Why is life programmed to survive?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If it is incremental over time in a species as it changes to another, then it's entirely dependent on and only conveyed through the very slight changes within each individual. You cannot separate them. Evolution can only operate through individuals.

How can the "will to survive" be only present at the species level and not the individual?

I'm still waiting to hear how the will to live can reside in bacteria. But to answer your question, my point is that this is a matter of statistics. You'll reread my post in vain searching for that point where I wrote what you've attributed to me (which I've emboldened).

The scientific definition of evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles over time. That happens only in a population, and not at the individual level.

[Whateverist]

I'm starting to think our Arky friend is using "will" to describe the sum total of mechanisms which permit the bacteria to live on, in the same way he was using "design" to refer to the structure of a being.

[Whateverist]

What about the cells that make up the protective dead layer of our skin?

And even more interesting...what about the 20% of cells that self sacrifice in slime mold stalks so that the others can launch out of the spore head?

That is a good question, isn't it. And yet the 'sacrifice' those 20% make is really no greater than the sacrifice the cells of a multi-cellular creature make in becoming one of a kazillion bone cells or a white blood cell or any of the others including those dead skin cells on the surface of our skin which you mention. Apparently, it doesn't work to anthropomorphize by imputing our subjective states into the actions of a single cell. Very likely neither a bone cell nor any of the mold stalk cells feels heroic. They lack anything we'd recognize as subjective states. But the process of selection works as well with built in 'sacrifice' of individuals for the survival of the kind (species/family/etc) as it does for the selection of individual multi-cell creatures. The living material survives to perpetuate its kind and that keeps the ball rolling, no celebratory subjective states necessary.

[LadyForCamus]

Jenny A your answer would be appropiate if there was evidence of life with no will to survive.

There is none. Therefore you answer is wrong too.

(I dont know to quote in this forum)

If you've already pre-concluded which answers are right and which are wrong, then why did you even bother to ask us the question in the first place?

[Arkilogue]

What about the cells that make up the protective dead layer of our skin?

And even more interesting...what about the 20% of cells that self sacrifice in slime mold stalks so that the others can launch out of the spore head?

That is a good question, isn't it.  And yet the 'sacrifice' those 20% make is really no greater than the sacrifice the cells of a multi-cellular creature make in becoming one of a kazillion bone cells or a white blood cell or any of the others including those dead skin cells on the surface of our skin which you mention.  Apparently, it doesn't work to anthropomorphize by imputing our subjective states into the actions of a single cell.  Very likely neither a bone cell nor any of the mold stalk cells feels heroic.  They lack anything we'd recognize as subjective states.  But the process of selection works as well with built in 'sacrifice' of individuals for the survival of the kind (species/family/etc) as it does for the selection of individual multi-cell creatures.  The living material survives to perpetuate its kind and that keeps the ball rolling, no celebratory subjective states necessary.

How do we know they have no subjective states? If fact what are our subjective states? Are they thoughts or feelings? Do plants have feelings and react to stimuli and learn? Yes.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/ne...out-plants

The new research, he says, is in a field called plant neurobiology — which is something of a misnomer, because even scientists in the field don't argue that plants have neurons or brains.

"They have analagous structures," Pollan explains. "They have ways of taking all the sensory data they gather in their everyday lives ... integrate it and then behave in an appropriate way in response. And they do this without brains, which, in a way, is what's incredible about it, because we automatically assume you need a brain to process information."

And we assume you need ears to hear. But researchers, says Pollan, have played a recording of a caterpillar munching on a leaf to plants — and the plants react. They begin to secrete defensive chemicals — even though the plant isn't really threatened, Pollan says. "It is somehow hearing what is, to it, a terrifying sound of a caterpillar munching on its leaves."

[The Grand Nudger]

If those plants pick up environmental stimuli that mimics a predator..they -are- threatened, and no..we don;t assume you need ears to hear....you might, we don't (just like we don;'t assume you need a brain to process information...we refer to analagous structures..just as Pollan did..without realizing that the two sentences contradict each other immediately).  I like Pollan too, as an author.....sometimes I think he might owe me money for how often I've pimped his books on these boards....but he's taking artistic license in calling it terror. The thing to draw from plant behavior is not that they are "like us" in some significant way...but more accurately...that we probably aren't exactly as we describe -ourselves- to be.

Long story short....both Pollan and yourself have erected an altar to anthro-folly..which is becoming a common string in this thread.

[Arkilogue]

If those plants pick up environmental stimuli that mimics a predator..they -are- threatened, and no..we don;t assume you need ears to hear....you might, we don't (just like we don;'t assume you need a brain to process information...we refer to analagous structures..just as Pollan did..without realizing that the two sentences contradict each other immediately).  I like Pollan too, as an author.....sometimes I think he might owe me money for how often I've pimped his books on these boards....but he's taking artistic license in calling it terror.  The thing to draw from plant behavior is not that they are "like us" in some significant way...but more accurately...that we probably aren't exactly as we describe -ourselves- to be.

Long story short....both Pollan and yourself have erected an altar to anthro-folly..which is becoming a common string in this thread.

Interesting take away!

I see human subjective emotions simply as different charge states and orientations. They are inherent in electromagnetism. We can do more with it in more detail (because we have more circuitry) than can plants or bugs which would have similar functions at rudimentary levels.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, electromagnetism itself doesn't seem to express emotion...so I'm not sure why you'd consider it to be inherent -to it-..particularly in that you then refer to our "circuitry" as the explanation for emotion..or rather our expression of behaviors which we call emotion in human beings relative to plant behavior.  If I wanted to explain human emotion..I'd look to the circuitry involved..rather than electromagnetism.

That we share or possess similar functions or abilties, itself..ought not to surprise anyone, nor does it beg for a drawing down to fundamental forces as an explanation. We are related to cauliflower after all. We went with locomotion while they mastered organic chemistry.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ OP

Life is programmed to survive because if it wasn't it wouldn't survive, I reckon.

Sounds circular but that's because your 'why question' is really a 'how question', I reckon.

[Arkilogue]

Well, electromagnetism itself doesn't seem to express emotion...so I'm not sure why you'd consider it to be inherent -to it-..particularly in that you then refer to our "circuitry" as the explanation for emotion..or rather our expression of behaviors which we call emotion in human beings relative to plant behavior.  If I wanted to explain human emotion..I'd look to the circuitry involved..rather than electromagnetism.

That we share or possess similar functions or abilties, itself..ought not to surprise anyone, nor does it beg for a drawing down to fundamental forces as an explanation.  We are related to cauliflower after all.  We went with locomotion while they mastered organic chemistry.  

No but the EM field of the heart is many thousands of times stronger than the brain and is the first receiver of external information.

It only takes a few key thoughts (electric) or sights, to trigger a charge state change that is felt over the entire body at once (magnetic reaction). These charge states also have their own inertia and one way bias as I'm sure you are familiar. It's much easier to go from happy to pissed, than from pissed to happy.