Hi,
If "life" is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, and I am "alive," what's to say that the only difference between me and a container of vinegar and baking soda is the complexity of the chemical system?
I apologize if this sounds a bit silly, as it's banging around in my head right now, and I wanted your help in organizing my thoughts--and shooting me down, if necessary.
In the aforementioned argument, if I were to follow that, I'm not so much.. "alive" as much as I am "an ongoing chemical reaction" that will end when my body is no longer able to maintain the reaction.
In the aforementioned argument, life never arose. Instead, simple and sustainable chemical reactions arose, and these reactions changed in complexity and..
Yeah.
Am I missing something? Did I fail to consider something? Or is "life" more a philosophical concept that science simply glosses over and accepts and I never realized it until now.
I'm a little flustered right now, so I apologize for the nonsensical parts.