Biological existentialism

Is a cell an organism's way of propagating more organisms or is an organism a cell's way of propagating more cells?

Logically, a cell exists purely to create more of itself and an organism is just the method it utilizes to exploit a particular ecological niche.Cells vs. Organisms You could argue that the organism as a whole has more control over its cells (via processes such as apoptosis) and there isn't such a thing as cellular independance, but that's precisely what cancer is.

That being said, it's likely that emotions, "sentient thought" and other touted concepts like "love (in all forms)" are purely the manifestations or relics of biological necessity. Love serves a function in that it provides psychological stability (and dependancy), plus it increases the chance of you or your gene's continued survival. Some arguments you can make from this standpoint:

All emotions are entirely likely to be the product/result of biological necessity - and possess no innate profound significance.

Purpose beyond procreation and survival is an illusion. The meaning of life is sex.

Is everyone fundamentally a walking bag of meat and hormones?

>>6
I would, but Richard Dawkins scares me. (those eyes! It feels like he's mentally undressing you)

Also, I've heard it never addresses the consequences of the fact that the gene itself has no reason to exist other than the function that it's given itself. The general "given reason" is that genes only self-perpetuate because the ones that don't aren't around. Does that give you a purpose other than reproduction? Theoretically, no. If we define humanity by not being similiar to animals, that means the only human acts we do are ones completely unrelated to survival/procreation. Just a thought.

>>5 So, you're saying free will is genetically encoded for? That might be truly interesting. How? Random chemical interactions? Wouldn't that indicate that existence itself is an illusion, forged by your genes? Reducto ad absurdum - we are no longer responsible for our own actions because they are genetically encoded for, or a result of slight amounts of randomnity - I wonder how that defence would work in court.

>>4 46 chromosomes as a requirement for being human would mean guppies are human too. I was referring to what makes something exhibit characteristics of "human behaviour"? Which is a stupid question, come to think about it, cause it insinuates that there's an empirical quantity for humanity. Neveryoumind.