Consider your present situation. You're siting in front of a monitor, absorbing and processing the light that's coming at you, which happens to form these words. Perhaps you are chatting with someone, and you are sending light-information between each other. Every word that is typed, no matter how complex its meaning, can be reduced down to 1 and 0 -- to a series of yes and no. Because of it's simplicity, we view this computer as an unintelligent being, a chunk of dead, inanimate matter that only appears vaguely alive because we living creatures happen to be manipulating it.

Now look at yourself. Millions of times more complex, your brain contains of around 100 billion neurons. Each one relays information via electrical impulses, and just like with a computer, each neuron is only capable of two functions -- firing or not firing. Yes or no. 1 or 0. There is no in-between, as a neuron can't partially fire. With each neuron connected to as many as 10,000 others, and billions of neurons firing at any one time, there are literally trillions of interactions going on inside your brain at any one second. Yet, if you break it down to its most fundamental functions, the brain is itself an extremely complex (if slightly more squishy) computer -- a very convoluted system of binary.

If you break things down even further, to the level of quarks and atoms and molecules, we're essentially all the same. So, the question arises: where does the living organism end and the non-living machine begin?

Let's for a moment look at the primary dictionary definition of 'life':

Main Entry: 1life
Pronunciation: 'lIf
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural lives /'lIvz/
Etymology: Middle English lif, from Old English lIf; akin to Old English libban to live -- more at LIVE
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
(source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary)

The 'quality' that distinguishes a vital functional being from a dead body is defined in C: characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli and reproduction.

Humans have already created computer programs that not only self-replicate, but evolve and compete with each other just as living organisms do. (http://www.nis.atr.jp/~ray/tierra/whatis.html). Of course, we've created machines and computers that respond to stimuli, as well. Growth, in biology, is most often attributed to the reproduction of cells, and so computers can 'grow' in the same manner.

This leaves us with metabolism.
While computers have been successfully programmed to simulate metabolism, the definition of metabolism itself restricts it from recreation by circular logic:

Main Entry: me·tab·o·lism
Pronunciation: m&-'ta-b&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Greek metabolE change, from metaballein to change, from meta- + ballein to throw -- more at DEVIL
1 a : the sum of the processes in the buildup and destruction of protoplasm; specifically : the chemical changes in living cells by which energy is provided for vital processes and activities and new material is assimilated b : the sum of the processes by which a particular substance is handled in the living body c : the sum of the metabolic activities taking place in a particular environment <the metabolism of a lake>
(source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary)

According to the definitions, metabolism is a prerequisite of life, and life is a prerequisite of metabolism. At its core, though, metabolism is yet another chemical reaction that takes place within the human body, a function that could easily be viewed as purely mechanical.

So we're left with these two views:

One, that life at it's core is not truly alive, but a machine. And two, that the 'external' universe is not really inanimate, but just as alive as you and me.

The former of these two views presents several dilemmas. First, if the universe is a machine, that implies that it must have been created, that the order that we see must have been shaped from this dumb, chaotic matter by some sort of external intelligence. Secondly, that in order for our consciousness to have meaning and significance, it must be more than a mere chemical reaction. Thus, we conceive a solution called 'God' -- a monarchical architect that molds inanimate matter and breathes life into it.

If the latter is true, however, there is no need for outside interference, because life is self-sustaining; indeed, from this point of view all living energy could be viewed as God itself -- an intelligent, growing, evolving, and conscious being, without need of some deeper meaning. From this viewpoint, life has value in and of itself. There is no living soul that is separate from the dead matter of your physical body; the matter itself is alive. Evolution is not striving towards some unseen goal, instead each stage of existence is the point of itself. As Alan watts points out in one of his lectures (and I'm paraphrasing here): "The seed doesn't exist to produce a plant, nor does the plant exist to produce flowers, nor do the flowers exist to produce more seeds." They are all equally significant, just as none of the organisms in an ecosystem are more or less important than any of the other organisms in that ecosystem. Though on the surface there is an illusion of strife, of competition, of wanton violence, at its core such a system is a unified and harmonious entity in its own right.

Now, tell me... which makes more sense to you, and why?
afghooey Reviewed by afghooey on . The Universe: Machine or Organism? Consider your present situation. You're siting in front of a monitor, absorbing and processing the light that's coming at you, which happens to form these words. Perhaps you are chatting with someone, and you are sending light-information between each other. Every word that is typed, no matter how complex its meaning, can be reduced down to 1 and 0 -- to a series of yes and no. Because of it's simplicity, we view this computer as an unintelligent being, a chunk of dead, inanimate matter Rating: 5