Why do people still ask "What is life"

[Anonymous No.16585866]

When the question has been answered through science? Am I missing something? I used to think about this a lot but soon realised how useless it was to think about this particular topic. Even if an answer was found, there would be no difference in our lives. Better topics to think about.

[Anonymous No.16585879]

you just asked yourself "what is life"
and you found your own conclusion
some big brains just aren't satisfied with the retarded conclusion you came up with

[Anonymous No.16585900]

>>16585866
Because it's counterintuitive trying to process that there is no "self" and when we refer to "I" we are not actually referring to anything. So we pretend it has immaterial substance and treat that as a starting point of a worldview which is inherently at odds with anything that can be observed measured defined and concluded rigorously.

[Anonymous No.16585967]

>>16585866
>Admits to not knowing "the answer"
>Claims it would make no difference if we knew the answer
Well my question is why you are such a fag

[Anonymous No.16585977]

>>16585866
Fuck this is an awful post.

[Anonymous No.16586002]

>>16585866
To paraphrase the fuck out of Judge penitente Jean Baptiste Clements "Truth is a force which nothing can endure, not friendships, not civilizations."

When >>16585900
is realized, it leads to entropy and decay because there is no philosophical common ground around which a civilization can gather and agree and work together toward shared values and goals. So we pretend there's gods and souls instead.

[Anonymous No.16586011]

>>16585967
Trying to think and read more man. Still new to this

[Anonymous No.16586017]

>>16586002
Pretty cheeky to assume that's the truth.

[Anonymous No.16586036]

>>16586017
You're right. Let's just decide with faith instead.

[Anonymous No.16586044]

>>16586011
My response is unbefitting of a man and I apologize. I hope you continue your inquires about life, a better way of going about things than cynical fagposting like me.

[Anonymous No.16586046]

>>16586036
Yes, that's what you've used to come to that conclusion after all. Unless of course ""you" think you can understand anything as a random act of chemicals? Boy that will be a hard one to prove without faith!

[Anonymous No.16586050]

>>16586044
>>16586044

[Anonymous No.16586058]

>>16586036
>>16585900

[Anonymous No.16586092]

>>16586046
I don't have to have faith in anything to know that the history of human thought has all fallen apart trying to define its terms cite its sources and try to substantiate any claim about souls gods or anything other than material science. I don't have to insist upon the truth of material science to know that in the void of any other explanations, we as a civilization lack philosophical common ground around which to gather and make value judgements and collective decisions. Even if christ were god and the bible the literal truth of creation, we would lack the ability to objectively define our terms of objectivity and our existential uncertainty would be permanent, along with the insubstantiality of any claims about what is "true" without observing measuring and defining it and noticing its consistent predictive power. Civilization would still be without objective philosophical common ground and need fantasies to fill the void.

[Anonymous No.16586112]

>>16586092
So you admit we can't objectively know things yet also state we can be sure that there is no soul or self? The measurements you use to come to these conclusions (math, logic etc) why do you assume those are objective? IF they are objective say 7 continues to exist even if you don't call it 7 where do they "exist" empirically? Can you tell me how a random act of chemicals can recognize "logic" and be "rational" unless you are saying there is a form of order to our universe in which case why is that there and why can you recognize it?

[Anonymous No.16586158]

>>16586112
Nice reading comprehension. I didn't anywhere claim that I could be sure there is no soul or self. I claimed that we have forever failed to substantiate any claims about them. I also pointed out that existential uncertainty doesn't hinge upon faith in material science, because even those terms, however close to objective they try to be, fail to objectively define the terms of objectivity. Also you keep using this term "random" and I never claimed anything to be that either. I didn't claim to have faith in material science, or any material explanation of the universe.

However, in the absence of certainty, faith is certainly not an adequate filler of the void. And what we're left with is a lack of philosophical common ground on which a civilization can agree. THAT was the only truth I claimed. That without objective terms to define objectivity, a narrative has to be imposed through faith or indoctrination.

[Anonymous No.16586201]

>>16586158
Sounds like you have a lot of faith in a world view you yourself admit can't be empirically proven. That's faith pal. You are going to be faced with making a leap of faith no matter what world view you hold, the world of philosophy you seem to have little respect for has been about this since man could perceive the world. Science can't answer these questions and even it relies on having faith in its methods of measurement as from a purely empirical world view I can't prove that the data I'm seeing and using isn't being misinterpreted by my own brain so I must rely on census to come to a conclusion (a type of faith) you see this with math logic and ethics, you are going to have to presuppose something to make a world view and you'll have one hell of a time empirically proving your presup without relying on the metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.16586211]

>>16585900
What philosophers have said:
>The self requires social interactions to give it linguistic definition
What boomers on reddit say:
>There is no such thing as the self

I contend that you're a fucking idiot because you can be tricked by buddhists and queers into believing things that are obviously not the case. Just because my self-definition requires a linguistic system in which to communicate my lived experience, doesn't mean that if I went into the woods, that my consciousness would disappear.

[Anonymous No.16586213]

>>16585900
>>16586002

[Anonymous No.16586235]

>>16586201
I agree that science has not answered these questions and the very terms of measurement fall apart. I do not regard any physicist's worldview as objectively proven either. You really have terrible reading comprehension. You're repeatedly arguing with a lot that was never said.

