FYI: Scientists questioning life - again?

nice posting, mismused. "life" seems to be some sort of self replicating process, but the devil is in the details, for after all, fire is self-reproducing, and there are already robots that can build similar robots (i.e. themselves).

as is suggested in some sci fi., maybe 'life' requires no particular physical instantiation, much like computer programs or software. i'm very intrigued by Conway's "Game of Life"--a cellular automaton, which takes place as an artificial, replication process in a 2-D setting.

http://www.radicaleye.com/lifepage/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life
 
Last edited:
So many words and concepts that we take for granted turn out to be phantasms when put under the metrics of phenomenology and operationalism. In other words, how do you actually go about operationally demonstrating the phenomenon. Life is one. Death is another.

We have no way of defining when someone is operationally dead. In some states it's a flat brain wave for a given unit of time. In others it's a lack of a heart rate for a given unit of time, even though the brain is still functioning and the cells are alive for hours.

There's no operational definition of male or female. Noi operational definition of intelligence or self or ego.

In other words, we could at this moment be in the middle of a giant living or dead male or female ego and never know it.

Yes, we could all be Liberace and not know!
 
Back
Top