"The future ain't what it used to be."

is anything really "alive"?

G

Guest

is anything really \"alive\"?

This morning, about 2:00 ish in the morning, my friend and I were disscussing the thought of what being alive is. I came up with a way of looking at "life" that blew my mind. Goes something like this.


We are not really what we think we are, we think we are alive, but all we really are is just a collection of atoms, totally ignorant of their existance, held together against their will forming cells, which are also ignorant of their own individual existance, held together to form tissue, which form organs, which FINALLY form an organism, which are self-aware (they realize that they exist and it means something to them). I dont know why, but for some reason, it brought me comfort to think about me being nothing but a collection of non-aware, life-less atoms. It helps me when I'm depressed.


Has anyone else ever thought about life like that?
 
RE: is anything really \"alive\"?

"all we really are is just a collection of atoms, totally ignorant of their existance..."

Something must be sentient to be ignorant.

"...held together against their will forming cells, which are also ignorant of their own individual existance..."

Something must be sentient to have "will".

"...held together to form tissue, which form organs, which FINALLY form an organism..."

An organism is FAR more basic than a whole human being. It doens't take a collection of organs and tissue to form "life" And you speak of atoms as law, and therby you govern your topic on it, but in actuality they are just a theory. As a matter of fact people are creating a new theory that excludes atoms because they are limited in what they can explain. (It is called super string theory.)

You may find it pointless that I pick apart your analogy, but the delivery of your idea is the esscence of the way you feel. Your perception is everything.

The words "life" and "alive" are used as a generalization just as every other human word. In definition they simply mean "the procsess of an organism" It's a mistake to break down and analyze a single word since our expression is far from perfect. When you do this you give the word more meaning than it has, and the meaning of the word changes.

When you say "we are not really what you think we are" You are very wrong. We are EXACTLY what we "think" we are because we think. If we think we are alive then we ARE. It's a very simple idea.

"I think therefore I am"

Without this base You nor I could form an opinion, create memories, or mash out a message on a keyboard for others to read.

But if it makes you happy what can I say don't, stop feeling that way?
 
RE: is anything really \"alive\"?

You missed the point.
I wrote that in hopes that the people that read it would realize that we're not all high and mighty like we think. Think. That's a very funny word. Computers think. They are not considered alive, yet.
Humans believe that we are so great because we believe we know how things work. I cant stand that. We need to realize that we will never be able to understand everything, we do not need to.

<<When you say "we are not really what you think we are" You are very wrong. We are EXACTLY what we "think" we are because we think. >>

All living organisms must think. The fact that we are able to use abstract thinking is what separates us from a dog. And again, we dont know what we are. We believe that we are the smartest creature on the planet simply because we cannot understand the speech of the other creatures. We dont know what we are.

<<Something must be sentient to be ignorant.>>
<<Something must be sentient to have "will".>>

Something sentient understands what personification is.

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Cells lack the knowledge that they exist. A fungus lacks the knowledge it exists. Are they sentient?

Being "sentient" isnt really all what we think it is. "Sentient a. Having the capacity of sensation;perseptive;sensible" (New Webster's Expanded Dictionary)
Not really much to being sentient.

<<If we think we are alive then we ARE>>
We could program a computer to think it's alive. Does that mean it's alive?
 
Back
Top