Something above life?

JustSomeGuy

Each of us is really a walking ecosystem, composed of trillions of living microbes, as well as all of the living cells that make up our organs, bones, skin, etc. So, I am not one "thing". I am a collection of things, a composite of many different groupings of various kinds of lifeforms. This is how all life works, all the way down to single living cells. These smallest forms of life group together in various ways to make other larger, more complex forms of life. And yet, these living cells are also composed of smaller things, but these smaller things are not living. So, non-living things, when working together in a specific way, create something alive. Life emerges from non-life.

Something I have often considered is the possibility of this process continuing above and beyond the ability of our perceptions. It doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine that the world we live in, our universe, is simply one component of a much larger and more complex "thing". This thing could be alive, just as we are alive due to being composed of living things. Or it could be something above life, just as life is above non-life. If non-life gives rise to living things, why couldn't living things give rise to something else in the same fashion?

This isn't a focused question or issue, more just something fascinating to think about. It's easy to get caught up in the day to day and only focus on what "makes sense" or what is immediately apparent; to get a sort of tunnel vision--even as philosophers. I think it's good to remind ourselves that no matter how much we "figure out", we still have no idea what the fuck is going on. Some might think this sort of thing is a waste of time, but I get great enjoyment out of pondering these kinds of questions. It reminds me how seriously mysterious all of this really is--life, existence, reality, the universe. It provides perspective.

I just felt like sharing this opportunity for enjoyment and perspective with others.

Rich

Yes there are minds within minds within minds in a continuum as there are waves within waves within waves in the ocean. The individual is continuous within the whole and the whole is continuous with the individuals.

Pseudonym

↪JustSomeGuy

This is probably obvious in the context of what you're saying, but have you read any James Lovelock?

T Clark

I just felt like sharing this opportunity for enjoyment and perspective with others. — JustSomeGuy

This is intended as a serious response, even though the links I'm giving are to videos that are supposed to be funny. Is this what you're talking about or are you thinking of something else?

Noble Dust

I asked a similar question here, albeit from a much different angle; it wasn’t very well received. Probably not philosophical enough, too imaginative. Ironically, we’re better equipped than ever, now, to ask this sort of question. A lot of people seem not only uninterested, but against the question itself. Indicative of the zeitgeist we live in?

JustSomeGuy

↪Pseudonym

Never heard of him; what has he written?

↪T Clark

Essentially, yes, though without the condition of the larger "thing" or world being just like ours, or some variation thereof. So it wouldn't be giant aliens playing marbles with our galaxy, it would be something we cannot even conceive of because it is as far above us as we are above the components inside cells.

Indicative of the zeitgeist we live in? — Noble Dust

Most likely, though it's hard to say. We can look back on great thinkers from cultures past and wonder why things have changed so much--why most people don't ask those questions anymore--but it's probably safe to assume that most people back then weren't concerned with those questions, either. It's probably just human nature; most of us are too concerned with what we are biologically programmed to be concerned with, while only a select few have the propensity for questioning these things. Or rather, for entertaining these sorts of questions. In my experience, most people just find them to be pointless. Even many philosophers can be far too pragmatic, in my opinion. Where's the fun in that?

JustSomeGuy

↪Noble Dust

Also, I appreciate you sharing your discussion, I'll look it over soon when I have more time--it sounds very interesting.

Pseudonym

Never heard of him; what has he written? — JustSomeGuy

OK, he's basically written exactly what you've just suggested (if I understand you correctly). He outlines the way in which the earth can be considered as a living thing in its own right. His theory is that the earth self-regulates to maintain homeostasis and each life form plays a part in maintaining conditions suitable for life as a whole just like each part of our body plays a part in sustaining us. It's more science than philosophy, but its along the lines of your post.

T Clark

Or rather, for entertaining these sorts of questions. In my experience, most people just find them to be pointless. Even many philosophers can be far too pragmatic, in my opinion. Where's the fun in that? — JustSomeGuy

This type of question shows up all the time in philosophy, science, and especially science fiction. Examples:

Look over at the "Big Bang in a Larger-verse" discussion started by Jorndoe.
Multi-verse interpretations of quantum mechanics
The Gaia hypothesis that it makes sense to look on the earth as a living organism. Generally classified as pseudo-science or new age spirituality.
See the two links I sent from popular culture. This is handled many ways in science fiction. The ones I remember first from when I was a kid were parallel universes which existed in the same space and time ours does, but are separated by some unspecified barrier that keeps us from interacting except in science fiction books and movies.

I'm sure we can think of others.

JustSomeGuy

↪Pseudonym

I am quite a fan of science, so that's fine with me. I'll definitely check him out; it sounds very interesting.

AngleWyrm

Something I have often considered is the possibility of this process continuing above and beyond the ability of our perceptions. — JustSomeGuy

Imagine for a moment how a blood cell has no conception of a human body, just the veins it travels in and it's own job within that stream. The same can be said for people, that our perceptual organs are designed for our scale.

Beyond our scale are the aggregates of family, cities, societies, corporations, nations. Each is an entity with a lifespan, characteristics and behaviors distinct from individuals. A company can exist even though the people that started it are long gone. A city can last for centuries, grow and evolve with technological change.

Such entities have needs, and it might not be too much of a stretch to say they have healthy and unhealthy conditions which establishes a sense of wants.

So yes, there are entities greater than individuals.

Something above life?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions