Notices

View Poll Results: Can anything but death exist outside of life?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 42.86%
  • No

    4 57.14%
Results 1 to 37 of 37
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By tridimity
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By wegs
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana

Thread: Can anything but death exist outside of life?

  1. #1 Can anything but death exist outside of life? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    24
    First man found the molecule, then the atom, and then finally the subatomic particle… each time believing we had finally reached the end of the line. Today we have looked even further into the microscope, unearthing what the most modern science now calls elementary particles, many believing once again that further substructure likely will not be discovered. Yet again as we speak, theorists unite and new theories have arisen, that would focus us even further into mankind’s great microscope.

    What if life is the same? What if biologists, like physicists, cannot yet see the end of the line from where they stand? What if that line never ends? It is believed by the biological community that life arose from inorganic, non-living matter. One may beg to differ. The human system of biology has sought to define conscious life by certain fundamentals, by observing matter for all or most of what we call 7 “phenomena” (the capacity to reproduce, the capacity to grow, the capacity to adapt, etc.) But what if life, like matter, needs to be put further under the microscope to truly observe the infinitely shrinking substructure of consciousness, the line that never ends? In other words, what if all things are alive?

    Here’s a thought…

    Just as a microscope made entirely of matter is needed to observe the infinitely shrinking substructure of matter, the microscope that one would need to observe the infinitely shrinking substructure of life would itself need also to be made entirely of life.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,602
    Quote Originally Posted by LukeElevenNine View Post
    [FONT=Calibri]First man found the molecule, then the atom, and then finally the subatomic particle… each time believing we had finally reached the end of the line.
    No one ever thought we had reached the end of the line. You will notice, they didn't say, "A we have found the atom so we can stop doing more research now."

    Today we have looked even further into the microscope, unearthing what the most modern science now calls elementary particles,
    You can't see elementary particles in a microscope.

    many believing once again that further substructure likely will not be discovered.
    Maybe. On the other hand, they are still looking.

    Just as a microscope made entirely of matter is needed to observe the infinitely shrinking substructure of matter, the microscope that one would need to observe the infinitely shrinking substructure of life would itself need also to be made entirely of life.
    You entire premise is faulty and this makes no sense. Life is made of matter. And how would you make a microscope out of life?


    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    I would vote in the poll if it included an "I'm not sure/not enough information" option.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    What if life is the same? What if biologists, like physicists, cannot yet see the end of the line from where they stand? What if that line never ends? It is believed by the biological community that life arose from inorganic, non-living matter. One may beg to differ. The human system of biology has sought to define conscious life by certain fundamentals, by observing matter for all or most of what we call 7 “phenomena” (the capacity to reproduce, the capacity to grow, the capacity to adapt, etc.) But what if life, like matter, needs to be put further under the microscope to truly observe the infinitely shrinking substructure of consciousness, the line that never ends? In other words, what if all things are alive?
    What are you suggesting, its rather unclear from your comment.

    I will note that there is fairly good evidence that life came from non-living, though replicating systems.
    Last edited by Paleoichneum; August 7th, 2012 at 06:55 PM.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    24
    I suggest that all things could be living, the evidence of which can not be seen by a microscope or defined by 7 "phenomena". But the characteristics that designate the living as defined by man, the most complex lifeform in known existence, might not be so complex or might be judged too critically by he who sits at the top of the food chain, requiring a piece of matter to exhibit like qualities to himself in order to be considered "alive." A tree does not look very alive, or act it, as I would consider life to act. I simply suggest that all of living matter might fade from definition with similar style, and this never ending line might never be seen in its entirety by a microscope, or any man-made tool, but can only be seen by the substance of life itself: consiousness. I suggest that some things might only ever be seen in their entirety, from the inside.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    I suggest that all things could be living, the evidence of which can not be seen by a microscope or defined by 7 "phenomena". But the characteristics that designate the living as defined by man, the most complex lifeform in known existence, might not be so complex or might be judged too critically by he who sits at the top of the food chain, requiring a piece of matter to exhibit like qualities to himself in order to be considered "alive." A tree does not look very alive, or act it, as I would consider life to act. I simply suggest that all of living matter might fade from definition with similar style, and this never ending line might never be seen in its entirety by a microscope, or any man-made tool, but can only be seen by the substance of life itself: consiousness. I suggest that some things might only ever be seen in their entirety, from the inside.
    Hi LEN,

