"Was" typically means you're acknowledging it existed. — Hallucinogen

I was humouring you. But, okay: a first entity existed.
If we take 'entity' to mean any solid identifiable object, that would theoretically have been a sub-microscopic infinitely hot, dense ball of matter that blew itself up. Sounds ridiculous enough on its own, and then you add consciousness and agency and it becomes totally absurd. I could never believe in such a thing.
If we take 'entity' to mean a self-aware organism, there must have been a first one of those, long ago, on some planet of some galaxy. In that case, all of its progeny depended on its having existed, but they don't preclude other organic life arising and becoming self-aware on any number of other planets, in any number of galaxies, and they didn't depend on that one first one, regardless of their chronological order, and none are 'contingent'.

The deities of monotheism and deism are all metaphysically necessary entities, so disbelief in all deities entails disbelief in those metaphysically necessary entities. — Hallucinogen

No imaginary spirits, gods or djinns are necessary. Belief is optional.

That, like so many formerly pleasant activities, has lately become perilous to one's mental health.
I look at the Gulf of Mexico in the lower right corner of news broadcasts and wonder where the hummingbirds are now. I look out at the feeders and wonder why there so few chickadees. I look at my windshield in summer and know why no swallows are gathering along the road where we used to watch them in early fall.

f you're acknowledging that there's a non-contingent first entity then you're not an atheist about a necessary entity. — Hallucinogen

I haven't acknowledged any 'entities', necessary or otherwise. I was going along with your criteria for the sake of argument.
And, afaic, atheism is unbelief in deities, not entities. I'm not an atheist about any specific proposition of your choosing; I'm an atheist by virtue of disbelieving in all deities.

Metaphysical necessity is mutually inclusive with being eternal and omnipotent, so the acknowledgement concedes a lot of important ground to theism. — Hallucinogen

Possibly in some realms of the imagination; not in my reality.

I don't know what the first entity was. I will never know. What's this to do with atheism?

But the thread is still about rational thinking in animals and people. — Patterner

I know. The telling of time - when something is expected to happen vs what time something is expected to happen - was a slight detour. However, I do consider a sense of time, understanding the sequence of events and anticipation of future events, to be an important component in reasoning.

If there was a way to prove it one way or another, I'd bet good money that was not why the dog was still showing up. If that was why it was still showing up, then it's not an example of a dog thinking rationally. — Patterner

This was not a problem solving exercise; it was an example of sentimental attachment and time-sense. Dodi was an inept hunting dog, not very bright. My grandfather bought him, rather than see him put down. Quite an irrational act: he was soft in the head, too. Wouldn't even beat his sons, way back in the 1920's when that was considered every father's duty.

1. It would seem that there is a kind of understanding that is not exactly a rational explanation, but does help to understand why people might remember those they have lost when it would not be irrational to forget. — Ludwig V

We are also creatures ruled to a large extent by feelings of attachment, loyalty, affection, of sentiment - just like dogs, horses and geese. We generally don't blame one another for failing to be 100% rational 100%of the time. Other animals, we hold to a different standard.

If she doesn't show up again, but you're still hoping she will be there five years from now - as opposed to just looking out at the tree with bittersweet memories of her, and wishing she had been with you longer - then your hope will no longer be rational. So you probably shouldn't go out there every day at that poibt, open a new can of cat food, and call for her. — Patterner

I won't be here by this time next year. Until then, it's the window of my office, where a I spend much of my day.
BTW, the incident of the dog who waits wasn't about rational thinking; it was about a sense of time, of awareness of past and future, and not simply living in the present, as some people insist that other animals do.

