me of a "perception" argument I had with a friend.

Like If i perceive that cute bunnies to be raining from the sky, then it's true.

Personally, I find such a philosophical mindset as silly. But that's just what I "perceive" I guess. :P

[maruspiralout]

We cant really definitely prove anything.

[EKublai]

This thread has no point and here's why.

Scientifically there is a definition for "Life"
There is also a functional definition for 'life' that is extremely similar, if a little more simplistic, to the scientific one.

Your argument does not apply the scientific definition of life (even though you seem to be arguing against it) and so you must be thinking of some other definition related to another strand of thinking. I think these are religion and philosophy and you seem to be implying that this definition applies to both. First, the argument makes the definition for the agnostic argument, and second you use it to create the old philosophical question of "what is life" and perhaps answer it.

So really you either need to be more concise as to what you are arguing against (who said that life was a real thing?) or why it applies to the scientific definition.

[EKublai]

I felt like a douche just leaving that response there so here's a follow-up

philosophically, I believe life exists because, as you said, we are all in a state of activity. However, just because you alive doesn't mean you are in a state of activity. In fact, everything is in a state of activity be it light zooming across the cosmos or volcanoes erupting. The difference I think is while everything could be considered active, I believe being alive is being in the state of activity that potentially causes unexpected change. It goes hand in hand with science and the cause and effect law. If there was nothing alive in this world, the only thing that would guide it's course through time is pure physics. A simple cause an effect relationship. Since a cause must be generated by a logically affecting effect (a ball bounces into another ball which bounces into another ball), there is a rhyme and reason. Life, on the other hand adds another kind of activity, activity that could potentially disturb the simple cause and effect relationship of the universe

For instance say I was floating in the unverse just going by the laws of physics. Then I see an asteroid coming towards me. If I decide to brace for impact, what have I done? anticipated the course of time, which doesn't make sense with logical physics. The fact that I could see the rock was a cause and the effect was my bracing, which was the cause for the rock bouncing off me slightly differently. But perhaps it wasn't the action of bracing that caused this new chain of relationships to take place. It was the fact that I was aware of my surroundings in the first place and realized I had options. You can apply that logic to any living thing, even if it doesn't have capacity to make the decision. In short, the difference is that while a rock merely acts as a reactive force of its environment, something that is living expects that something will happen. It is the creator of its own cause and effect relationship.

[Florox]

At 2/15/09 07:01 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: ....because there is no such thing as death.

Time to go into philosophy kids!

What is death? Death is considered the end of life, that's it. End of story. But does it actually happen? How do we know death is there? A person may be dead, but we can't be sure. Besides, who has come back from being dead to prove death exists? (Besides, Jesus and other religious figures, history has the tendency to change the facts a bit)

No, death is considered when the body, as a whole, stops functioning. Also, there have been people who have come back to life; I've read various cases, I'm shocked that you've never heard of any.

However, if I didn't get your point, please explain.

[wildfire4461]

At 2/18/09 05:27 PM, Florox wrote:
No, death is considered when the body, as a whole, stops functioning. Also, there have been people who have come back to life; I've read various cases, I'm shocked that you've never heard of any.

In fact back in the 1800's and earlier the're were cases of people who were found to be dead, and then buried wern't. Which led to someone getting a patent on a casket that had a mechanisim attached so if someone was buried alive, they could pull a lever or a rope in the casket which would open up a breathing pipe to the surface and raise a flag to alert someone.

[EKublai]

death is interesting because you have to ask "when does the body stop ceasing its activity?" you could say the brain controls all activity and thus after the brain stops functioning the body becomes part of the natural course of cause and effect. But perhaps on a microscopic level you need to have all the cell in teh body die individually in order to completely convert into an inanimate effect.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 2/15/09 07:01 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: ....because there is no such thing as death.

Well I can really agree with that to an extent, ofcourse there is no death since life is always brought from death so there is no death, its life giving birth to new life.

Time to go into philosophy kids!

What is death? Death is considered the end of life, that's it. End of story. But does it actually happen? How do we know death is there? A person may be dead, but we can't be sure. Besides, who has come back from being dead to prove death exists? (Besides, Jesus and other religious figures, history has the tendency to change the facts a bit)

I like to think our bodies are like containers, like say if you were to put a magnet into a ball of silly putty, and life is like having another magnet hovering around the ball pulling on the other magnet, the magnet represents your soul which is much stronger than the body (immortal most likely but you can't really represent that) anyway, the magnet is eventually pulled out of the ball n it goes wherever n the body is left behind.

What would be cool is if when our bodies die, our soul would be sent to another body in another galexy er something, heaven would be cool too not trying to say it wouldn't be.

Since we think so much with our minds, if our minds simply "die" do they disappear? What happens to them? We cannot prove anything.

Our mind is the physical storage container for memory and the main control panel which is seen as what makes you who you are.

So if we can't prove death, how can we prove life exists? Life is the opposite of death, so we can't prove it either.

So what should be call this state of mind where we are active?

Well we call it life, u cna call it life n not mean it has an end or not, but death is simply the point where our bodies become insufficiant to continue working n it decays, so just the fact that u stop moving,talking,breathing,eating,ect is what they call death.

What happens after you die, that is something that remains to be seen by every induvidual, we're sure that something happens, but we as individuals have our own ideas.
As long as you believe something happens n that your life wasn't for nothing, your alright I think.

[blackattackbitch]

At 2/18/09 04:55 PM, EKublai wrote: I felt like a douche just leaving that response there so here's a follow-up

philosophically, I believe life exists because, as you said, we are all in a state of activity. However, just because you alive doesn't mean you are in a state of activity. In fact, everything is in a state of activity be it light zooming across the cosmos or volcanoes erupting. The difference I think is while everything could be considered active, I believe being alive is being in the state of activity that potentially causes unexpected change.

But technically, if one knows the inner workings of a brain, then there is no unexpected change. The information stored in our brains determines what choices we make. Technically, there is no random, there's just the hard-to-predict.

For instance say I was floating in the unverse just going by the laws of physics. Then I see an asteroid coming towards me. If I decide to brace for impact, what have I done? anticipated the course of time, which doesn't make sense with logical physics.

I don't know why not. The sight of the asteroid sparked a chemical reaction in the brain signifying danger, so the brain sent a message to your muscles telling them to brace for the impact.

Well, now I feel like a douche for taking your argument and moving it to the extreme. I get what you were inferring though, that anything that has a working "brain" is life. That's what you were trying to say, right?

[Ericho]

At 2/28/09 01:51 AM, zoidberg10 wrote:

At 2/15/09 07:25 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

And the point of this thread is philosophy, not science.

When your heart stops beating, and you stop breathing, you stop interacting with the world, and they stick you under 6 feet of dirt, that is death, you fagtard. That is what people fear Fagtardo.

you idiot philosopher. ^^^^^ THAT HAPPENS AND YOU CANT DENY IT!!!

Ah, but there's some areas that science cannot connect us to. Science exists for the purpose of saying how things happen. Philosophy talks about why they happen. There's a big difference.