Serialised book (with a progressively updated >>dashboard/ToC<< page). Part I: Metaphysics of the Life Instinct.

Book: Philosophy of Life Instinct: Chapter 4: Life and the Life Instinct

Defining life and the Life Instinct

(This is the seminal chapter of the book. You really must read it to understand the Philosophy of Life Instinct as a whole and each aspect we cover in subsequent chapters. It is the longest chapter by far, but it needed to be. Fear not, hop on, let’s go for the ride.)

We will consider — A. What life is, B. Its origin, C. Its existence elsewhere, and D. The Life Instinct.

(Note: Necessity or association are not sufficient for definition. Respective examples: Six faces are necessary for a cube, but it is not sufficient to define a cube; Cats have tails, but a cat without a tail can still be a cat.

Note: A feature can be distinct but dependent on another. The dependent feature does not have to be necessary even if the independent feature is necessary.

Note: The presence of a feature in known life forms will not make it necessary, but its absence in known life forms will make it optional for the basic definition of life.

Note: We will take it that: A combination of several necessary properties of which deducting even a single property makes us unsure of our object is required for a sufficient definition.)

A. What is Life?

We need to define life as unambiguously as possible so that our study of philosophy and humanity is sound. But the problem with us defining life is that we are a form of it. We are looking at it inside out. It is like asking a parrot to squawk its understanding of life and what it can be. How right do you think it will get it? Sure, we are different, much more intelligent, but are we wise enough to get the perspective and analysis right?

We have an intuitive understanding of life. We try to put it into words by using our intellect. Then we imagine possible variations on it without losing the essence and get to ‘Life as we know it and most broadly imagine it’. That is the best we can do, and we will attempt it as well as we can.

So, how does life differ from inanimate matter? We associate several characteristics with life forms on Earth. Let us consider which ones are necessary. We will assume each feature’s meaning is self-evident beyond a basic definition and focus on challenging its necessity.

We will do a thought experiment by imagining we have arrived at a distant planet. Here, we observe some discrete things that could be life forms and try to work out if they are alive.

How long will we need to study them to be sure? Their lifetime can be similar to those of life forms on Earth, from a day for a mayfly to a thousand years for a jellyfish or clam, or it could be a lot longer. We will have to take potentially long lifetimes into account. But we don’t have to decide the observation period upfront. There are several life characteristics besides birth, reproduction and death, as we will see shortly. So, we can start looking for other signs of life that will indicate how long it may take to verify all of them.

To decide if they are indeed alive and not inert matter or machines, we will analyse eight primary characteristics based on our current knowledge of life.

1. Discreteness, complexity and organisation

1.1 Discreteness

For something to exist, it has to be separate from everything else. Otherwise, it has no border, no contained space with some material, to make an entity. Separation is a concentration of material and energy, a form of organisation. It is an enduring mystery why the universe came into being, and to add to its wonder are all the things that have formed in it, from quarks to galactic clusters. Within all this, the entities we are considering as potential life forms also separated out.

They are entities because we can distinguish them from their surroundings. They have specific universal properties, relationships and events they display that we sense, organise, and process in our minds. Without their discrete existence, there would be nothing for us to study.

Conclusion: A discrete existence is necessary to be a life form.

(Of course, some may say there is something alive as a universal soul that exists everywhere and does not need a discrete body, but we are not venturing into the spiritual realm here.)

1.2 Complexity

The life forms on Earth can be quite complex. Consider the intricacy of the human body and the organisation it takes to keep it whole and working. It seems much more complicated than the simple structure of a rock, air, water or even the Sun. But what about viruses, among the simplest life forms we know? Considering they are just pieces of RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) in a protein coat, would we think they are complex compared to the objects around us? Perhaps a little, but not orders of magnitude more complex and certainly not more than a quasar or Saturn. It could be that the simplest forms of life need to be just complicated enough for self-preservation and reproduction and no more. So, while complexity does appear to be associated with life, it does not seem essential.

Conclusion: Complexity is not necessary to be a life form.

1.3 Organisation

While complexity may not be necessary, if the parts of even the simplest entity are not organised into a purposeful structure, it will not persist from instant to instant, nor be able to carry out life’s functions, whatever they may be.

Conclusion: Organisation is necessary to be a life form.

