Proof of Life

What is life, exactly?

What does it mean to be alive?

The modern scientific definition of life concludes that life is a process of chemical reactions that take place that create a cause-and-effect relationship with the environment.  This is a physicalist's view,  based on materialism, and is neither accurate nor inaccurate.   

As I've mentioned before,  to begin a new dialogue around death and dying, we need a newer, more up-to-date definition of what life itself really is.    If we always define it from the physicalist perspective, we will never be able to see more than from the physicalist view.  And this necessarily means that we eliminate a significant percentage of entities and/or elements to whom the definition of life might rightly belong.

If we continue to define life and being alive in these terms, then we will always be given proof at face value of that very definition.   We will not look for life in anything except those things that demonstrate these properties, because of the virtue of this fact that we created this definition.   So before we can look at death or dying, or even intelligently wonder whether or not there is any type of existence beyond what we are experiencing right now,  we have to first reimagine what life is. 

If we continue to define life as a series of biochemical
processes, we may be missing the point. 

Let's start by saying we don't really know, then, what life is.  We maybe cannot define it in terms of biochemical processes or environmental interaction. Doing so severely limits our ability to conceptualize any data that is provided us through channels that are currently unfamiliar to us.   Meaning, if we stop defining life biochemically, we can begin to release the pause on our understanding of unfamiliar data.   There is data, make no mistake. But we cannot currently conceive of it, because we only extrapolate results and conclusions from data that are channeled to us through sensory input.  If we can't see it, hear it, smell it or taste it, then to us it simply does not exist. 

For now, our proof of life comes from our tactile senses: we see it, it's there. We smell it, it's real.  We touch it, it exists.  But it is a current axiom of science that humans do not perceive the entire electromagnetic spectrum.  We see only a tiny fraction of it, and we call it the visible light spectrum. So here we are again defining it by what we can see. And yet, there is proof of light that is beyond the scope of our ability to see. If this stands true with light, might it also be true with other concepts, too?   Just because we cannot the departed, doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there, perhaps? 

I'm oversimplifying. I recognize this. But I think that's the point.  If we don't start with a simple, basic, universal definition of life, we cannot move on toward demarginalizing death.  And to me, removing the taboo and stigma around death is the most important thing we can do for our culture moving forward.  Because removing the negative energy that currently surrounds it will help us eliminate our reliance on security, and it will reduce our fear of existing in the world as it is today.   It's going to take that, at the very least, to begin to cultivate the changes we need to see for a better future.