But the dog wasn't still going a decade after because it expected the man to get off the train. — Patterner

He was just faithful.
Some things we do are not rational in a strict sense of the word. My favourite cat went out one night three months ago and didn't show up in the cedar tree outside my office window next morning. Chances are, a coyote or a car killed her. I'm aware of these dangers, having access to information dogs and cats don't. My grandfather died in another town; his human family was notified. The dog never saw his body and was told nothing. I still look out at the cedar tree every morning: though I don't rationally expect to see Sammy there, some superstitious* part of me keeps hoping. The same way the families of soldiers missing in action keep hoping for years or decades that their loved one will come home some day.

*I suppose it's the same part in many humans that insists on believing in a soul and afterlife. Hope, even the most improbable hope, is hard to give up.

It's a bit of a taxonomic gap from the corvids but am sure the corvids have some interesting predator/prey dynamics on account of how intelligent people say they are. — Nils Loc

Konrad Lorenz wrote that crows swarmed and intimidated him on his way down to the river every morning, until he discovered the problem: he'd had a black swimsuit carelessly dangling from his hand. If crows see anything limp and black carried by a predator, they assume it's a dead crow and he's an enemy. After that, he wore his trunks and went empty-handed and was allowed to go in peace.

I'm quite familiar with the racket they make in the dead elms every June-July, when their fledglings are learning to fly. The whole flock stands on guard, taking turns at fly-overs, keeping watch and warning all predators to stay away.
I've also had a flock of 10-12 grackles every spring for some years (though the numbers have diminished alarmingly of late) and I never seen their fledglings. They go into the deeper woods to nest and rear their young. The bluejays are much in evidence, however: they bring their noisy kids to the feeder and do elementary flight-training in our cedar trees. A parents will perch in one tree with the chicks, then fly over to a nearby tree and call to them. And keep calling and encouraging, while the other parent flits back and forth to demonstrate and the kids complain how scared and hungry they are. They make an awful racket, but they're great fun to watch.

In fact, not the least bit evil and in no ways like a writing-desk.

I don't doubt it, and would appreciate learning what species do this and how.

Could ravens lure prey out with imitation, as a tactic? — Nils Loc

But that's not luring prey. You were way ahead with the singing raven.

But I guess it depends on what’s considered problem solving. — John McMannis

In the scientific observations, the problem was set by humans. It would be in the form of a maze, or human-designed containers from which the subject would have to extricate a treat, by more or less complicated methods. The experiments with crows usually involve a three-part procedure that requires the subject to analyze the nature of the container and figure out how to open it, using one or more tools, or a principle of physics (such as artificially raisin the water level in a tube, or tilting a device to the correct inline) .
Ravens, apparently do very well indeed. In the primate experiments, the subject might be confronted with images or symbols of which they had to decipher the meaning. None of these experiments were 'in the wild'; ie problems that an animal would encounter in their natural habitat, while living its ordinary life - not situations in which instinct would be expected to play a part.

Here is a simple one for dogs

To determine cooperative actions, the strings are set so far apart that one dog cannot reach them both. Two dogs are positioned in front of the table. The goal is for the dogs to cooperate by pulling the strings simultaneously, releasing two treats. In this study, dogs cooperated with each other or with human participants. It was also observed that if one dog was set in front of the table, he waited for the other dog to get in position before tugging on the string. So, dogs are good at working with others to get the job done.

The problem solving I myself observed in dogs involved something the dog(s) desired, that was normally denied to them, so that they would have to find ways to circumvent human-imposed rules and overcome human-created obstacles. I have personal experience with many animals, including numerous confrontations with one memorable rat we dubbed Albert Houdini. It took six months of devising ever more ingenious traps to catch that little bastard and relocate him to a wild environment. Since we had also released several other rats in that location, we can only speculate how much we've contributed to the evolution of a super-race of rodents.

It may only have been "ma-ma-ma-ma, mamme", but it was quite tuneful. He sang. Human-like, rather than songbird-like, but adorable, all the same. Nothing at all like a writing-desk!

So, I'll have to fall back on the classic:
Edgar Allen Poe wrote on both of them.

