Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
Oh I agree - instinctively at least. But you do run up against the problem of saying what the difference is between a living thing and a non-living thing - unless you rely on some kind of "vitalist" philosophy - that living things are different from non-living things because the are, well, alive, they contain the "life-force" - which gets a bit circular. The trouble with vitalism is that whilst it is clearly nonsense it does seem to accord with our intuitions - an tomato is alive but this computer that I am writing on isn't.
So, here's your mission - should you choose to accept it - without relying on vitalism, say what the difference is between an living thing and a non-living thing.  |
I recall reading the web page of one renegade scientist years ago who believed that consciousness is an innate characteristic of matter in the same way as are the four interactive forces (electromagnetism, the weak force, strong nuclear force, and gravity). One of the examples he used as evidence was how certain metals are able to "remember" their shape and reform to their original configuration when released from outside forces that are deforming it. The article seemed about as out there as it gets; but the fact remains that a universally agreed upon working definition of consciousness remains elusive.
I became a vegetarian when I became aware that animals possess minds not that dissimilar from our own. When I realized that plants are living things and our distant cousins in the tree of life, I gave up plants and began consuming only rocks for sustenance. If this scientist is right, and not merely some woo-woo wacko as I suspect, I may have to give up eating altogether. It seems the only truly ethical choice.