2. Difference, Uniqueness and Individuality

Difference is intrinsic in existence and explains a lot, so we need to understand it well.

Very soon after the Big Bang, differentiation began, science has theorised. There was an infinitesimally short time when the ‘smaller than a pin-prick’ universe was uniform, but it became different in every part after that. The reason for this development is unknown, and there may be none. If there is a cosmic creator, we can say she is that instant, that tiny bubble that contained entirety, for that is when matter and force fields started lumping out and gave rise to everything there is.

One may think that there are many identical fundamental particles of matter, with the only difference being their location in space-time. But the difference in their location means they have different potential energies. So, if no two preons, quarks, mesons, bosons, electrons, etc., can be in the same place simultaneously, then in terms of their properties, every single fundamental particle is unique, although mind-bogglingly numerous in the universe.

It is a simple extension that no two atoms, molecules, regions of gas, nebulae, stars, galaxies, rocks, liquid pools, comets or planets can be alike. The more complex an entity, the higher is the variation we can expect within its type.

Now, let’s suppose the first single-celled life forms arose from the primordial soup on Earth, and something broadly similar happened elsewhere. In that case, none of those original organisms could have been identical, as each would have formed in a slightly different part of the water, even if close by, with a diverse mix of minerals, temperature, pressure, etc. For similar reasons, each of the trillions of life forms now living on Earth is unique. The increasing complexity of life forms would have also increased the variation within each type.

So, there are no identical members in the populations of the life forms we know. Even if you imagine a colony of penguins, a school of sardines, or a colony of bacteria, members will show individual markings, variations in size, and other differences on close examination. Even ‘identical twins’ cannot be identical.

Conclusion: Individual differences are necessary to be a life form.

3. Self-Preservation

Surprisingly, it is not easy to work out if self-preservation is a necessary characteristic. There are problems with confirming it down from a general hypothesis (deduction) and generalising it up from a particular observation (induction).

The former has the problem that no higher level hypothesis allows something like ‘All entities self-preserve, life is an entity, so life self-preserves’.

The latter has the problem that we can only say, ‘We observe that the life forms we know self-preserve, therefore it is very likely all life forms self-preserve, including those we don’t know.’

There is an even larger question. Are we talking about the actual self-preservation or the urge for self-preservation? If we are talking about the act, was it not alive if an entity does not self-preserve and dies? There could be several causes for the demise of a life form. So the achievement of self-preservation cannot be blithely taken as a necessity.

After thinking for a long time, I came to these conclusions:

There are certain characteristics hard-wired in us. I know this through direct internal acquaintance as well as intuition. The knowledge is supplemented to a minor extent by my observation of external signs of the same characteristics in other humans and life forms.
Two of these characteristics stand out. The urge to self-preserve is one. The urge to reproduce is the other.
Both the self-preservation urge and reproduction urge depend on specific subsidiary capabilities.
These fundamental innate urges make actual self-preservation and reproduction associated features rather than necessary.

These inherent urges are deep-seated, a part of my constitution, always present, constantly felt in my entire being. States of mind like happiness, sadness and anger come and go; the urge to live never leaves me, even when I am asleep. I don’t think I want to survive. I don’t want to survive. I survive.

A comet will fragment, a rock will weather, a lamp post will corrode. They have form and hence some resistance, but none actively struggle against dissolution nor try to make copies before they disintegrate. Only rare aggregations of matter do that — called life.

Admittedly, the generalisation of our internal knowledge of these urges to their universal applicability for life forms is one of probability. They are not certainties. I based them on induction from one case that I can take as positively certain — myself — and a minimal number of less certain external experience cases.

However, I have no reason to disbelieve my intuition nor my direct experience. It would be needlessly academic. Unless there is someone or something to show I am in error, we will, for our purposes, take the impulse for self-preservation and reproduction as so innate as to be effectively necessities for life-forms.

Now, let us have a look at self-preservation to understand it better for later application.

(On consideration, one may argue that reproduction is a part of self-preservation, or both may come from a single basic impulse. After several rounds of thought, I concluded they are different enough to be considered separately. Observations that helped were that the urge to reproduce is not constant, its contribution to staying alive is indirect, and survival always takes precedence, even over the act of procreation. So, we will consider reproduction in the next section, even if they are ultimately two aspects of the same drive.)

