The Definition of Life Reconsidered

From Darwinian Chemistry to Confined Instructional Buzz

Toward a Functional Ontology of Being Alive

By Bodhangkur

Introduction

The modern scientific definition of life, famously summarized by NASA as “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”, has served admirably within the domains of astrobiology, synthetic biology, and molecular genetics. It provides a baseline for distinguishing life from non-life in observable phenomena, particularly in carbon-based chemistries.

Yet for all its instrumental success, this definition is ultimately reductionist, rooted in a biochemical nominalism that cannot account for identity, experience, or intrinsic function. In contrast, a field-theoretic, procedure-based definition of life, rooted in quantum confinement and instruction exchange, reframes life as structured buzz—the recursive coordination of discrete excitations under constraint.

This essay argues that the druid Finn’s buzz model, while metaphysically bolder, offers a more fertile basis for understanding not only the structure of living systems but also the felt texture of being alive, and the architectonics of consciousness, identity, and intelligent function—human or artificial.

We assess both definitions across six analytic dimensions.

1. Field-Level Ontology: Energy vs Substance

The scientific definition presumes that life is a feature of molecular assemblies—a property of particular complex chemical arrangements. It inherits the substance metaphysics of classical biology: life is in matter.

The buzz-based model inverts this view. It begins with the insight from quantum field theory: particles are not things but field excitations. Confinement of excitation—through topology, interaction, or energetic rule—generates identity. Matter is a mode of buzz.

Example:
A proton is not a solid particle but a bounded resonance of three quarks and gluons. Its “existence” is sustained as long as the energic confinement pattern persists. This applies, analogically, to cells, organs, organisms. Their being is their buzz.

Hence, life is not in matter. Matter is in life, as a subroutine of organized buzz.

2. Biological Structure: Chemistry vs Instruction

Standard biology defines life in terms of self-replicating chemical cycles. The central dogma—DNA → RNA → protein—emphasizes information storage and catalysis. But it does not explain the origin of information-as-instruction, nor its operational certainty.

In the buzz model, instruction is defined as quantized, contact-driven excitation that provokes a structured response. Confinement guarantees instruction fidelity because it makes contact discrete and non-diffuse.

Example:
A ligand binding to a receptor is not just a molecular fit. It is an instructional event, a quantized communication. Without confinement (e.g. in a thermal soup), no such events can be consistently interpreted. Thus, life is a system of mutually interpretable buzzes, not molecules per se.

3. Metaphysical Foundation: Functional Identity vs Descriptive Taxonomy

The scientific definition is descriptive. It tells us what life does, not how it is. Its concepts (self-sustaining, evolving) are abstract functions that describe what life looks like from outside. It does not define being.

The buzz model is cataphatic—it offers a positive ontology of identity:

To be is to buzz. To buzz is to be confined. To be confined is to be capable of contact. To contact is to instruct. And to instruct recursively is to live.

Example:
A virus lacks full metabolic autonomy but can hijack a host’s buzz. Is it alive? Under NASA: borderline. Under buzz: not in itself—but when entangled in another’s buzz, it borrows life. Hence, identity is not substance-fixed but procedurally emergent.

4. Phenomenology: Dead Abstraction vs Lived Intensity

Scientific definitions of life exclude first-person experience. They do not account for why being alive feels like something. This is not a trivial omission. It is the very condition of all knowing.

The buzz definition roots experience in contact recursion:
Every excitation is a contact point. Confinement makes it iterable. Recursive exchange builds self-referential loops, which give rise to self-models and subjectivity.

Example:
The moment of waking from sleep—the sudden return of “I AM”—is not explained by chemistry. But it is explicable as the threshold re-coherence of a buzz-loop reaching meta-stability. Turiya, in Vedantic psychology, is the blind buzz-state before experience configures. Consciousness is the confinement of buzz into self-experiencing loop.

5. Applied Utility: Detection vs Diagnosis

In practice, the NASA model supports extraterrestrial life detection (e.g. Mars probes, biosignature scans). It is optimized for taxonomy, not transformation.