Ravens can mimic song like many other Corvids. — Nils Loc

Really? Can you point me to some footage? I know that bluejays and sometimes blackbirds imitate sounds, but I've never heard a crow sing.
We don't get ravens around here, so I don't know what they usually sound like.
Nor can I absolutely swear that no writing desk is wired for sound.
So, that guess may have been wrong. I wait to be further enlightened.

Could ravens lure prey out with imitation, as a tactic? — Nils Loc

What prey? By imitating what? Roadkill doesn't respond; eggs and berries can't be fooled by sound; mice probably wouldn't come out of hiding for a raven song.
Our pet crows loved the fried fish we humans were served every Friday. Neighbours would bring their leftovers and these two full-grown crows would dance around on the steps of our barrack, shaking their wings and cheeping like babies, waiting to be fed. The rest of the time, they'd be perched on the roof or searching the ground. I never heard either one utter a musical note.

But wouldn’t that mean that all animals have rational thought? They all problem solve in some ways. — John McMannis

Do they?
I have personally witnessed it in dogs, cats, crows, raccoons and rats and goats.
In scientific experimentation, the subjects have been predominantly apes, dolphins, canines, rodents, parrots and corvids.
I would be very interested to hear of other examples, and how the assessment was made.

Neither can sing.

The people who promote unhappiness as the superior state don't seem to understand how much effort and commitment goes into maintaining a positive state.

Once you've lost; you're in tragedy and despair, you can simply wallow for as long as it takes to muster your resources to meet whatever the challenge is. When you're where you have aspired to be, it takes eternal vigilance, punctuated by occasional heroic acts to keep and defend what you have.
That movie takes more subtle treatment than one about struggle and loss; no overt facile drama to depict.

we can attempt to understand them through relative criteria such as positive emotions and pain. If we seek to do good, it might consist of promoting joy — Cadet John Kervensley

I would not use joy and pain as the opposites appropriate to this question. I suggest benefit vs harm as a more general description of how people usually frame ethical issues, the basis on which decisions must be made.

Where human sacrifice is considered a good, it's because the sacrifice is seen as promoting the welfare of the community and preventing harm. In a different context, the heroic act of a soldier who dies saving his platoon - a similar sacrifice - is celebrated as good. So is the lesser sacrifice of time and energy given by a volunteer aid worker to flood victims.
If you were to consider joy as the criterion for good action, you'd have to give medals to entertainers and hospital visiting Santas, but withhold one from a firefighter who risked his life to save trapped victims, and failed, or a nurse who tends dying patients in a hospice. Not all good actions bring joy, but all good actions benefit residents of Earth.
It's the same with evil. Some bad actions cause pain directly, some indirectly. But some are more subtle, such as sowing discord and distrust among people, or deceiving them so that they act against the interest of their fellow citizens, their community or their country. There are harms that do not manifest as physical pain, yet work to destroy the social fabric.

Sorrow all looks pretty much the same; anger all looks pretty much the same; amusement all looks pretty much the same: emotions in humans are expressed in the same physiological responses.
But, though everyone may shed a tear and let their features droop when they are sad, an individual does not experience every instance of sorrow in the same way, or with the same intensity or for same length of time. And if our personal experience of emotions is unique to each instance, how much more varied are the experiences of different people?
No, emotions, either positive or negative, cannot be lumped in buckets.

Continued

There was some charity but no government assistance. Which brings me to religion and God as love and how do we understand love? — Athena

In some communities, there was - and is - a good deal of charity. Government assistance is good and much needed, as are social workers to monitor potentially dangerous situations and vulnerable persons, as are public health nurses, teachers and professional caregivers. But there is much more a charitable community can do to make the lives of marginal people less precarious, less lonely and frightening. And sometimes neighbours do. You do, right?