The nature of self-preservation

A life form needs specific inherent capabilities to preserve itself, which we called Living Entity Universals in chapter 2. They are part of our blueprint and innate in us from birth. Whether every life form has them all and to the same degree needs thinking, but understanding the concept will suffice our purposes.

I have shown some of the capabilities that support self-preservation in the diagram below.

The hierarchy of innate characteristics (not exhaustive) for self-preservation

We observe two broad types of self-preservation — individual; and mutual or collective.

3.1 Individual Self-preservation

The entities we observe need to exist stably for a bare minimum period to reach meaningful conclusions about them. How short can this be? A mayfly lives for just a day, but the entities we observe could very well be life forms that live only for an hour or a minute. So this is arbitrary, but if we see our entities retain their overall structure for a minute or longer, we will verify they are doing so actively and are not just an inert form of matter.

We will do this by considering the activities required for two types of individual self-preservation — proactive and reactive.

Proactive self-preservation comprises the essential activities for maintaining the form of the entity. Growth, healing, reproduction, avoiding danger, etc., need materials, internal processes and power. These depend on sensing, absorption, energy supply, excretion, movement, etc.

Reactive self-preservation involves protecting itself from attack by other living entities or drastic changes in its surroundings. It can do this through chemical secretions, deploying protective shields, flight, beating off or destroying the source of danger.

Some life forms may absorb energy directly, have a benign environment and no predators, obviating the need for energy reactions, defence, fight or flight. So a particular life form may not need all the above activities for self-preservation. But if we saw no activity at all in an entity, it is not self-preserving and implausible as a life form.

Conclusion: The urge for individual self-preservation is necessary to be a life form.

3.2 Mutual and collective preservation

If we observe that single or multiple entities are helping to preserve others by assisting with their nutrition, healing or safety, it would be a strong sign we see a life form. However, this may happen only under certain conditions and for certain types of life forms. We know of several that lead solitary existences but are undoubtedly alive. Examples are bears, moles, sloths and koalas. Of course, they do interact with an individual of the opposite sex for mating. Still, other than this (which is not a case of individual self-preservation anyway), they are quite solitary.

Conclusion: The urge for mutual or group preservation are not necessary to be a life form.

3.3 Metabolism

Undoubtedly, an entity requires energy to sense its environment, absorb material from it for growth, heal, move, reproduce, and carry out many other life activities. Metabolism is one way known life forms use materials to generate energy through chemical reactions that turn food into energy. However, it is easy to imagine life forms that directly absorb energy from their surroundings, use fusion, fission or other methods to power their activities. It would be rather unimaginative to consider metabolism as the only energy option for life forms.

Conclusion: Metabolic activity is not necessarily required for self-preservation.

3.4 Interaction and Sensation

Without interacting with its environment, a life form cannot preserve itself or reproduce.

The interactions may be automatic and mechanical, but sensations of pleasure, pain, fullness, etc., in the entity should be associated with the interactions to act as a feedback loop that helps it continue, modify or end them. For example, if an amoeba absorbs nutrients by osmosis, it would have evolved to simultaneously sense which minerals are suitable for it and when it has absorbed enough, etc.

(The sensations may lead to feelings in more complex life forms to deal with more complex interactions and more nuanced decisions. We examine this in Part II.)

The sensation processing parts of the entity could be rudimentary or sophisticated, but they would serve the same purpose — ensuring positive interactions as far as possible. Without interaction with the environment and its regulation through sensations, the life form wouldn’t survive.

Conclusion: Interaction and sensation are necessary for self-preservation.

3.5 Curiosity and Intelligence

By curiosity, I mean something more than entities sensing their surroundings for their survival. It is about their interest and search for knowledge of matters beyond their immediate needs.

Curiosity is a significant component of intelligence, which we can define as learning, reasoning abstractly, and controlling the environment for better survival.

However, we wouldn’t call an amoeba or virus curious or intelligent in this manner. Although they show remarkable resilience under varying conditions, they are reactive. The limited range of adaptability and control of their ecosystem must be accepted, compared to life forms we consider to have higher intelligence. So, we will take it that simple acts of survival and self-preservation like sensing, interacting, absorption, growth, etc., are automatic actions that do not require any appreciable curiosity or intelligence. Taken in this manner, we can conclude as below.

Conclusion: Curiosity and intelligence are not necessary for self-preservation.

