Who are we to say..

Who are we to say what is and is not alive? This statement is a very argumentative one, but I believe it is justified. In my post before we were discussing what is and is not? Are you alive? Am I alive? What is real, what is not? So many questions, but many of them will likely never be answered.

Let us then consider the question of what can and cannot be considered to be alive.

In class we were presented with the ideas of at what point does something actually matter, and at what point is it considered sentient. The first example was that of the marker being broken apart and then thrown towards myself. But while all this was happening not once was the fault placed upon the marker. In fact one student immediately exclaimed that the owners of said marker would probably be unhappy that their marker was now broken. The second was that of the marker that impacted at me. It was immediately indicated that our professor was the one to blame, but was it not the marker that hit me and not instead where the blame was placed? The assumption that the human race is supreme and is the cause of everything exists everywhere.

We decided that the marker was in fact not sentient and therefore not responsible for its own actions, but at what point do we decide that something is considered sentient?

Imagine, if you will, an entity that is created of circuits and conduits, nodes and resistors. Now imagine that it is run by a central operating system based off of electric impulses that send and receive commands. Now imagine that this mechanic is taught from its creation how to react to certain stimuli and instructions, kind of like programming. You probably have in your mind your average everyday computer, you see, and use, them everywhere. You are even using one right now. This, however, is not what I am talking about. I am talking about every human, even you. Do we not have a nervous system? Don’t we have a circulatory system that sends energy throughout our body? Do we not have a brain that takes input and returns output? Were we not taught from the day we were born how things work by someone or another kind of like a programmer? I thought so. So then why is it that an item cannot be considered sentient as we are?

Take for example a character from the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation. This character’s name is Data, and he is an android. Data is a fully functional member of the crew of the ship, but yet he is still just a machine. He is able to think for himself, he even experiences some forms of human emotion. Data eventually is presented before a court of law where he earns his right to be sentient, but wasn’t he always sentient?

Some people will argue that Data is still just a thing, and that you must have a soul in order to be considered alive. Let us assume this is true for a moment. How do I tell that I have this soul? And how do I tell that Data does not? Some might then assert that one can only have a soul if they were procreated. Alright, so we are only given a soul if we are created in the womb. But what is the womb but just a bio-lab? Did we not establish that the human is made of the same essence that Data is made out of? So then could I not just use a lab to place together a being and then once it is completed and is turned on, or given life, it must surely then have a soul. Some people will then say that it must be made through the use of chromosomes. So then I will create a double-helix structure and place into it the right string of commands, kind of like code. Does this now count as a being with a soul? A person may then argue that it can only have a soul if it was created by a Divine Being. But who is to say that I was not the instrument through which this Divine Being created my Data? Was not the bible created through other beings by the orders of God himself, the word of God.

The answer to life may quite possibly never go answered, and until that day it is my belief that all possibilities must be evaluated. For if we discard the right answer without a second glance the truth may never be revealed.

In life there are many things that occur, or so we believe, but out of all this chaos that surrounds us what can really be said to be true? If I were to ask you: "Do you think you are alive?" I believe you would surely respond yes, and wonder why I was asking such a strange question, and you would be right in doing so. But then what if everything in this world is nothing but a figment of my imagination? Then of course your answer to my question would be that you were alive because I want you to say so. So by asking you if you are alive I am no closer to my answer then before I asked. It could indeed be said that I am now farther from the truth than before I asked because now I must also wonder not only if you are alive but if I am also dreaming.

The idea of a dream and what we call reality are two very similar yet very different ideas. If someone were to ask you if you had a pleasant dream last night you could respond with many answers like it was a good dream or bad dream, but one thing that is true is that it was definitely a dream. Or so you think. When we are dreaming everything seems quite normal and ordinary; however, as soon as we awake from said dream we can clearly identify at least something that was abnormal about it. Maybe you saw your friends and family within this dream and you took a cruise across the stars on a giant blue whale, while in this dream you are too distracted by the dream itself to realize how different it really is. Once you wake from this slumber you are immediately aware that cruising through space on a whale is absurd, but this is only because you have woken up.

Now let us assume that we are in all actuality dreaming right now. Does it feel like a dream? Does anything seem abnormal? No. Why? Because you are dreaming. Who is to say that in this dream walking on two feet is an abnormality, if you said that the people in the dream would call you mad and insane. But what if we could awaken from this dream and realize that not only is walking on two feet absurd, maybe people have never even had feet. The idea of feet and many other things could simply be figments of yours, or my, imaginations.

It can be said that because you think you exist, but how do you know for sure that you are indeed thinking. Didn't you just think that the idea of having feet is a solid fact, when indeed you were awoken to the knowledge that that was foolish. So who is to say that you exist? Who is to say I exist? No one can be qualified to make such a claim, because we all believe in our own two feet. Until we know we can assume, we cannot assume to know.

In the Meditations by Descartes, Descartes has decided to examine: whether or not. He is examining if everything he knows is true, or if everything he knows is a lie. He begins his Meditations by first deciding that it can only be accomplished by becoming truly free from bias. Although he accepts that this is a difficult challenge, he is trying to clear himself of all preconceptions about this world.

It is a daunting task indeed. For in order to truly be without bias one must have never had any form of contact with the world. Although he does desire to become without any preconceptions about life, death, or reality, I believe it to be a foolish errand, because he has experienced so much in this world but yet withes it all away without a second glance. I believe that in the end his worldly biases will outweigh his desire to separate himself from them, ultimately making his mission for naught.
Although the pursuit of ultimate truth of life and death is probably a goal for almost every living being, the ultimate end is, I believe impossible to achieve complete knowledge of. Many people may disagree with me and say that truth itself can be found and that knowing whether we exist or not can be known. As for myself I will seek to understand what I can, and although I might not find any truth at all, I can at least say I tried to find the ultimate answer to the question: what is.