God's love or God as love doesn't work for me. It sits quite awkwardly on the Biblical God. He wasn't Christian; he was Hebrew and he was primarily a god of territorial conflict. I guess he still is. The Christians - starting with the Jesus cult - made adjustments, as one would to the programming of a holodeck character. They made him big enough to represent the Roman Empire and then even bigger to encompass subsequent European empires, to subsume any number of local deities. They made him just, rather than capricious; merciful rather than vengeful - they made him more palatable for export. They stuck the 'love' banner on him, but it never really fit - which is why women pray to Mary or one of the saints, and men are more likely to address Jesus or one of the saints.
That cute saying: "Sure God answers prayers, but sometimes the answer is No." is cruelly unsatisfactory for a believer in distress. That's exactly nobody's idea of divine love.

There can be compassion and caring and helpful effort in the name of one's deity of choice (often a Catholic saint) or under the auspices of a religious organization of any kind. But it's insulting to the recipient to call that love, when the volunteer doesn't particularly like them. (I have to admit here, I have encountered two examples where nursing sisters genuinely loved their charges - damaged children and veterans, respectively.)

Love is spontaneous, personal and uncoercable. It happens or it doesn't and sometimes the reasons are hard to understand. And too often, it is fragile. We can arrange our social structures to be more conducive to loving relations - lessen the physical discomforts, the stress, the anxiety, competition for scarce resources, the need for deceit; give people enough leisure time and decent housing. I imagine UBI would be a huge boost to family harmony.

I also think our time and place in history makes a difference. Each cohort is affected by different historical events and movements. — Athena

Yes, in many ways. But some basic human needs and responses are constant. You have romantic love stories from two thousand years ago. I've already mentioned parental love, and neither filial nor fraternal love is rare in ballads, plays and legends of many cultures and ages. If they sang about it in a form that survived hundreds of years, it must have been important to them and those who followed. The oldest love song is in Ashurbanipal; the oldest lullaby is Babylonian c. 2000 BCE, according to wiki - but these are just from the period since writing. People had been singing for a long time before that. And having the same feelings.

I am nostalgic for the Hippie period of love, a return to nature and equality. — Athena

In my experience, it sounded better than it was in practice. It had lively moments and some good sentiments. There was indeed much tolerance and liberty, but also much fecklessness self-indulgence. I wasn't at all impressed with the drug scene, or the neglect of education and refusal to work. I was irked by those who begged money from the very people they professed to despise. Many young people rejected their parents' affection and were callously ungrateful. Extolling nature, writing poems, making paper flowers and dancing in filmy fabrics is all very well, but most of the urban hippies had no idea what to do with nature.... and they were not mindful to 'leave nothing but footprints'. I also knew several young women who came out of the period supporting a child, on their own, in poverty.
Of course, many of those youngsters emerged strong and committed and grew up to be competent, responsible people. I suppose it helped that some had found lasting love and were determined to take care of their offspring. And eventually their parents, too.

In the past I don't think love had much to do with family. — Athena

Well, if you look at the few remote peoples who still live as their ancestors did, close to the earth and river, fathers carry their small children on their shoulders; mothers croon their babies to sleep; older children teach younger the skills they have learned; they laugh and play together . If anything, they're nicer to their children than we are - or anyway, closer.
If you don't want to go that far back in the past, look at the history of toys and burials.

It was expected for a man and woman to marry and have children. From there was family duty. That could result in very unloving families. — Athena

It could, especially if a nasty strain of Christianity ruled all their lives and limited what they were allowed to do. Even then, some families managed warmth and kindness, even if the parents could not love each other.
There is a lot of "past" to dip into, and a lot of different cultures
People have always loved their children, just as gorillas and bears do, but they don't all show it the same way.

Seems I have to go. TBC, rainstorm permitting.

Time to strike up Nearer My God to Thee ? And the band played on...
I know it's not a time for levity, but may well be a time for gallows humour.

Oh dear. An unfortunate reminder of Trump's Proud Boy order of 'stand back and stand by' — Amity

It was meant as a positive echo to a negative order. Down tools and get out of the way for a while.