4. Reproduction (long term continuation)

Reproduction seems the most prominent characteristic of life. Its relative purpose (relative because life itself could just be, with no absolute meaning) is the indefinite preservation and enhancement of the type of life form.

The life forms we know are designed to achieve this by releasing into the world as many slightly different copies as possible of the blueprint that defines them individually so that the survival of the fittest of the offspring results in more robust versions of the life form. In effect, reproduction avoids stasis in the life forms’ capabilities by constantly improving their constitution and blueprints and carrying on the process indefinitely.

(The usual academic terms are — species for the life form ‘types’; and genes, DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) or RNA (Ribonucleic acid) for the ‘blueprint’.)

The innate urge is to continue and improve the type of life form, not the blueprint, which happens to be only a tool of the method. The blueprint could be injected into a fully grown body to try it out. But the blueprint defines the fully grown body of the life form that would have to be created by closely following it in the first place. The brilliant solution evolved by the process is to put the blueprint into a bit of minimum raw materials and let it direct the development of the end state. Essentially, make a tiny embryo or egg and put your genetic material into it to guide its matured form, which will repeat the process if it survives.

Most importantly, the entity does not consciously aim for the perpetuation of the type (species). The urge for it is programmed innately, at the deepest level of the living being’s constitution. That is why it is so strong and automatic.

There are a few ways that the blueprint (e.g. genes) could be tweaked for trying out new versions. The variation in the blueprint could be small or large, random or controlled. The problem with a change too large is that it could be too risky, and too many offspring may perish. The problem with controlled variation is twofold — it is not easy to tinker around inside your own body or its reproductive parts, and it takes too much intelligence, which is not common. Random changes would often take the blueprint too far from the original and go against the prime directive of perpetuating the parent type.

So, the optimal solution appears to be — small and non-random changes in the passed-on blueprint, close enough to the original but not too close.

A few mechanisms seem to have developed naturally for this in Earthly life forms: binary fission, budding, vegetative reproduction, spores, etc. But the most prevalent one, no doubt a result of the method itself, is sexual reproduction. It seems to be the most stable of the techniques now, although it may change too over geological time if the life forms survive.

In the sexual method, the brilliant solution emerged to take two individuals of the same type of life form and mix their blueprints to create a version different enough for an effective experiment but not so different that it runs the risk of a fatal environmental mismatch. Now, this could have happened with any two almost identical instances, without the need for separate male and female versions, but the latter emerged. There must have been a good reason for it, for it has worked. We don’t have the time to get into it, although it is a fascinating subject.

Is this type of blueprint-based propagation of life the only possible way? Of course not. There can be myriad ways that entities that call themselves life (whether we agree or disagree) could remain viable or increase their survivability. But for our purposes, we can restrain ourselves to this type in this book.

We can define reproduction as — the creation of slightly modified copies of the parent(s) blueprints and their transmission into progeny for constant improvement and indefinite continuation of the life form type.

We have already seen in Section 2 why we can take reproduction as a necessary feature of life, based on induction from our intuition and our direct and indirect experience. So we will just reiterate it.

Conclusion: Reproduction that continues and improves its type is necessary to be a life form.

4.1 Sexes

Although we noted that sexual reproduction is prevalent among the life forms we know, especially the more complex ones, we know of several organisms on Earth that reproduce asexually through fission, budding and parthenogenesis. There are also hermaphroditic and homosexual modes of reproduction. So, we can only say that the presence of sexes or two individual entities of any sort coming together to produce offspring is associated with life.

Conclusion: Differentiation of sexes is not necessary for reproduction.

4.2 Growth in size

Does an offspring need to be necessarily smaller than the parent when it is born?

In the section on reproduction, we saw that the carrier for the individual’s blueprint has evolved to be a small and simple starting point, such as an embryo or egg. And we know several unicellular organisms on Earth that reproduce through binary fission, creating two equal-sized offspring. Examples are — bacteria, paramecium, and amoeba. Even their offspring double in size before they divide again.

We don’t know of any life form that does not grow in size to some extent during its lifetime. But is it necessary or only an association? Can some lifeform that we have not encountered yet reproduce in a way that produces full-sized offspring? It is possible, for sure. But this feature is a tough one to call. Provisionally, I will err on the side of caution and consider it as not strictly necessary.