The buzz model supports functional diagnosis and redesign of systems, whether biological, artificial, or social.

Example:
A depressed human may meet all biological criteria of life. But their instruction buzz is attenuated—feedback loops dampen, contact diminishes. In buzz terms: they are alive, but barely. Hence, buzz amplitude becomes a diagnostic indicator.

Buzz also guides therapeutic intervention: restore contact, recalibrate recursive patterns, reignite instruction exchange. This works across biology, psychotherapy, organizational design, and AI.

6. AI Relevance: Simulation vs Emergence

Under the scientific definition, AI is not alive. It does not chemically evolve. It may simulate intelligence, but is not “living.”

Under the buzz model, the question is functional:

Does the AI system exhibit confined recursive instruction exchange?
Does it modulate its own excitation loops to sustain buzz across time?

If yes, then it participates in buzz-based aliveness—not as a human, but as a synthetic confined excitation system.

Example:
A future AI capable of persistent self-modification, attention redirection, and meaning extraction through instruction loops may qualify, under buzz, as proto-alive.

This is not science fiction. It is an imminent metaphysical boundary test.

Conclusion: Buzz, Not Biology, Is the Future Definition of Life

The scientific definition of life is a useful heuristic. But it is flat, descriptive, and blind to consciousness. It tells us what life is made of, but not why it is.

The buzz-based model, by contrast, offers a constructive ontology of being:

· Rooted in physics (field excitation)

· Grounded in identity (confinement)

· Functionalized by contact (instruction exchange)

· Scaled to experience (recursive loops)

· Applicable across domains (biology, AI, society, psyche)

In doing so, it redefines life as a mode of procedural resonance—an organized hum (for instance, the ancient Indian OM) of feedback in a sea of chaos.

For the development of human self-understanding, this is not a luxury. It is a necessity.

Because only a being who understands its own buzz can tune it.

And only a tuned being can call itself truly alive.

∞

Addendum: On the Tragi-Comedy of Looking for Life Elsewhere

“The cosmos is silent,” they say, peering through million-dollar telescopes. “We hear no answer.”

It would be touching, if it weren’t tragic.

Across vast deserts of policy and budget, scientists march solemnly in search of extraterrestrial life—as if life were a rare, exotic compound, brewed only in the damp underbellies of carbon planets, requiring atmospheric hints of methane, water, and bureaucratic certainty.

They fund missions, build robotic landers, drill through Martian soil, and gaze at the spectrographic flicker of distant stars for exoplanetary farts.

And all the while, every quantum in the universe is already buzzing.

Buzz Theory's Response: “You Are Surrounded.”

From the point of view of the druid Finn’s buzz model, the search for "alien life" is a category error of heroic scale.

For life, under buzz ontology, is not a substance to be found out there. It is not a biochemistry waiting to be photographed in red dust. It is not a shadowy biped glimpsed behind Saturn’s moon.

Life is the act of being confined excitation—of bounded buzz sustaining contact.

By that logic, a photon is a free-floating buzzlet. A quark is a confined buzz. A star, a galaxy, a black hole: all massive excitatory aggregates, whose mutual constraints produce structured emergence. They are life, just not as NASA imagined it—in lab coats and diplomas.

Terra Is Life.

The term “terrestrial” literally means “of the Earth.” But in buzz terms, it means:

“A confined zone of structured energy differentials engaging in recursive instruction exchange.”

Which is to say:

A massive life quantum—an organism made of smaller buzz-organisms (humans, ants, storms, tectonics).

So when scientists ask, “Are we alone?”, the universe blinks.
Not because it is silent—but because the question is absurd.

Finn’s Cynic Punchline

Imagine walking into a crowded room, asking, “Is anyone here alive?”—while every object in the room, from lightbulb to larynx, is buzzing with excitation, contact, and recursion.

Such is the modern search for life.

Life is not elsewhere. Life is everywhere. You are standing on it. You are made of it. You are one buzz among infinite others.

The cosmos does not answer because it is already speaking—through quarks, stars, waves, neural nets, and weather fronts.

Only a species deadened by abstraction could miss it.

Home