isn't particularly mature. — AmadeusD

Quit with the judgments. It really makes me not want to discuss with you

But I'd like to. So, address the issue

I appreciate the charity!

While I understand how you have read this, that is not a judgement about you. Maturity is not solely a personal attribute. I think the theory is immature - as in, hasn't been fully thought through/doesn't take all relevant issues into account. It is not a comment on you. I imagine this happens often? Please just ask me to clarify whenever you get that impression. I can almost guarantee it's not a personal judgement.

I have addressed the issue there, in this light. The attitude is an immature one that I think needs a bit more consideration. Science-derived information can be murky, messy, contradictory etc.. etc.. "settled science" is quite rare. But we need to know things all the time - and we certianly don't defer to labs and journals for most knowledge we have day-to-day.

the theory is immature — AmadeusD

of accepting scientific knowledge as valid?

Does that mean you don’t see the distinction between things that are living and things that are not as an important one? — T Clark

No, it doesn't mean that. I see distinction between all kinds of non-living things. An asteroid, a cloud, and a star. Three things that are as different as can be. But, they are all made of primary particles that are interchangeable. And any atoms or molecules common to two or all three of them would also be interchangeable.

All the same can still be said if you throw a living entity into the group. All four things can do something that none of the other three can. However, living entities can do a type of thing that none of the others can. Only living entities process information. At the very least, all have DNA, and that means information is being processed. Protein is being synthesized. That's a different category of thing than anything non-living does.

All the life processes - metabolism, respiration, circulation, immune system, etc. - are physical. But, although I couldn't guess what percentage, a whole lot of it is also processing information. Physical, but vastly more complex than anything non-living. Both because of the information processing, and because the many processes all benefit the overall entity. As opposed to, say, the earth. Even without any life, there are all kinds of systems. Plate tectonics, weather, water cycle, erosion, whatever. It's not all to keep the planet going. The planet would still be a planet if it was a giant hunk of iron, with nothing happening at all.

I think it's interesting that we have made things that process information. For the first time, something other than life is processing information. I wonder if that is the most important, the defining, characteristic of life. And what would it take for us to consider an information processing device alive.

Life Itself is a pretty heavy slog through "causally closed systems" and what not. The last chapter was pretty fascinating. — frank

Is that what you were specifically recommending of his?

Is that what you were specifically recommending of his? — Patterner

Only if you're really interested in it. If you take the stance that final cause (or causally closed systems) is just folk psychology, I think you'll end up having to explain why a causally open system (which all dead things are) is raised above the folk level. How is it? Could it be that bias toward a certain world view, which prioritizes physics, is the real motivator? So we end up as neo-Kantians, with an array of formats for organizing things for the sake of comprehension. That would be my synopsis. It's been a while since I read it.

Well, it's not terribly expensive, so worth checking out. I've never heard of causally closed systems or folk psychology. My world view prioritizes consciousness. None of the physics matters without consciousness.

My world view prioritizes consciousness. — Patterner

Maybe life is a result of consciousness. Living things have been altering the oceans, the land, and the atmosphere since they first appeared. Every move they've made has led to further expansion and complexity. It's as if Life is a single entity reaching for self determination. Maybe consciousness is what's been causing it all this time.

no. That is an incredibly uncharitable straw man.

I explained myself completely. Have another go.