Conclusion: Growth in size is not a necessary part of reproduction.

4.3 Evolution (long term improvement)

As we have known for a while now, evolution results from the survival of the fittest in the life forms we know. We deprecate the term ‘Natural Selection’ as nature is not a conscious entity out there, watching everything and doing things with life. Evolution is not an externally applied, organised programme. It is only a term used for what we observe happening to life forms across generations and over long geological periods.

The very reproduction process is bound up with the improvement of the life form, i.e. its evolution. In that sense, we cannot separate reproduction from evolution. Because existence is such that only the fittest survive, reproduction exists. As soon as we grant that reproduction is a drive that creates ever-improving copies of the life form type to create more robust versions, we practically admit evolution happens.

Evolution can be gradual through weeding out of the most unfit over generations and rapid due to the retention of sudden environmentally driven or random mutations that help the life form survive better in its environment.

As reproduction is a part of being a life form, evolution is the inevitable result.

Conclusion: Evolution is a necessary part of reproduction.

5. Autonomy

As we have established that every individual living entity would be unique, each will have a different way of interacting with its environment. If it is to fulfil its urge to survive to the best of its ability, thrive and reproduce, it needs to be free and act autonomously as per its particular constitution, unique to it.

The entities we observe may appear to be behaving identically, either due to their simplicity or because an external agency is directing them, with or without their acceptance. For example, we willingly act alike under the directives of our laws, governments, religions, etc.

However, on close observation, we must find at least a few of the basic freedoms of behaviour if we are to conclude they are living entities. Even plants display autonomous behaviour. So do bacteria, viruses and sheep. It could be simple freedoms for simple life forms and a range of internally directed activities for more complex living entities, e.g. humans. Completely identical behaviour in a set of entities would most likely indicate they are not alive.

Conclusion: Autonomous behaviour is necessary to be a life form.

(But note that at this point, the discussion is about simple freedom of action driven by the needs for self-preservation and reproduction. It does not imply anything about the freedom to choose thoughtfully, i.e. the existence of Free Will. That topic is so important and challenging that I have taken it up in a separate chapter of the book, one I found more difficult than any other. Wait for it.)

6. Body Composition and Structure

6.1 Carbon vs Non-Carbon-based Life

All the life forms we know are composed of carbon compounded with other elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur. Is Carbon essential to life? Indeed, it is easy to imagine that there could be alien life forms comprised of other elements but meeting our definition of life. So, let us assume that specific elements are not a must, and a different world could compose life very differently.

Conclusion: It is not necessary for Carbon to be the essential element of a life form.

6.2 Cell-based vs Non-cell-based Life

Cell-based life forms are ubiquitous on Earth, from single-celled organisms to giant whales. However, we have viruses as a form of life that is not cellular, and it is relatively easy to imagine that the basic unit of life forms we don’t know can be some other construct. So, we will conclude:

Conclusion: A cell-based structure is not necessary to be a life form.

7. Ageing

Let us take ageing to be the gradual deterioration of a living form from adulthood until its demise.

This type of change may not be essential before death. If we saw a form that did not show any sign of ageing but just dropped dead abruptly after some time, we would probably still accept it as a life form. Similarly, if a potential life form did not show any deterioration of capabilities within its lifetime but reproduced suddenly by splitting into two, it would still be a life form.

We know of a few life forms on Earth that do not show signs of ageing — certain jellyfish, lobsters and turtles.

Conclusion: Ageing (deterioration) is not necessary to be a life form.

8. Death

The innate impulse for long-term preservation of a life-form type makes reproduction necessary, which makes death necessary.

It would not be in the interest of a life form to persist indefinitely, for it cannot improve significantly within its lifetime, however intelligent it may be. Let us have the humility to admit this applies to humans too.

It may survive fine for its usual lifespan, but it may not if the conditions of its ecosystem change. The changes can be in the inert things that sustain it, other life forms that depend on or prey on it.

Like the inherent urge that drives self-preservation and reproduction, there is a hard-wired part of life’s blueprint that causes its carrier to die after a while, through deterioration in most cases. Evolution seems to have worked out the suitable period to allow for sufficient reproduction, after which a decline is kicked off, for the demise to occur. Without this control, the number of variations tried would reduce, reducing the rate of improvement. There would also be too many life forms for the environment to sustain into maturity and reproduction.

