I’m not sure what you mean by “self-directing”. As I see it, “life” is yet another physical process, like “combustion” or “crystallization” or “nuclear fusion”. Life is probably a more complex process than these other ones, but it’s not categorically different from them. An amoeba’s motion is directed, to be sure, but so is the motion of a falling rock.
An amoeba acts on its environment where a rock behaves according to extrernal force. Life also has the characteristic of reproduction which is not how processes like combustion or fusion begin or continue. There are attempts to create both biological life from naught and AI research has a goal which could be characterized as making something that is alive vs a dead machine—a conscious robot not a car. I recognize that life is chemical processes, but I, and I think the sciences are divided this way, a categorical difference between chemistry and biology. My position is that physics and chemistry, eg, do not study a driving component of reality—that which drives life. If biological life is to be called >>complexity of basic chemical processes then what drives the level of complexity to increase?
Is there a thread or some place where your position on life is expounded upon? If life is to be framed as a complex process on a spectrum of processes I could understand, provided the definition of complexity is made and the spectrum reflects observations. In fact, spectrums seem to me to be more fitting maps than categories, but I am unaware of a spectrum that defines complexity to encompass both combustion and life.
An amoeba acts on its environment where a rock behaves according to extrernal force.
The rock acts on its environment as well. For example, it could hold up other rocks. Once the rock falls, it can dislodge more rocks, or strike sparks. If it falls into a river or a stream, the rock could alter its course… etc., etc. Living organisms can affect their environments in different ways, but I see this as a difference in degree, not in kind.
Life also has the characteristic of reproduction which is not how processes like combustion or fusion begin or continue.
Why is this important ? All kinds of physical processes proceed in different ways; for example, combustion can release a massive amount of heat in a short period of time, whereas life cannot. So what ?
...as making something that is alive vs a dead machine—a conscious robot not a car.
Are we talking about life, or consciousness ? Trees are alive, but they are not conscious. Of course, I personally believe that consciousness is just another physical process, so maybe it doesn’t matter.
My position is that physics and chemistry, eg, do not study a driving component of reality—that which drives life.
Technically they do not, biology does that (by building upon the discoveries of physics and chemistry), but I’m not sure why you think this is important.
then what drives the level of complexity to increase ?
I don’t think that complexity of living organisms always increases.
Is there a thread or some place where your position on life is expounded upon?
Well, you could start with those parts of the Sequences that deal with Reductionism . I don’t agree with everything in the Sequences, but that still seems like a good start.
I’m not sure what you mean by “self-directing”. As I see it, “life” is yet another physical process, like “combustion” or “crystallization” or “nuclear fusion”. Life is probably a more complex process than these other ones, but it’s not categorically different from them. An amoeba’s motion is directed, to be sure, but so is the motion of a falling rock.
An amoeba acts on its environment where a rock behaves according to extrernal force. Life also has the characteristic of reproduction which is not how processes like combustion or fusion begin or continue. There are attempts to create both biological life from naught and AI research has a goal which could be characterized as making something that is alive vs a dead machine—a conscious robot not a car. I recognize that life is chemical processes, but I, and I think the sciences are divided this way, a categorical difference between chemistry and biology. My position is that physics and chemistry, eg, do not study a driving component of reality—that which drives life. If biological life is to be called >>complexity of basic chemical processes then what drives the level of complexity to increase?
Is there a thread or some place where your position on life is expounded upon? If life is to be framed as a complex process on a spectrum of processes I could understand, provided the definition of complexity is made and the spectrum reflects observations. In fact, spectrums seem to me to be more fitting maps than categories, but I am unaware of a spectrum that defines complexity to encompass both combustion and life.
The rock acts on its environment as well. For example, it could hold up other rocks. Once the rock falls, it can dislodge more rocks, or strike sparks. If it falls into a river or a stream, the rock could alter its course… etc., etc. Living organisms can affect their environments in different ways, but I see this as a difference in degree, not in kind.
Why is this important ? All kinds of physical processes proceed in different ways; for example, combustion can release a massive amount of heat in a short period of time, whereas life cannot. So what ?
Are we talking about life, or consciousness ? Trees are alive, but they are not conscious. Of course, I personally believe that consciousness is just another physical process, so maybe it doesn’t matter.
Technically they do not, biology does that (by building upon the discoveries of physics and chemistry), but I’m not sure why you think this is important.
I don’t think that complexity of living organisms always increases.
Well, you could start with those parts of the Sequences that deal with Reductionism . I don’t agree with everything in the Sequences, but that still seems like a good start.