But if you are energy and matter... why have agency? You are going to stick around regardless. It’s not like energy and matter are going anywhere - they hang about just as the asteroids and floating gas clouds do. What is different about this glob of matter where it puts itself through the almost insurmountable and tireless effort to be “living” - a constant state of struggle against the odds. — Benj96

Here comes negentropy posts!

'Life' is, at the very least, a dissipative system constituted by self-replicating machinery 'energized' by a still low enough entropy-gradient. In other words, 'life' is biochemically programmed to metabolize and replicate / reproduce constantly self-regulated by homeostasis as its primary driver (i.e. strange attractor). Also, vide Spinoza's conatus. And try not to piss in the gene pool.

... why have agency? — Benj96

"Why" not?

Life' is, at the very least, a dissipative system constituted by self-replicating machinery 'energized' by (still) being on a low (enough) entropy'gradient. In other words, 'life' is biochemically programmed to metabolize and replicate / reproduce constantly self-regulated by homeostasis as its primary driver (i.e. strange attractor). Also, vide Spinoza's conatus. And try not to piss in the gene pool — 180 Proof

Excuse me for saying that this is a very limited view on the state of affairs. But as I can't deliver any relevant stuff I'll shut up.

But what is it for? — Benj96

The underlying, absolutely radical, meaning of "Origin of Species" is that life, evolution, and, by extension everything else, are not for anything. There is no meaning or purpose for anything. No "why." We tend to find living things particularly interesting, but that's just an artifact of the particular way the matter and energy that make us up interact.

So - just because.

But what is it for? — Benj96

So that it can be.

The underlying, absolutely radical, meaning of "Origin of Species" is that life, evolution, and, by extension everything else, are not for anything. There is no meaning or purpose for anything. No "why." — T Clark

Yeah I see what you mean and I understand from a strictly evolutionary perspective it satisfies the development of traits simply due to pressures exerted on a “living system”.

But why develop cognition sufficient enough to conceive of ideas of “free will”, “agency” and “purpose” etc. If it’s an illusion why would even the illusion ever come to exist unless it has some advantage or is it just a funky by-product of complexity

So that it can be. — Fine Doubter

But it already is. Water “is” but doesn’t mean it requires to ask or be in anyway sentient of why it is the fluid. So why do living things or at least the higher orders of life have that ability?

Life, quite literally, has nothing better to do. That is not to say that non-life isn't doing anything worthwhile. It's existence is equal to life. It's just to say that life will get around to non-life, sooner or later, whether it likes it or not. So, in the mean time, it might as well keep living. I mean, why not? Another question would be, will non-life ever get around to living? Maybe it is and we just don't know it.

:up:

But what is it for? Why is this glob of matter reluctant to be at the full mercy of the universe around it? — Benj96

The organism sustains itself because it happened to evolve properties that sustain it (the self-preservation instinct). Organisms that didn't happen to evolve such properties died. But it is usually assumed in the definition of "organism" that it has properties that sustain it, at least to some extent.

So that it can be. — Fine Doubter

That's the best answer!

:100:

What the reason NOT is, a view propagated by "bioLOGIS" Rchard Dawkins:

We are mere machines dictated and ordered around by selfish genes. We are the vessels containing them and our purpose is to pass them on to new vessels by means of sexual intercourse.Idem dito for memes. But without the sexual part.

Genes are entirely selfless, as Dorkins himself admits in the odd moment of sanity. (they lack the awareness requisite for selfishness) One might just as well suggest that the aim of all genes is to go extinct, and most of them manage it sooner or later, but the unlucky few survive and replicate for a few million years.

You mean Dawkins?

the unlucky few survive and replicate for a few million years — unenlightened

Unlucky? Replicate? Manage? None of both three.

It's a joke, but the joke is that it makes exactly as much sense as the analogy of the selfish gene.

it makes exactly as much sense as the analogy of the selfish gene — unenlightened

Exactly. Thats why Dawkins is not teliing us any truth. Contrary to what he writes in his book. He writes that he had found an objective truth.

Why is this glob of matter reluctant to be at the full mercy of the universe around it? — Benj96

I'm surprised no one has given the standard answer yet. If I was an emergentist, which I'm not, I would say the following:

You have self-replicating molecules. These develop into systems that are better at self-replicating. Then something odd happens at a certain level of sophistication and a new kind of function is realised, and these self-replicating systems start to have feelings, desires, motivations, and also began to perceive and predict events in their environment such that they could direct their behaviour in response. The ones that had a self-destruct motivation, a primitive ennui, moved towards destructive environments and did not replicate. The ones that had a strong desire to preserve themselves did replicate. No micro nor macro teleology necessary. But medium-scale teleology may be acceptable on this view. Is that close to the standard story?

But why develop cognition sufficient enough to conceive of ideas of “free will”, “agency” and “purpose” — Benj96

I already explained it. It's just because.

But if you are energy and matter... why have agency? — Benj96

Water always finds the lowest level with extraordinary efficiency. Does this mean water has a will and is impelled to do so? No. Physics. We tend to use loaded words and human-like motivations to describe phenomena and then, because we have smuggled in the words, we find ourselves ascribing human-like agency.

If it’s an illusion why would even the illusion ever come to exist unless it has some advantage or is it just a funky by-product of complexity — Benj96

I think you should read about this (Constructive Neutral Evolution)... it might help you in your investigation.

On the Possibility of Constructive Neutral Evolution
Arlin Stoltzfus
This is in article.

This is a "Scitable" article.

Why does life want to live?

I think it'll be hard to answer this question if only because life precedes the question, temporally speaking. It's kinda like the situation we, not all though, find ourselves in - we educate ourselves as much as we can or more accurately as much as we can bear, we then hunt for a job, if all goes well we find one, then we spend a good number of years working, one fine day, we're at our desk, staring at a computer screen and then it hits us - why am I doing this? why am I here? who am I? who are these people? questions, questions, questions, and more unanswered/unanswerable questions.

The OP's question is simply life, through us, coming to the realization albeit only vaguely that what it has at its disposal a mechanism of transmitting information. The basic genetic code is copy me (self-replication). Imagine what could be done with that ability at our disposal - we could attach other pieces of code that do amazing things, to it; lo and behold, the possibilities are near infinite if time permits or there are no major catastrophes coming down the pike.

I guess what I'm getting at is to first come to terms with the lackluster fact that life is, all said and done, simply a copying program/mechanism but then to also to recognize the opportunity that this offers. Granted that the copying mechanism has invented ingenious methods to induce in us the desire to copy (mate) but there's no necessity, since we've seen through the ruse, that we continue being led down the garden path. The bottom line - life is for life (selfish) but life can be about anything we want it to be for now, let your imagination go wild!