Hmm, do you spend ANY time with dogs at all? I’m only asking because that is a particularly limited understanding of what a dog wants, and the distinction between dogs and humans. — Possibility

Dogs have a keen sense of smell which has them living in a world far more dominated by smell than vision. How a dog 'sees' the world with his nose is beyond our comprehension.

It's easy to see the existence of time without a sense to detect change. Change in of itself is meaningless as it has to be detected by someone. — Wittgenstein

Wouldn't that mean a past before an observer does not exits? The Big Bang only exists (as a past event) because we are able to look into the past?

What do you think the number of people being alive would qualify as ‘close to extinction’? — Brett

2. Adam and Eve

On a more basic level, we also ‘operate’ the same way as dogs do in many respects. — Possibility

We do share similarities with dogs. It is just that because their sense of smell and hearing is so vastly more acute than ours we will never understand it's 'world view' apart that it wants to eat, shit, sleep and fuck like we do. I am more concerned with the difference in it's perception of 'reality'. Our 'truths' are more or less 'predetermined by the ability and dis-ability of our senses.
Seeing in ultra-violet or infrared or hearing beyond 22,000 hertz does change your perception of 'reality'.

Life defined as a replicating chemical reaction is an oversimplification. — Possibility

To find simplicity in complex 'reality' is the essence of 'knowledge'. We are looking for building blocks not for buildings. Try to find a definition of life in 1 sentence and work your way up from there.

But an impetus that would underlie both the chemical reactions and the resultant replicating system is the clincher. — Possibility

I totally agree with you there. First you need a integrated 'system' and then it needs to be able to replicate itself.

I think you would first need a physical structure, similar to an exoskeleton (porous rock or calcium deposits?) in which a certain (natural) chemical process takes place. Possibly a process that makes lipids which in turn creates a substitute skin. Do you know of a chemical process capable of making lipid from inorganic compounds?

Because you and I share the same machinery I have far less of a problem comprehending how you operate. Society is built on the fact that as humans we are capable of empathizing with other humans.

I was trying to define Life in it's most fundamental essence in the hope/belief one could extrapolate from there to discover something meaningful about Life. Unfortunately I think this is beyond my comprehension. Far cleverer people are looking on the quantum level into the processes of Life.

That’s a little defeatist, isn’t it? How do you think we developed a way to comprehend what other humans experience and observe? Do you think that’s conclusive? — Possibility

Even comprehending how a dog views 'reality' will just remain an educated guess.

"What is the difference between actual infinity and potential infinity?"
All matter can potentially be part of a black hole.

And the only one capable of creating our own extinction. — Brett

I think humans would be capable of surviving even the worst nuclear winter. As a species we are almost impossible to eradicate.

We are still here aren't we? And as I said: we might be the only species capabile of surviving extinction.

Egocentric and emphathatic. Every person is both.

The nature of intelligence is to assist in our survival.

Absolutely. Without the stuff I would be practically brain-dead. My best ideas are THC inspired.

All species have faced extinction at some stage. Perhaps we are the only one that has the ability to prevent this happening to ourselves.

Starting off with a nihilistic premise has helped me find clarity in life.

Time will tell. :smile:
Under the influence of cannabis I wrote a long explanation where I argued that everything was Time and Timespeed.

Possibly. Quote: Sorry I wrote you such a long letter. I didn't have time to write you a shorter one.

I am simple person. Can't think beyond a single concept.

I think this forum would benefit from a 2 sentence maximum rule.

More like a self-replicating system of interacting chemical reactions. — Possibility

Yes. I just wanted to express it in the least amount of words possible.

A lie can be useful, too. — Possibility

True. Do it all the time.

↪Metaphysician Undercover I can't see this argument as worth the time, Meta. Check it on google, or argue with ovdtogt who seems keen. — Banno

I too have lost interest in this line of thought.

nothing is really pointing towards a future where the human species will face extinction due to the climate crisis. — Wallows

I am of the opinion that the climate crisis will exacerbate the migration crisis which in turn bring right-wing fascist regimes take control of government around the world. That is when the shit will hit fan: wars and civil-wars will tear us apart.

Blind obedience is stupid. Blind dis-obedience is also stupid. Anarchy is 'well-considered) dis-obedience.

Firstly congratulations for the depth of your aesthetic sense. — TheMadFool

This is a quote from Richard Feynman not mine. Heard of him?

Tell your professor to wake the fuck up. — Bitter Crank

The Professor is correct that the logical conclusion of how our society is developing is towards saturation. That we will experience catastrophic wars and famines before we get there is besides the point.

If it keeps progressing as it is I think we're going to eventually end up with everyone living an ideal virtual reality life kept alive by machines until the sun burns out — khaled

Matrix here we come.

Basically, a point in time where mankind cannot compete with the machine in terms of productivity. — Wallows

Yes that is true. I do believe we are developing towards a economic system where the input of human labor will become redundant. (Almost) all manual and computational tasks being performed by computers and robots. We will have to reassess our 'raison d'etre' in a fundamental way.

The future is the only thing that matters.

if productivity increases would saturate, then that would be the end to economics — Wallows

Many items are far from saturated i.e. land, housing, energy and infrastructure and the maintenance of these things will continue into perpetuity.

How easy it is to reduce the wisdom of philosophy, the beauty of poetry and the joy of a painting to a chemical reaction in a chemist's lab. — TheMadFool

https://fs.blog/2011/10/richard-feynman-on-beauty/

I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is … I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes.

Once you understand the correlation between desires and suffering, you will want to reduce your desires. Not all desires are lost that easily. Some will require quite a lot of willpower.

life: a replicating chemical reaction.

Truth is usefulness.

Once you truly realize the things you desire are causing your suffering you will lose your desire for these things.

Society is a hierarchical structure with the least powerful at the bottom and the most powerful at the top. Propaganda and censorship are tools to maintain this power structure.

Do you know what relative means?
A need is essential to survival.

The Op is belief in balance. That you wish to define a system is your prerogative and I was willing to humour you. I don't believe it is in any way relevant to the discussion. Systems are human constructs maintained and serviced by humans and can not be used as an analogy to natural processes. Google 'system definition '

Worrying about Worrying does not bring about change. Reducing your fesires does.