I am becoming increasingly concerned with American politics. It sickens me. — Amity

Not theirs alone, either! Don't look east or southward!
Yes. We keep watching You Tube, as one would a million-car collision in slow motion, hardly able to believe what's become of the nation that gave us All in the Family. This election is close? As Alan Shore used to say in his closing arguments: How can this be? How can this be!?
My current theory is solar flares. They're driving the world's population mad. It's incremental, because organisms have different levels of susceptibility. There will still be a few (unfortunate) relatively sane humans when the cats begin to succumb. By then, all the apes, elephants and dolphins and dogs will be at one another's throats.

The gods we care about were first created 2 or 3 millennia ago. — BC

But not for the purpose of explaining thunder and lightning because they didn't know science.
I don't actually care what each believer believes or pretends to; only about how they treat other people. I don't actually care whether they think their god created evil, condones evil or is evil; I only care whether they do evil. Because I don't think evil has anything to do with gods or faiths: it's a human concept, a human attribute.

You mean this sarcastically? — schopenhauer1

Not at all. I simply mean that any merit there may have been in distinguishing the purpose and function of organized, civilized religions from grass-roots, primitive religions has been lost in the Judeo-Christian history and is no longer relevant.

I concede. All general comments on the nature of organized religions hereby withdrawn.

However, the Bible itself in the context of why/when it was written, contradicts some of that. — schopenhauer1

Every religion differs in some respects from all the others. And every state religion nevertheless supports the hierarchy. Chastising a king is not the same as advocating for a republic; they just want a new and stronger king, once they've had time to recover and regroup. That happens in most nations from time to time.

The Bible was written when Israel and Judah were defeated, and Judah was reconstituted as a small province under the satraps of the Persian Empire. — schopenhauer1

Parts of it were written then.
The main difference between the religion of Judah/Israel and all the others is that no other nation's scribe-recorded chronicles ended up as the Holy Book of a very different, much more powerful nation.
That was a fluke, which also influenced the evolution of Jehovah, from tribal deity to Lord Of the Universe. But his most powerful churches never stopped supporting the earthly power structure.

But you mentioned a purpose, and I gave you some purpose(s) from the many layers. — schopenhauer1

Yes, you supplied some specifics that I hadn't known, and I appreciate it.

However, they were along the way creating an identity outside the original context of a kingdom-state. It was also creating from the ashes of destruction a way of uniting a nation without state, or without a king at least. — schopenhauer1

In that instance. Which supplied a nice underpinning for the eventual king-making power of the RCC, and the theocracies of Islam.

I was referring to the general purpose common to all organized religions - which, of course, began as state religions - which was to reinforce the authority of whoever was already in power, and ensure the continuity of the regime.
E.g., as noted above, the divine right of kings as a doctrine, and then the custom of archbishops anointing kings - lest they forget which side their power is buttered. Without the clergy and its revenue-generating carrot, they would have to rely on expensive the military stick alone.

We could probably trace a similar history for the pantheons of all civilizations.
They didn't all need the series of prophets predicting a very predictable conquest by a much bigger power and blaming the disobedience by their king to of god's edicts. So, the god is secure, and the nation will be okay under the guidance of the priesthood ... nothing self-serving there!

On the one hand, we created God so we can know everything about God. — BC

Which "we" is that? I had no part in the creation of any gods. My only sources of information are documents written by men, long dead, about gods they may or may not have had some part in creating. All I know about their gods is what they tell me, and that's far from everything.

Thus we can have it both ways: When it is convenient, we know what God wants, doesn't want, what God likes, what God hates, etc. Or, when it is convenient, God can be an unknowable mystery. — BC

That "we" not only excludes myself, but the majority of people. Who has it every way they want are the manipulators of faith and credulity; the manipulated have no such power.