I literally just said that faith or an imposed narrative or indoctrination happens in the absence of certainty. That's not at odds with anything you're asserting at this point. But that doesn't make said faith or narrative an adequate stand in for "knowing" "truth"

[Anonymous No.16586242]

>>16586211
Nice strawman.

[Anonymous No.16586253]

>>16586235
My argument is faith is necessary and seeing it as not is bone headed as you are always going to have to use it, and no that doesn't mean "one day we'll know!" science will not answer this.

[Anonymous No.16586292]

>>16586242
It's not a strawman, if that poster meant that the self requires others and language in order to give the self definition, then he should be shot for being so equivocal with his terms.

Eat shit, you fucking Hegelians

[Anonymous No.16586319]

>>16586253
Not him
>faith is necessary
What do you mean? Faith about what?

[Anonymous No.16586340]

>>16586319
About anything. Going to use the scientific method? It relies on faith. Going to believe in a god? Requires faith. Going to assume nothing outside yourself can be known? faith. Think the suns coming up tomorrow? faith. Think you wont die on your way to work today? faith. Its the prerequisite for having any type of knowledge or foresight.

[Anonymous No.16586402]

>>16585866
I would like you to know that the question "what is life?" is extremely vague. I think therefore, that the question is neither answered by science or anybody at all.

Typically even philosophers ask what the purpose of life is. Scientifically the purpose of life is to have sex and produce offspring. Experientially, the purpose of life is to find love and companionship.

And that's all you can say about life per se.

[Anonymous No.16586642]

>>16585866
yeah because thinking about black holes and fucking string theory makes so much difference in our lives

[Anonymous No.16586686]

>>16586340
It kinda just sounds like semantics. Science assumes that the thing outside ourselves exists because any other alternative so far is useless. It is apparent and that's more than enough because the scientific method works inside this apparent reality. Faith in religion in my understanding means believe without physical proofs, the concept "faith" doesn't work like that in science and I think there's no such concept, the sun is coming up tomorrow and science explains why this happens, if the sun doesn't come up tomorrow science researchs why it happened, faith is not involving in my understanding.

[Anonymous No.16586713]

>>16586686
>faith is not involving in my understanding
there is always faith in proving something empirically, you can do n experiment and have a conclusion, but it always takes a leap of faith to believe it would work n+1. time

[Anonymous No.16586801]

>>16586713
I don't quite get why you are saying that, repeatability is what make thing be what they are (maxwell equations, newton's law of gravitation and so one) I can't quite see "faith" once you reach universal peer review consensus through the scientific method. Probably we are just having a semantic problem.

[Anonymous No.16586915]

>>16586801
>repeatability is what make thing be what they are
yeah, you can repeat it 10000 times, the same thing happens each time so you make a conclusion and call it newton's law for example, but you cant say newton's law is true and it explains this phenomena,because the 10001th experiment might have a different outcome, so your law is true anymore
in school we are still taught newtonian mechanics because they are easier to use and they work in the cases we use them, but in another cases they are not true anymore,that's not how gravity really works

[Anonymous No.16586926]

>>16586915
not true*

[Anonymous No.16586945]

>>16585866
Learn linguistics

[Anonymous No.16587009]

>>16585900
You're making a convincing case that at least some proportion of the world are philosophical zombies

[Anonymous No.16587165]

>>16586915
The thing is once you reach universal peer reviewed consensus we don't have any reason to imagine that there would be a different outcome other than our own imagination, things are the way they are and that's our best human working interpretation so far, simple.
>but in another cases they are not true anymore
Yes. But because newton's law of gravitation doesn't work inside quantum mechanics it doesn't mean is not true anymore, it just means precisely that: it doesn't work inside quantum mechanics, it's an incomplete interpretation that still works outside that field. Current research (Quantum gravity) is trying to complete the whole picture.

[Anonymous No.16588105]

>>16585866

It's a profound question OP. Kant says a lot about it in his Critique of Judgment. But on the ground level, it's arguable that the view put forward by physics/chemistry is that there are no "living things" and that everything is just a combination of non-living things. But yet the default natural view (that we all really do share, putting theoretical "priorities" aside) is that there are living things, and they exhibit a certain kind of organization that "clumps" do not. I mean, biology is still a science, but it's very hard to square where it fits within the "lower" sciences.

[Anonymous No.16588252]

>>16585866
Scientists don't know what life is. Life self replicates, preserves information over time, and has uses its environment for energy. These are all pretty vague ideas and there is no organizing principle behind the study of life. As it stands right now biology is just a collection, a catalog, a series of names, as it always has been. Even some of the priestliest biological theorists - Turing and Monod, essentially propose mechanisms for tiny entries in the encylopedic volumes of Nature. A real theory of life, which would answer your question, would not merely be downstream of physics and chemistry, but complementary to it, allowing for new insights into those fields.

[Anonymous No.16588782]

>>16585866
Better to ask "What isn't life?"

[Anonymous No.16588804]

That's why all the real philosophers have been asking the more important question: What doth life (life) (life) (life)?