Saranagata

@DianaFr you can do that from a body in a casket

@Princess Arabia there's no boss without your brother observing. and there's no brother without you observing. and there's no you without me observing.

There's no tree and no forest without anybody being there.

@Keryo Koffa @Carl-Richard @ICURBlessings detailed reply coming soon in audio format.

@Carl-Richard Great question. Life and Death -- these words themselves are unscientific . any reference to these words should imply that consciousness is a process that occurs between these. why have such unscientific definitions ?

@Carl-Richard I have said this in a subtle way man. yes, I have one such point. actually accept that describing life is beyond the scope of science. that will leave some gap for philosophy, theology and meaning to life. Materialism/Mechanistic world views ruin meaning and purpose. @Keryo Koffa will you sign a petition asking to stop materialist science from defining life.

@ICURBlessings Man there is literally zero evidence that humans perceive let alone plants. EXCEPT "MY PERSONAL PERCEPTION". CORRELATION DOESN'T IMPLY CAUSATION.

lol.... Then why don't we get to a definition that will atleast give a meaning to life. or leave the definiton as something which is beyond the scope of science. I am reading the chatgpt thing. will reply.

Yes, you are right. but bodily boundary itself is not a scientific boundary rather a belief. A belief that has come into my mind due to language which itself is a human construct. again appeal to authority/majority. there is absolutely zero causative evidence to say that taste is a result of nerve impulses. there is correlative evidence though to say that. but correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. and here's the part where you are gonna confirm that I am mad. There is literally zero evidence to say that thoughts are generated in the brain. and I don't think there will ever be any. "Bodily systems" itself is a construct of language. why it couldn't be that I am the universe experiencing itself through senses which is assuming a separation in the universe due to language. No language ---> No separation in any forms within the universe. But language itself is a made up thing. (make believe/unscientific). In this case, I am the only life for me. well, I might be the universe, so could you be. which has forgot it's essential nature and has created boundaries. You are free to consider me crazy man, a lot of people do anyways. But found no other platform to discuss such things.

@Carl-Richard Hey man, I really appreciate your line of questioning. "photoreceptors" is a name we have given to a piece of matter, that interacts with light in a certain way. so do photoelectric plates, atoms, and garbage. How similar sense organs must be? atleast in shape and form. But that's not the point. my point is , you should not give the authority to someone else to tell you that you are alive,(science is all about giving the authority to someone else). I am alive, because I perceive sensations, that's all. and since you possess similar sense organs, I BELIEVE, YOU ARE ALIVE. I CAN NEVER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE YOU ARE. (no one can ever prove someone else's sense perceptions) By bringing the definition of life into science we are removing the very meaning of it, and making the word useless. self replication/Homeostasis/Metabolism are not defining features of life without contradictions. Life can only be experienced, never be or tried to be proved. and you can only do it with yours.

@Carl-Richard well I should include every form of matter, that doesn't have analogous senses to humans. yes, fungi, bacteria, viruses should also be included. But just testing out people's opinions on the hardest one, which is plants and trees. so yes, we need to differentiate fungi also from the definition of "life".

@Carl-Richard Metabolism is a very vague word. In the case of human it could mean anything that ranges from ATP synthesis to fat breakdown. But in the case of amoeba it just means osmosis and diffusion of a few molecules. Then you can actually connect a ECMO machine to an already declared dead body of any creature, This would start the metabolic processes in the body, but would that mean that the dead has become alive? what's common in all of these metabolic processes is they are all chemical reactions. why would one chemical rxn (in a lab) be considerd non life, while another one be considerd as a sign of life? attaching a video, where molecules can self replicate without dna. what do we call those?

@Princess Arabia yes, because IMO living should not be based on the ability to replicate, rather it should be defined on the basis of ability to perceive through senses. which plants clearly lack. In my definition my life can only be verified through my experience (I perceive, therefore I am) and your life would be my belief since you possess similar senses to me.

@Lucasxp64

@Leo Gura Hey Leo, there is no proper definition of life as you said in one of your video. we should atleast strive to stop ascribing the word to matter without any senses.