Some jellyfish, clams and sharks live for centuries, maybe even a thousand years. But at a cosmic scale, it is hardly immortality. Even the ‘immortal jellyfish’, Turritopsis dohrnii, is no more the original body after reproducing a few hundred times.

If we were to prolong life through medicine and science, there could still be a natural limit to it. Or we may find enough practical and ethical problems that we impose a limit.

So, if we observed entities meeting the definition of life that dissipated back to primary materials through a natural process, rather than external forces destroying them, we would probably categorise them as life forms.

On the other hand, if we saw a potential life form that seemed to have an inordinately long life that tends towards immortality, it would not be easy to accept it as a life form. The time scale of other life forms’ lives may be much longer than that for earthly ones, but the view should apply — immortality does not accord with the ‘perpetual repetitive trial-and-error’ way life improves. It would make the creature something else.

So, timely expiry should be an essential characteristic of life.

Conclusion: Death is necessary to be a life form.

9. The life-like robots question

Now, this is our ultimate problem in distinguishing life from matter. What if we know that the entities we see are robots built and programmed to meet all the requirements of our definition of life? Variation, self-preservation, reproduction — these don’t seem too challenging to construct. Still, we may never understand nature well enough or match its randomness sufficiently to create a genuine living thing artificially.

But it is a speculative objection. So, if we can’t detect anything artificial about the entities and they satisfy life’s definition, for us, they are alive.

B. The Origin of Life

As far as we can think, there are four possibilities for how life begins:

1. Spontaneous beginning from inert materials

For the atheists and perhaps even the agnostics, this is a highly likely origin for life, anywhere. We are getting closer to proving that, at least on Earth, life arose spontaneously out of raw materials that came together under the right conditions, and a particular combination sparked into life.

Science is also trying to recreate this in labs. Of course, creating it in a lab is not proof, but it would make it very likely it could have been the origin.

These instances of spontaneous creation happed almost certainly purely by chance. We could ask ourselves if the same innate urge for self-preservation and reproduction in life forms began life itself. But that’s not acceptable for two reasons.

We should still see life beginning in spots under the oceans where the conditions are primordial, but there’s no evidence of it.
The urge has to be in what formed, not the separated constituent materials. The impulse is not in the molecules of our bodies, nor its blood or bones. Blood spilt on the floor doesn’t try to stay whole or reproduce. Parts taken out of an amoeba won’t either. The drive is in our entire, unfragmented, composed, living bodies.

Finding undeniable proof of the emergence of the first primordial, single-celled organisms on Earth billions of years ago and tracing them through to the other known life forms is difficult but seem within Science’s reach. We will wait and watch.

2. Creation by Another Life Form

We would expect an advanced life form to have a fundamental understanding of what life is and how it works. A day may come soon when we decided to create a life form, for example, to revive an extinct species or create a new one (for example, one that can survive in a Methane atmosphere on a planet we want to explore or seed).

But would it make it unnatural? If an alien life form created us, does it mean our origin is in its origin? No, as long as we meet the definition of life, it is as valid an origin as any other. We can consider the ethical concerns separately.

Of course, we would still question the origin of the creator life form, but that would go back to one of the options we consider.

3. Creation by God

If we traced the origin of life or ourselves back to a God who is neither a life form as we define it nor a machine, it would be mind-boggling for us. Not only for the atheists and agnostics but even for the believers. It doesn’t seem likely to me, at the moment, that knowledge will supplant the faith of believers in God as the creator. But I am open to it.

Although several secular and religious philosophers have given ‘proofs’ for God's existence, there is no direct evidence. On the other hand, no one has proven there isn’t a God, and it is rather difficult to prove that something does not exist anyway.

So, we don’t know if there is a God and if she is the creator of life, two different problems.

So, despite my deep misgivings, I will have to grant that creation of life by some supernatural or supernatural entity is possible. Of course, it is not necessary, but it is possible.

4. Creation by A Machine

If we got compelling evidence that an inanimate form, a machine of some sort, created a life-like form, would we not allow that it made life?

Would we reject the idea even if the machine only created the first life forms, which then reproduced, evolved and produced all other life-like forms?

Is this too strict a ruling out? What if the created form of matter had many characteristics of life and met its basic definition? Does the creation by a machine invalidate the realities of the built form? What if it felt pain and empathy and had many life traits?

