555

First the technical definition.
Life is self-organising chemistry which reproduces itself and passes on

its evolved characteristics, encoded in DNA. In thermodynamics terms, it has the ability to reduce
local entropy or disorganisation, thus locally contravening the third law of thermodynamics.
But what is life really about, if anything? The two possibilities are, life is either a meaningless
accident arising from the laws of physics operating in a meaningless universe, or it is a step in a
planned ‘experiment’. I say ‘step’, because this cannot be the end. The current state of life is as yet
too unstable and undeveloped for it to be the end. And I say ‘experiment’ because the evolutionary
nature of life suggests that its future is not known. If therefore the universe itself has a purpose, it
seems most likely to be to explore what the outcome of the evolutionary experiment would be.
But what will be the outcome? If, as many physicists now believe, the universe is only information,
then harnessing all the resources of the universe in one giant evolutionary process could plausibly
provide a useful outcome for a species clever enough to create the universe in the first place. On
this interpretation, life will ultimately organise all the physical resources of the universe into a single
self-conscious intelligence, which in turn will then be able to interact with its creator(s).
Dr Harry Fuchs, Flecknoe, Warwickshire
Life is the embodiment of selfishness! Life is selfish because it is for itself in two ways: it is for its
own survival, and it is for its own reproduction. This desire is embodied in an adaptive autocatalytic
chemical system, forming life’s embodied mind.
Anything that is not itself is the other; and the collection of others constitute its environment. The
organism must destructively use the other to satisfy its reproductive desire, but on achieving this, it
produces an additional other – but now one that also embodies its own selfish aim and the means to
satisfy this aim. Therefore, even by an organism satisfying its desire, it makes the continuing
satisfaction of its desires ever more difficult to achieve. A partial solution to this dilemma is for
genetically-related entities to form a cooperating society.
The underlying mechanism of evolution is therefore the iteration of the embodied desire within an
ever more complex competitive and social environment. Over vast numbers of iterations, this
process forces some life-forms along a pathway that solves the desire for survival and reproduction
by developing ever more complex and adaptable minds. This is achieved by supplementing their
underlying cellular embodied chemistry with a specialist organ (although still based on chemistry)
that we call its brain, able to rapidly process electrical signals. Advanced minds can collect and
process vast inputs of data by ‘projecting’ the derived output back onto its environmental source, that
is by acting. However advanced it might be, an organism is still driven by the same basic needs for
survival and reproduction. The creative process, however, leads the organism towards an
increasingly aesthetic experience of the world. This is why for us the world we experience is both
rich and beautiful.
Dr Steve Brewer, St Ives, Cornwall
In our scientific age, we look to the biologists to define ‘life’ for us. After all, it is their subject matter. I
believe they have yet to reach consensus, but a biological definition would be something like, ‘Life is
an arrangement of molecules with qualities of self-sustenance and self-replication’. This kind of
definition might serve the purposes of biologists, but for me, it has five deficiencies. First, any
definition of life by biologists would have little utility outside biology because of its necessary
inclusiveness. We humans would find ourselves in a class of beings that included the amoeba. ‘Life’
would be the limited common properties of all organisms, including the lowest. Second, the scientific
definition of life is necessarily an external one. I think that knowing what life is, as opposed to
defining it, requires knowing it from within. Non-sentient organisms live, but they do not know life.
Third, in the scientific definition, there is no place for life having value. However, many would say
that life has value in its own right – that it is not simply that we humans value life and so give it value,
but that it has value intrinsically. Fourth, there is the question of life as a whole having a purpose or
goal. This notion is not scientific, but one wonders if the tools of science are fit to detect any
evolutionary purpose, if there is one. Fifth, for the scientists, life is a set of biological conditions and
processes. However, everywhere and always, people have conceived of a life after biological death,
a life of spirit not necessarily dependent on the physical for existence.
The scientific definition of life is valid in its context, but otherwise I find it impoverished. I believe
there is a hierarchy of living beings from the non-sentient, to the sentient, to humans, and perhaps
up to God. When I ask, ‘What is life? I want to know what life is at its highest form. I believe life at its
best is spirit: it is active, sentient, feeling, thinking, purposive, valuing, social, other-respecting,
relating, and caring.
John Talley, Rutherfordton, NC

555

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

555

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

555

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

First the technical definition.

Life is self-organising chemistry which reproduces itself and passes on

Dr Harry Fuchs, Flecknoe, Warwickshire

John Talley, Rutherfordton, NC

You might also like