Living v. Non-Living: The Machine How do we define what's living, and what's not living? Typically, the definition has basically involved an organism that ingests, responds to stimuli, is able to reproduce, and expels waste. Is this all that life is? Why, yes. It is. This has major implications in our understanding that our lives are significant in the scheme of all things. What is the significance of life under the set definition of the functions of the living? None. You eat, you expel, you likely reproduce, and you die, and then become deteriorated non-living mulch for other organisms to feed and sustain their, equally insignificant, lives. And we do so mechanically. We're programmed, designed this way and never will change. It's impossible. What's the purpose of life? Eat, shit, multiply, and die. Nothing more. Our bodies were designed for only these reasons. Our brain is complexly designed to facilitate these functions, thereby ensuring our survival so that we may multiply, keep eating, and therefore keep shitting. Think of a machine that can do the same things we do. Let's say such machine exists. A light on it blinks when it's in need of nourishment, which the machine then hunts for and finds food, and ingests it. Once the food is ingested it breaks down, distributing nutrients from the machine's food to other parts of the machine that allow it to function. Shortly after digestion, the machine then defecates the solid matter through one tube, and releases liquid remains through a separate tube. Let's say this machine has a sexual opposite in its vicinity; another 'Eve' counterpart machine similar to it. These machines contain mechanisms that enable them to identify other machines with which to mate. They mate, and another machine is developed and becomes an offspring of the two originals, with all the same mechanisms and functions. Eventually, let's say, the machines wear down, their unable to ingest anymore, to waste anymore, to produce the mechanisms that allow them to reproduce anymore. Their central unit is losing its memory capacity, and its chips are melting away at a gradual pace. It's losing the alertness and ability to continue responding to stimuli. So the machine gradually but surely deteriorates, and inevitably, and by design, becomes non-living. These are the exact same qualities a human has. The machine is, in fact, the man, and the woman. Man is machine. Could every ability we proclaim to belong only to us and be unique and make us special, simply be the same as machines responding to stimuli, much in the same way a touch pad responds to touch? Yes. The illusion of importance to a being's existence is overwhelmingly attributed entirely to a functioning central unit's design in favor of survival. The same as it is with animals and insects. Because once you learn to get around that design, and figure out that our continued existence is merely a combination of responses to stimuli, you realize that living, and non-living, both have the overall same quality -- None. More stimuli to come, for your programmed brain to predictably respond. What an unfortunate reality. Or...fortunate.