Although it may be difficult to disprove that a machine created a proper life-form, perhaps it would be going too far to assume that a machine could by design inject the basic urges of life into inanimate matter. And if it is just copying what happens in nature, say spontaneous beginning from basic inert materials, then the true origin was not a machine.

Going over the four possible origins, we will take it that:

Conclusion: A non-machine-made origin is necessary to be a life form.

C. Life Elsewhere in the Universe

If there are entities in other parts of the universe that meet our conception of life, we should understand them well through this book. Studying them would help us significantly to validate and improve our understanding too.

However, all matter need not be inert or in the life forms that we can conceptualise. There could be other forms of existence in the cosmos as different from inert matter as life. What would we call these entities if we came across them? There is no saying, for we don’t know what we don’t know. We may not even be able to sense them or interact with them.

Some of these forms could think of themselves as something like life, albeit with a very different definition than ours. For example, our world is three dimensional in space and has a fourth dimension of time. There could be existences in fewer or more spatial dimensions, composed of the same elements as we have, or others not on our periodic table. Yet, they may be aware, conscious, curious and intelligent. We may not understand their world or apply the parameters of our existence to theirs, although it would be fascinating if we could glimpse aspects of it. And they may feel the same about us and our search for knowledge and understanding.

D. The Life Instinct

Now, let us bring together all the necessary characteristics of life and see what we have.

We can define Life as a discrete entity that has an internal organisation, is not machine-made, is uniquely differentiated, and expires after a finite period, during which it autonomously strives to preserve itself and propagate its unique personal blueprint through reproduction.

Now we understand what Life is, in our view and for our purposes. (We could be mistaken from a cosmic viewpoint, but our limited mission is to lay down a useful philosophy for humans. I am attempting to look at things in a universal context to make the quest more accurate through broad-mindedness and imagination and reduce the risk of errors of blindness. It does not imply taking on greater responsibility than the humanistic scope.)

The crucial thing to observe is that the characteristics are of two types.

Those of discrete existence, organisation, differentiation, limited lifetime and autonomy are characteristics that can be discerned externally (by any other capable and interested entity). They can be quantified and measured. We can classify them as ‘Entity Universals’ if you recall chapter 2.
However, two features of life — the impulses behind self-preservation and reproduction — have a different nature. They are special, as we saw when we explored them earlier in the chapter. External entities cannot experience the drive for them. They exist only within and are not quantifiable. They are inherent and innate, the truth of their existence and necessity is felt intuitively and without thought, and they are essential to the definition of life. Although we differentiate them, both could have a single source in the blueprint of the life form.

Whereas we can think of many things that are discrete, organised and differentiated, these two characteristics are so integral that we can take them as the two most crucial of life’s capabilities.

The innate internal urge driving the two most essential characteristics of a living entity — self-preservation and reproduction — is what we call the Life Instinct.

The premise of this book is that the Life Instinct thoroughly explains ‘our’ life forms. It does not do so simplistically, and we need to apply it with understanding and nuance. However, once understood, its application provides us with dependable explanations and predictions for every aspect of humans, other life forms on Earth, and perhaps those we are yet to encounter.

Although we put aside several possible characteristics while creating the core universal definition of life, several of them were necessary for humans in particular. Of course, we will consider them when we apply the philosophy of Life Instinct to ourselves.

Yet, we shall always be aware that what we are colours our explanations, whether of life or the universal reality within which we exist. Accompanied by humility, we will move ahead confidently.

We are now well prepared for our journey with the Life Instinct. Let us begin.

(As each chapter of the book is published, its link is updated in the ToC below.)

Book: Philosophy of Life Instinct: Introduction

Introduction

Introductionmedium.com

Book: Philosophy of Life Instinct: Prologue

Prologue

Prologuemedium.com

Part I Metaphysics of The Life Instinct

Book: Philosophy of Life Instinct: Part I: Chapter 1: The Metaphysical Context

Why we need to first consider the universal questions

medium.com

Book: Philosophy of Life Instinct: Chapter 2: What if it all Just Is?

Existence, knowledge and causation

medium.com

Book: Philosophy of Life Instinct: Chapter 3: The Nature of Time

What time is and how it is intrinsic to everything

medium.com