Why would our inability to restore a complex material state imply that it must not be material?It could not be a material difference, because if it was, then we could potentially be able to reverse that material difference back to its original configuration — Samuel Lacrampe
Let X = the body of the cow, and Y = the material thing that gives it life. Then a live cow is X+Y and a dead cow is X without Y. To resurrect the dead cow, we would just need to add the material thing Y back to X to result in X+Y. But this seems absurd. Therefore, Y is not a material thing.Why would our inability to restore a complex material state imply that it must not be material? — noAxioms
It is indeed interesting if we are able to do that. What about restoring a live cell from a dead cell?The recently dead cow has life. One can isolate a good cell and grow a new cow from it, just not restore the original cow by most definitions of what makes one cow not the same as another. — noAxioms
Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but as I see it, it does logically preclude a non-material thing:I don't think there is a separate material that distinguishes a live cow from a dead one. That belief does not preclude that the difference in state is not strictly a material one. — noAxioms
For my knowledge, would you know what makes viruses a 'borderline case' in contrast to non-borderline cases? — Samuel Lacrampe
biology, the study of living organisms, does not apparently have a clear definition of the concept of life. — Samuel Lacrampe
Similarly:Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but as I see it, it does logically preclude a non-material thing:
A difference exists between a live cow and a dead cow
There is no separate material that distinguishes a live cow from a dead cow
Therefore the existing difference is non-material — Samuel Lacrampe
"spirit or soul" and the more scientific "set of capacities", and then figure out which one is closer to truth. — Samuel Lacrampe
The synthesis of urea (and other organic substances) from inorganic compounds was counterevidence for the vitalist hypothesis that only organisms could make the components of living things. — Wikipedia
OK. There are empirical ways to determine the point of death of something complex like a cow. The definition has changed as technology has been able to resuscitate something that may have passed beyond older definitions of 'still alive'.I understand the word material to mean anything that is observable, or empirical. — Samuel Lacrampe
Does it however explain the difference between a live cell and a dead cell? — Samuel Lacrampe
I suppose some cells are primary for the life preservation of the organism, and some are secondary. If the secondary ones die, then the life is preserved by the primary cells, and these may even sometimes replace the secondary cells by new ones. But if the primary cells die, then the life cannot be preserved and the secondary cells will soon die thereafter.All the cells in a cow might be alive, but something else is still missing if there is no way to restore the cell collection as a functioning cow. There is life in the cells, but the cells do not comprise a life anymore. — noAxioms
This seems to be a good next step to the discussion. I suggest to add the concept of consciousness. If an organism does not an apparent consciousness, say a plant, then there is no reason to believe that the organism attains a life as a whole, as opposed to being a mere collection of living cells.At what point does a zygote attain more of a life than what just a collection of cells have? — noAxioms
A dog is hardly a stretch. How about an oyster? It quite seems to have life as a whole and can be killed, yet has no apparent consciousness. A star fish on the other hand behaves more or less as a conscious thing, yet is questionably a living thing since it can be ripped to pieces and all the pieces become starfish. They have no critical parts, so they're more like plants that way.But if an organism has an apparent consciousness, say a dog, — Samuel Lacrampe
The engine could not be resurrected if it were a much more complex thing that, if stopped, fell apart more quickly that it could be repaired.A "dead" car engine can be resurrected, not so for a dead organism it seems. — jkop
Actually, my point was the opposite; that just as a dead car can be resurrected by replacing the deficient part, so can the dead cell, by replacing its deficient part. This seems to logically follow from the definition that the life of a simple cell is nothing more than the proper functioning of its parts.A "dead" car engine can be resurrected, not so for a dead organism it seems. — jkop
Consciousness has two separate meanings. One meaning is, as you point out, the difference between being conscious and unconscious, as in being awake or asleep. The second meaning is between a conscious being and a non-conscious being: the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world. I was referring to the second meaning.Not sure how you're defining consciousness. I can be rendered unconscious, yet continue to live. So no, consciousness is not what defines me to be alive. — noAxioms
How is it that is seems to have a life as a whole, if it has no apparent consciousness? Having apparent consciousness was my reason to support having a life as a whole. What other reasons are there? Note: I am not here including humans just yet, only animals and lower life forms.How about an oyster? It quite seems to have life as a whole and can be killed, yet has no apparent consciousness. — noAxioms
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.