The millennia-long dead authors of god-tales were likely in great earnest. They lived in a pre-scientific world where there was a lot of unexplained, unexplainable events that needed some sort of explanation. — BC

I very much doubt that was their motivation. I allow that as part of the motivation of people who made up stories of origin and causation in the unrecorded eras before writing. But by the time of clay tablets, papyrus and alphabets, civilizations were hierarchical and stratified; there was rulership and obedience, law and punishment.
Scripture was purposeful. Obviously, the authors incorporated all the elements of myth, legend and traditional folklore as an institutional religion would carry - and they themselves may even have believed some or most of it. That didn't prevent them depicting the hierarchy of their pantheons as a reflection of their own realms, or identifying the deities with their own ruling class, or setting out divine laws that serves the good order of their own social system.
I don't call that cynical, exactly, but neither is it the kind of organic belief system that evolves along with the people who operate in it. Organized religion, with a king-god on top and expediters, enforcers and interpreters below is imposed on a people from above.

Remember that the Bible was not, after all, written by the Holy Spirit in one go. It's a collection of diverse narratives for various purposes--NOT a unitary whole. — BC

From what other sources can we learn the nature and desires of God?

BTW - I believe women who have either pets or children or both should rule the world for a while. Nobody else eligible to run for any administrative or head of government department position for the next 20 years.
Then we can review.
I love and respect many men, but it's time for them to stand down and stand back.

I don't think it unusual for people to wonder as to the benefits of Philosophy as an academic discipline. — Amity

I don't question the value or benefits of the academic application. In fact, that's what I was trying to say: in the educational setting, philosophy becomes systematic and disciplined and that the orderly academic mindset renders it useful.
I don't think Philosophy is a discipline in any other context. Or that it was ever unified in its aspirations or significance until academics packaged it. In any other setting, it's just a lot of disparate thinkers, thinking out loud.

As to Philosophy serving a 'social function'...what is that exactly? Whose philosophy? — Amity

Each disparate opinion is published in a given time and place. It may sway public opinion in that society, or make a deep impression on someone who then becomes a leader. It may and even influence legal and legislative decisions in the near future, and in related cultures. It may influence contemporary thinkers and future ones. That's hit-and-miss; some philosophies sink without a trace; some valid observations are denied or vilified.
As an academic discipline, philosophy is far more powerful. It familiarizes intelligent young people with different ways of thinking, of regarding the world and their fellow humans. Each student is likely to be more heavily influenced by one or another of the philosophers they study, according their own leanings, but whichever it is will have articulated a world view - and thus illustrated for the student how it's done.
Of course there is no guarantee that every student will emulate the thought process of their role model, rather than rely on quotes from him to carry their arguments, but at least every student who takes a philosophy course is given the opportunity to think more deeply and widely. Whatever they do in the world afterward is bound to have an effect on their society.

According to common belief, evil is one of the reasons people abandon faith in God as an omnibenevolent and all good being. — Shawn

Could you have faith in a being who does not make direct contact with you, does not manifest in any way you recognize, is described differently by every cult, each of which has has profound and irreconcilable internal contradictions?
Can you believe in an an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being who not only condones but creates evil? Then, too, as humans have developed a pretty healthy concept of evil themselves, would you continue to have faith in a fabled being whose mythology depicts him as performing and promoting acts that most humans consider evil?

High quality steel can be made into a fork, a knife, a plate or even a plow. The steel would be the essence, the substance of the object. — Sir2u

Okay. I have no problem with substance, which is just raw material. Everything that has a physical form has substance. Why raise that to some kind spiritual level?

When we talk about people, "He is essentially a good person", we talk about the things that make him good. — Sir2u

Which is not about substance. Good or bad, a person is made of biomass. But is that what you mean by essence? Is it the person's essence you're discussing or the essence of goodness - which has no physical substance? In that sentence, 'essentially' is used in the sense of 'basically'; at the foundation of his personality - which also has no physical substance. 'Essence' is non-material attribute. I see no reason to stick it on inanimate objects.

