/sci/ - Science & Math

self bump in the name of conversation

"why" implies a purpose. our existence and self awareness is entirely accidental. We are no different from other life forms

Was anyone else reminded of this show while reading OP's retarded shit?

>>2164806
I get what you mean.
But you say we are no different from different life forms.
why, then, are we different from rocks?
accident? maybe?

>inspired by an AP class

Sorry, that's unpossible. You obviously have some sort of undiagnosed emotional regulation disorder and should consult a psychiatrist immediately.

>>2164773
Synergy and emergence, OP.

The sum is greater than the parts...

>>2164823

Because organisms which did not have what we have were outcompeted by our ancestors.

>>2164830
Synergy and emergence?
please explain.

I get that we are greater than the sum of our parts, but so is water, right? I guess i just didn't pay enough attention, or maybe I do have some sort of disorder like anon said^. I just can't get why adding hydrogens and oxygen makes this wonderful liquidy thing we depend on.
and also, why do we as living compounds get to move, and think, eat, and reproduce, and love, and hate, and kill?
and a rock, doesn't get to...

>>2164823
We are not different from rocks. The laws of physics are the same for them.

And just what do you think "life" is? We are just machines sufficiently complex to sustain themselves and reproduce. The distinction between life and nonlife, and organic and inorganic chemistry etc. is an artificial one.

"simplest pieces we are just 6 different disturbances in energy (the elements that we are made of)."

don't forget, you can now use arsenic instead of phosphorous.

>>2164853
>Synergy and emergence?

Too broad. Google or Wiki it.

>sum greater than the sum...

Your organs are examples. Your stomach or brain by itself would be virtually useless, but since it works together with other systems, it can accomplish greater feats that wouldn't otherwise be able to do.

>>2164858
exactly, we are not different from rocks, but we are, you know?

I'm not entirely sure what life is. Is it reproducing? possibly even the most basic "life forms" are able to reproduce. Sometimes, I feel like life can't just be the ability to make offspring. There's more than that.
Can E. Coli not think? probably not. But how can we know for sure? perhaps living is thinking?

I assure you guys I don't usually sound so stupid, but just thinking about the subject gets me tripping over myself and not being able to find the words.

I might be in love... with Biology

>>2164887
The definition of life is in the first chapter of almost every biology book out there. It not only includes reproduction, but metabolism, organization, homeostasis, growth, adaptation, etc...

>>2164902

perhaps im just stupid.

thanks for taking the time though :D

>>2164902

>Implying we have a satisfactory definition of life beyond a localised reduction of entropy.

>>2164914
I'd like to hear your thoughts Anon

>>2164920

Just saying it's harder than you think to give a definition that both includes everything we class as life and rejects everything we do not.

If you're asking why we're alive, it's the same reason why a car is different from a bunch of scrap metal: it's not about what we're made of, but how we're put together.

If you're asking why we're conscious/aware, even though the chemicals themselves obviously are not, I would guess it has to do something with the neural network structure of the brain. But even so, it's just a bunch of dead things stringed together, I still don't understand how I can be epistemologically aware. This bugs the hell out of me a lot.

>>2164914
Oh, don't take my word for it. I mean, those scientists and professors with PhD's that write the textbooks must be all wrong, amirite?

trollface.jpg

if your interested on how matter can give rise to thought, you should read I am a Strange Loop

I thought maybe you had something else to bring to the table.
not a hostile comment in the least.

> I learned this year that at our very simplest pieces we are just 6 different disturbances in energy (the elements that we are made of).

all books you read are made of twenty something letters

all images you ever saw are made of a couple of primary colours

all sound you ever heard

OP have you read the selfish gene?
chapter one is called "Why are Humans?" or something like that.
basically, when you ask why, you ask a bad question.
why questions are better formed as answered how questions.

The reason life can't be clearly defined is because it isn't really distinct from the surrounding world. It's simply chemistry on a much more complex, grander scale.

Because there is something special about the souls of humans and animals. How can you possibly believe in such things as alternate dimensions, dark matter, tachyons, LHC, and black holes without finding it plausible that there is something deeper inside of us than clockwork?

>>2164964

Dude, are you really suggesting that every move we make is watched by some man in the sky? Go back to sucking a church's dick faggot

>Why are we alive?
because of complex chemical reactions

>>2164968

I don't think I ever mentioned a God at all in my statement. And you're saying that there's nothing more than clockwork and cells combined with a bunch of inorganic shit that makes everything we are? Not a chance, chap

>>2164936

Nice argument from authority, there. I wager if you read those textbooks carefully they would include a disclaimer of sorts.

Why do you assume that to be an answerable or even sensible question?

>>2164973

HAHAHA RELIGION FAG BUTTHURT

>>2164979

If you're referring to OP, your statement is invalid. Only the greatest scientific minds ask the questions no one else will

"God is subtle"

>>2164973
good on you, mate. I agree.

>>2164964

when i first heard of this, many of my classmates were drawing conclusions related to what you're saying. God and whatnot.
but really?
God's the answer to the thing's humans can't explain. It gives us a sense of easiness in the face of a question that unsettles us. It keep us feeling high and mighty, for we have all the answers. We give this answer to simply give one, and keep our reputations as know-it-alls. We either "know" know it's god, or "know" isn't.
He as human's are put in this situation where, unlike animals, we can question, and answer.
We are our own gods.
And THAT, is why we cannot simply say, "Oh god did it." I must know the answer.

>>2164974
>Nice argument from authority, there
Thanks. People with higher degrees publishing peer-reviewed information is always acceptable in my book.

>I wager if you read those textbooks carefully they would include a disclaimer of sorts.

Nope, although I do agree that the definition might change in the future, as with any science, but as of now, life as we know it is defined that way, whether you like it/accept it or not.

>>2165000
>>2165000

God is a convenient answer. But what if God is responsible for the answer. Does that make sense? Look at the body to the left if you haven't already. You will see that evolution makes us want to have sex with it. But that does not explain why:
1) It exists at all
2) It thinks (even though it's a woman)
3) The not-alive neurons in its brain are able to process abstract ideas that evolution is unlikely to breed

>>2164987

OP doesn't ask a scientific question. It's a philosophical question and there is no reason to believe that it has an answer.

>>2165000
+1

>>2164987

Also I posed a question. It wasn't a statement.

>>2165034

Grammar Nazi detected

>>2164968

I didn't read anything about God or being watched. All he said was 'soul'.

Soul can imply many different meanings. (not very /sci/ blah blah blah... still doesn't mean it's worthless to discuss things like why).

Look at Jainism. They believe in souls without God all coming from an infinite aged universe that repeats itself but in different ways. Oh, and says to be nice to all living things.

>>2165015

Alright, since reading independently is too big a task for you, give me that definition of life and I shall demonstrate why it's inadequate.

>Why are we alive?

because our mummies and daddies loved each other very much (and then daddy cummed a bucket of spunk inside mummy's fanny).

OP, a lucky accident of molecular arrangement that was bound to happen sooner or later.

/thread

>>2165048

I used a question instead of a statement so OP or whoever read my post could reveal the emptiness of their assumption to themselves.

>your question
>Why are we alive?

>the answer
we dont know

>>2165068
>implying luck had anything to do with it...

>>2165072
*yet

>>2165084
>implying there has to be an answer to this question

>your question
>Why are we alive?

>the answer
to create questions an answers.

>Why are we alive?

>Why are we not dead?

>Why do we die if the purpose is to live?

>Why do we ask these questions?

>Why did we create math?

>Why did we come down from the trees?

Biology is an answer to -how-, not -why-. If you wish to find an answer to why, then I suggest you take a religion class or walk for many many miles over much countryside. Personally, if you do all the walking, you'll find your answer faster then talking with any guru of any religion.

>>2164773

OP I think that you have to consider how you are approaching this view of life as a construct. Essentially, from a 'neutral' standpoint of all matter, really there is no defining line between what is life and what isn't. This is because what is perceived as 'life' is simply a group of objects which humans mentally bunch together in order to better understand them metaphysically. In the same way that an engine is just a lot of different parts, it is essentially the same construct whether it is missing some parts or not, it just won't work in the same way.

Contrarily, if you wish to consider 'life' as being something greater than just a matter construct, you have to consider the existence of God and the implications that brings. From God's standpoint, life is what he has created to behave and exist in a particular manner which is for purposes known to Him. So in this sense asking the question 'Why?' becomes rather irrelevant because only God could provide the correct answer and reasoning.

dude you're gay: I'm atheist
I like biology

whatever man. to truly appreciate, one must dissolve any labels he abides by. biochemistry is awesome. yes, none of those things are alive, but together they are. we are alive because nature is the best damn scientist ever in the universe

>>2165015
High school chemistry book -> contained such a simplified version of facts it could be deemed false.

Sixth form chemistry book -> high school facts were wrong, have some new ones that are a bit more complicated

Degree chemistry -> yeah, we're still working it all out ourselves. Wanna help?


So forgive me for not accepting a school textbook as a comprehensive source for any information, cause you're yet to win me over.

the how is incomplete without the why.

how = biochemistry

why = motivation of individuals to reproduce (so basically evolution+biochemistry)

existential why = waste of your time

how = biochemistry

why = motivation of individuals to engage in reproductive acts (so basically evolution+biochemistry)

existential why = waste of your time

OP, i understand what missing link your questions is trying to pin down. If I'm not mistaken, you're trying to conceptualize the difference between "being" and "non-being". in order to understand the line between the two, you should probably read into artificial intelligence. ideally, AI should eventually be advanced enough to have the same qualities as a human being. In fact, perhaps we should consider that a human is an AI 'operating' from and BY the brain -> an organ of a very advanced biological construct that was developed, by chance, over a very very long period of time. Ideally, I see a human as one solution to the problem of integrating biology with consciousness -> the aforementioned missing link being the integration.

and how can all this exist without an intelligent designer? you will know only once you ACCURATELY calculate the probability of what things may happen given EXTREMELY long periods of time and an autonomous and mindless universe.

>>2164773

Because nature wants to survive, bitch