4 ms·
“He is making me think that the distinction between living and nonliving matter is not sharp,” Uhh - that is the basis for materialism. 'We are just particles'
by edblarney 10y ago
“He is making me think that the distinction between living and nonliving matter is not sharp,”
Uhh - that is the basis for materialism. 'We are just particles' - essentially, ergo, we cannot be 'alive'. It's funny that Scientists have to figure this out, when it's the fundamental underlying presumption in their branch of metaphysics ... and frankly why we may very well be able to further refine/understand evolution in material terms, we cannot - by definition - explain 'life' in terms of materialist thinking ... because by definition it is excluded from existence. In materialism, we can really only have 'the appearance of life' or intelligence etc.. Materially, we are just a 'bunch of random noise'. Which is obviously an unfulfilling idea, but one which nevertheless rests at the root of science as we understand it today.
- xorxornop 10y agoThis strikes me as an entirely superfluous distinction. "just" random noise? What other kind of life is there..? Why can't life be that? Why the "just"? Needless romanticism
- edblarney 10y agoNo, it's not romanticism, it's metaphysics. I'm reminding the commenter in the realm of materialism there really is no such thing as life, the universe is just a bunch of random noise including you and it. If you think life exists you need something other than materialism, like spirituality etc.. It's an important paradox sitting right at the base of our rational world view that few realize exists.