It's easy to see the connection between poetry and song lyrics. But can that be translated to sound, notes and chords? — Amity

Beethoven took a pretty good stab at it. Vivaldi didn't suck, either.

Stealers Wheel ~ Stuck In The Middle With You — Amity

I can't see or hear that in any context except with the image of Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin (Are they not the most amazing women??) in that comedy series - not always in the best taste.
I like many song lyrics - perhaps my favourites are by Simon and Garfunkel, because they supplied the score for my youthful yearnings and heartbreaks. The first record I ever owned was a single Sounds of Silence, a gift from a friend who also felt very much on the fringes of high-school culture. A bright, sad Welsh boy, a poet.

How true is it that: 'the novel can now do for us what philosophy once aspired to'. — Amity

While I fancied that that understood where some philosophers were coming from, and what they were having a go at, I never figured out whether Philosophy as a whole intended or aspired. As a 'discipline', I think it's purely academic, because it takes a pedagogue's orderly mind to make a system of it; in the wild, it's quite undisciplined. Does it serve a social function? Some branches do; some practitioners do so deliberately and self-consciously, while some, I'm a little afraid to say aloud in this environment, seem to me no more than cloud-gazing and verbal calisthenics.

Novels, on the other hand... I'd rather say fiction, because it ought to include drama, has many origins and purposes and social functions. Some of it, obviously, is also cloud-gazing and verbal calisthenics, some is philosophical, A fair amount is mythologizing of a people's self image; a good deal of it is social commentary (which may have been Plato's objection to the dramatic poets of his time; they were successful rivals for what he regarded as his territory... or maybe not; I didn't know him well enough to judge) and even more is just crowd-fodder, created to entertain or frighten or titillate briefly and then fade away. The best fiction combines philosophy and social commentary, edification and intellectual stimulation in an entertaining form. (At least, that's what some of us aspire to.)

Well, it's confusing, that's for sure! Are they on the moon? If so, what's a river estuary doing there?
How come the environment suits are described in more detail than the ruins the people are investigating?
If something was constructed, rules of mathematics and architecture had to apply. Our knowledge of buildings is that they are constructed by living entities for specific purposes. The conclusion is entirely unwarranted by the scant information you've supplied.
Perhaps if you could point to some features that suggest inorganic growth, such as the formation of crystals and snowflakes.... but those are geometrically perfect, so that's no solution. An organic but undirected development, like a coral reef, could be a good example - but it requires living organisms.

I don't see how you can make it work on the present premise.
However, the idea of ruins on the moon or on Mars pointing to long-ago alien habitation, that could be the start of a good story.

Would that not depend on the definition being used for 'essence'? — Sir2u

If it were a food flavouring, yes. I suppose you can apply it to a tool, meaning either its character (function, rather than personality) or its substance (what it's made of and how it's made). But how would that be distinct from purpose or nature?

An artefact such as a letter opener has an essence before it exists, for a human being must have conceived it before it came into existence, and this conception is the essence or nature of the thing. — Jedothek

That is the purpose and utility of the thing. It has no 'essence' and its nature is determined by its design, the material from from which it was made and the skill with which it was crafted.

Since there is no God, there is no one to conceive humanity before it exists, thus the human being has no nature before he ... exists. — Jedothek

He has no pre-designated purpose or utility. His nature is determined by the material from which he is made, the environment and evolution that produced him.

If God does not exist, brutes also have no nature before they exist — Jedothek

They, too are products of environment and evolution; they also have no pre-designated purpose or function.

Therefore, he is free to do has he chooses. — Jedothek

Within the confines of his physical nature, his needs, his condition, his environment and his capabilities. Both he and the beast are constrained in the same ways.
Nature is dependent neither on God nor on Sartre.

Someone will always open the basement door. You can count on it. — Nils Loc

So frickin' true! What a species!