LIVING...
Something alive: my dog Pepita:
Something alive: the flower seedlings I planted yesterday when I was supposed to be doing my homework.
Something alive: the energy in the room last night when we were downloading theme songs from seventies TV shows and dancing like crazy people to Sanford and Son...well maybe I was the only one dancing like a crazy person...
Something alive: a virus?
NON-LIVING...
Something non-living: my coffee cup
Something non-living: my little green blanket that I wrap around people and dogs when they are sick or feeling blue
Something non-living: this here computer
Something non-living: that cool slate gray stone that somebody once upon a time gave me and told me that it was magical
Something non-living: that secret pile of teddy bears I keep in a wicker laundry basket and put out of sight so people don't think I'm a dork
(okay, so I have more than just teddy bears...)
Something non-living: a virus?
ONCE ALIVE, now non-living (DEAD)...
Something dead: my fingernails and hair
Something dead: that poor squirrel that Daisy killed yesterday
Something dead: the Gardenia that took more water than I had time to give it. I'm sorry Gardenia. I was looking forward to your beautiful scent.
Something dead: a virus?
What is the difference? First, "non-living" and "dead" are two different things. A a key, a dish, a car...these are all non-living, but not dead. My fingernail is non-living but also dead. John McCain's poor wife is living but also looks dead--her spirit seems crushed.
And what about viruses? And what about a cut flower? What about the wood that our homes are built of? What about that piece of garlic that will begin sprouting if you leave it sitting there too long? Are these alive, dead, living, non-living?
What about the energy that hangs in a room? What about your most prized possession? What about that dirty sock I keep seeing in the bathroom and don't stop to pick it up -- the one made of cotton that came from a once-living plant?
Something that is alive, I think, can usually move from an internal source of energy, even if just by growing. Like that lichen that grows 0.5mm per year, getting nutrients from dust in the air, and living for 4,500 years. Wow. It is "animated" -- which comes from the latin and greek words for "give life to" "air" "breath" "soul" and "wind."
Something dead used to breathe and exchange energy and matter with the rest of the world, but now is still and decaying. It now continues to give out, but not take in. Therefore, my secret stuffed animal collection might be considered "dead" because many of them are made from cotton, which is a plant material.
Something that is non-living has never breathed. Like rocks and metal. But does this mean that it lacks consciousness?
AND WHAT ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS?
That there is another question all together. Usually living things are thought to possess some level of consciousness, particularly if they are biologically "complex." Of course some people still reserve consciousness just for humanity. But others might extend it to dogs or even to rats, but not to bacteria, ants, or plants. Some--from mystics to shaman to even some modern scientists-- extend consciousness to rocks and electrons:
“If evolution is to work smoothly, consciousness in some shape must have been present at the very origin of things. Accordingly we find that the more clear-sighted evolutionary philosophers are beginning to posit it there. Each atom of the nebula, they suppose, must have had an aboriginal atom of consciousness linked with it; ... the mental atoms ... have fused into those larger consciousnesses which we know in ourselves and suppose to exist in our fellow-animals.”
--William James, “The Principles of Psychology,” 1890
William James (above) -- dead, but once alive...
Here are some choice excerpts from a 2007 New York Times article "Mind of a Rock":
(for full article see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-lede-t.html)
And the part of our world that is most recalcitrant to our understanding at the moment is consciousness itself. How could the electrochemical processes in the lump of gray matter that is our brain give rise to — or, even more mysteriously, be — the dazzling technicolor play of consciousness, with its transports of joy, its stabs of anguish and its stretches of mild contentment alternating with boredom? This has been called “the most important problem in the biological sciences” and even “the last frontier of science.” It engrosses the intellectual energies of a worldwide community of brain scientists, psychologists, philosophers, physicists, computer scientists and even, from time to time, the Dalai Lama.
So vexing has the problem of consciousness proved that some of these thinkers have been driven to a hypothesis that sounds desperate, if not downright crazy. Perhaps, they say, mind is not limited to the brains of some animals. Perhaps it is ubiquitous, present in every bit of matter, all the way up to galaxies, all the way down to electrons and neutrinos, not excluding medium-size things like a glass of water or a potted plant. Moreover, it did not suddenly arise when some physical particles on a certain planet chanced to come into the right configuration; rather, there has been consciousness in the cosmos from the very beginning of time.
...Take that rock over there. It doesn’t seem to be doing much of anything, at least to our gross perception. But at the microlevel it consists of an unimaginable number of atoms connected by springy chemical bonds, all jiggling around at a rate that even our fastest supercomputer might envy. And they are not jiggling at random. The rock’s innards “see” the entire universe by means of the gravitational and electromagnetic signals it is continuously receiving. Such a system can be viewed as an all-purpose information processor, one whose inner dynamics mirror any sequence of mental states that our brains might run through. And where there is information, says panpsychism, there is consciousness. In David Chalmers’s slogan, “Experience is information from the inside; physics is information from the outside.”
2. What do you feel is the significance of the use of language and tools in chimps?
Some humans are searching for a connection with the other. This is strictly a judgmental opinion, but I think some of us feel more comfortable with, and more compassion for, living beings that are not human because humans can be very cruel. Therefore we want to spend more time with non-human animals. Those who spend more time with non-human animals are often surprised to find how similar they can be to human animals. Particularly other primates. Because we as a species have for so long separated ourselves from non-human animals it is surprising to find language and tool-use -- things we believed to be unique to ourselves -- happening in other animals.
What is of the most important significance with this discoveries is that perhaps -- perhaps! -- others will become convinced that non-human animals are worthy of compassion. Because some people don't seem to value anything that is *other*. So, hopefully, slowly non-human animals will be given the right they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect if we prove how similar they are to us.
Other animals besides humans and chimps use tools:
Crows:
Elephant painting:
Other animals have language (even though it is not English!!!)
Check out this link about prairie dog nouns, verbs, adjectives:
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/prairie_dog.html
Humpback whale communication:
3. "Chinese Medicine Gaining Respectability in the West?"
Frankly, I fear Western science prying into the Chinese medicine. The basic tenets of Chinese medicine, from what I understand, link back to a much different philosophy than that of Western science and medicine. Western science tends to take a role of domination, making other philosophies and cultures submit to it. Bending and shaping other philosophies to fit into its framework in order to deem them acceptable. Just like with the topic of animal language -- most other animals are assumed not to have language because they don't speak English. Western scientists tend to judge other things based on its world view. How can you fairly evaluate something from a perspective other than the one from which it is born? It this possible?
Though perhaps my fear is linked to a fear of change and a naive idealizing of Chinese medicine and villifying of Western science.
I just hope that the concepts of Chinese medicine, and other traditional medicines being sought out by Westerners, are not too watered down and re-formed so as to lose their essence, becoming that which we are trying to seek an alternative to.
It would also be interesting to explore this question in reverse -- how have the Chinese accepted Western medicine into their world view and health care system?
No comments:
Post a Comment