philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 13, 2018, 13:44 (2262 days ago) @ dhw

Tony: So, I suppose we start by defining life, something that many can still not agree on. Let's point to some characteristics of living things:
• They are responsive to stimuli.
• They reproduce.
• They are informationally complex(DNA in carbon based life forms).
• They grow in some form over time.
• They manipulate energy in some form or another(consume/convert).
You'll notice I left out mention of cells, because it precludes other forms of life, and I also left out birth/death as they are not inherent to the act of living, but merely innate in our understanding of life because we experience no different scenario.[/i]

DHW I don’t know why you give priority to unknown forms of life over known forms, but I’ll try to follow your reasoning.

Because the first cause, I believe, was energy. It is reasonable, then, to assume that the first attempts at reproduction would also be in the form of energy, before moving on to converting energy to matter.

TONY: As a original source, energy could become more orderly and complex(grow), and develop the ability to respond. If the original source (i.e. God) created his first spawn, Christ, he would fulfill the other two requirements, thus meeting all the requirements to be called living, without the need to exist in a material form.

DHW: I don’t mind the hypothetical “could become”…”If God…”, but alas, once again I’m floundering. We then have your God immaterially giving birth to an immaterial Christ, after which he creates the first material cells, personally jiggles them into different species, then hundreds of millions of years later jiggles with Mary’s cells so that she produces a material Christ. And the purpose of all this is….? See below.

Creating, spawning, birthing, whatever you want to call it, but yes, you have his first direct act of creation. The jiggling of Mary has nothing to do with this part, honestly, but if you are ok with the idea of a spiritual soul attached to human flesh, and also ok with God having designed DNA, then why is it unreasonable for him to splice a bit of custom DNA and attach energy to the fertilized zygote?

TONY: The idea of 'fullness' that DHW finds so confusing could be conflated with maturation. Just as how animal young and human youths do not reach their full potential until they have gone through and overcome trials and tribulations, so to must all things grow and learn. By responding to these challenges they grow to 'fullness' or maturity.

No problem. Apart from humans and our fellow animals, what other forms of life are you talking about?

Plants, but I also hold open the potential for other forms of life that we are unaware of as living things, including spirit(energy based) creatures.

DAVID: You are describing an immaterial energy being, which I have always felt describes God, pure energy in a living, thinking, planning form, which comes from my thought that only energy is eternal and represented by God. Thus this universe is a material product of that energy.

TONY: Indeed. What other concept fits the idea of God, regardless of the cultural origins of said deity? Every culture on Earth either has God as a 'spirit'(read energy) being, or as 'self' removed from the physical world. "Fear not those that kill the body, but can not destroy the soul". Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed by any process available to mankind.

DHW: I don’t have any problem at all with the idea that if God exists, he is a form of energy. And I don’t have any problem with the idea that if he exists, he created the first forms of life known to us, i.e. cells. I do have a problem with the assumption that there are other forms of life we know nothing about, and therefore we can ignore those forms we do know about.

No one is ignoring them simply by saying they weren't first.

dHW:But our subject anyway is meaning, purpose and function. You complained that we did not ask for the purpose of everything, as opposed to just our (human) purpose. Your answer seems to be that God is energy, and there may be other forms of life that are not carbon based (presumably also “spawned” in some way from God’s energy), and the purpose of those (unknown) forms of life is to achieve “fullness”. I appreciate that we are grappling with difficult ideas here, but I hope you will understand why I find some of this so confusing. In the meantime, my poor little hypothesis continues to be ignored: if God exists, the purpose of the universe and of the life he created may have been to provide a spectacle that would relieve his boredom (and which by the way would also increase his “fullness”, through all his new experiences). Horribly mundane, I know, but it does answer your own question concerning the purpose of everything (not just of us), and so if you reject it, perhaps you could tell me why.

It just seems to trivial to me, honestly, for the amount of effort that would have needed to go into creating all the way see.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.