    You make a good point, that the distinction between non-living and living things is blurry towards the middle of the spectrum - the never ending line. As an example, it is not entirely clear whether or not viruses are to be considered living; whilst they display some of the seven main features of life (organisation, reproduction) they do not fulfill all of these criteria - and they typically rely on host cell machinery for their replication. Whilst the above seven features of life are not perfect in defining life, they are at least useful in the identification of living things. To address your question about the boundary between inanimate and animate objects: let us imagine a desk and a (living) human being. I am sure you would agree with me that human beings exist and are alive (and if not, I direct you to the Philosophy section, you belong with those guys ). Now, what is it about a human being that is special; that confers life? After all, the matter itself is not 'special' in any particular sense, since both the non-living desk and the living human are made of matter - and moreover, humans re-cycle matter between their environment and their own body, through the processes of ingestion and excretion. What is fundamentally different between the desk and the human is this: complexity. Humans are able to actively maintain order, and defy entropy, within their own bodies - at least for a lifetime - and contain heritable information (incidentally, this is true of all living things, the ambiguous virus included). Here's a promise: show me a desk (or any other inanimate object, for that matter) that is capable of making copies of itself and that uses an external energy source to maintain its own internal order, and I will consider your point that it may be living. Until then, it's just a desk.

    One thing I do find strange about life, anecdotally, is the contrast between objectiveness and subjectiveness. To explain by way of example: i could objectively explain the effect of serotonin biologically, but if as
    ked to explain to a person whom has never felt its effects (and is therefore unable to empathise with the experience) why serotonin feels subjectively a certain way... i would be unable to do so.

    Best wishes,

    Tri

    Dkav likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    24
    You make an interesting point concerning the defiance of entropy. That is something to think about. I would still argue that the two above defining characteristics of simple life stated in your promise (ability to make copies of itself, internal order) have been defined by the most complex living being in known existence and therefore that the foundation of that definition can only be biased, at best. It is like this question... How can I be sure the brain is not totally deceptive if I have to use one to make that conclusion? Likewise, how can we be sure that the tiniest pieces of existence do not exhibit the tiniest degrees of conscious life if we have to use the largest degrees of conscious life to search them out. Just as I can not see an ant from 10 feet away, and until recently we could not see prokaryotes, how can we be sure that we are advanced enough today to define life as having to exhibit only the qualities that we ourselves are aware of and exhibit.
    Last edited by LukeElevenNine; August 8th, 2012 at 11:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    For Luke Eleven Nine. ( nine/eleven), What is the fundamental attractive principle at work in the selection of a mate? In its pure conception there is an ultimate aim of creating perfection in the offspring, an ongoing improvement of genetic code moving future Generations.? A biological sense of purpose leading to a more accomplished, more capable, more creative, community? If you think this may be the case, then you are recognising purpose behind what appears to be happenchance. If you are prepared to recognise purpose then it follows there is a positive purpose in improving the human condition. To what end? Heaven on Earth? Understanding the principle behind all Life? If we eventually reach this stage of perfection then it will be possible to create the type of life form needed or desired in a laboritory. We will be able to keep brains alive with thought processes intact. We then will have a living Wikipedia to refer to to help define future progress. I f you get my drift? westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    24
    Sorry I did not follow you, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the theory that all things might be alive. I did not disagree with anything you said above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    I will say I disagree with an overarching concept that "everything" is alive. Minerals, fossils, rocks, gasses, liquids are all things that are clearly not alive.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    24
    The earth is clearly flat...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    It's difficult Luke. Sometimes I wake up in the morning feeling like Death warmed up. Other times I'm feeling not too bad and my wife says, "" whats wrong with you, you look like something the cats dragged in "" So its difficult. Obviously Street Poles were once alive, and still live on serving another purpose. Big Rocks thought living get crushed up into road metal. Is dynamite alive? You are obviosly thinking at the molecular level. Yes, as we smaller the atoms have life. They are the building blocks. I'll agree that all mass can be given Life by manipulation. But as for my Football team...no chance. westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by LukeElevenNine View Post
    The earth is clearly flat...
    not sure what your even trying to get at here...
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    You make an interesting point concerning the defiance of entropy. That is something to think about. I would still argue that the two above defining characteristics of simple life stated in your promise (ability to make copies of itself, internal order) have been defined by the most complex living being in known existence and therefore that the foundation of that definition can only be biased, at best. It is like this question... How can I be sure the brain is not totally deceptive if I have to use one to make that conclusion? Likewise, how can we be sure that the tiniest pieces of existence do not exhibit the tiniest degrees of conscious life if we have to use the largest degrees of conscious life to search them out. Just as I can not see an ant from 10 feet away, and until recently we could not see prokaryotes, how can we be sure that we are advanced enough today to define life as having to exhibit only the qualities that we ourselves are aware of and exhibit.
    The above defining characteristics (ability to make copies of itself, maintenance of internal order) hold for all living organisms that we are currently aware of: both simple and complex. Philosophically, it is possible that there exist phenomena of which we are unaware, simply because they are not amenable to observation or experience via our five senses. The scientific approach is to use our five senses to the best of our ability in order to observe natural phenomena - including life. We are able to indirectly observe subatomic particles, for example, and they do not display any feature that could be considered 'life'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    How can I be sure the brain is not totally deceptive if I have to use one to make that conclusion?
    You can't. The best we ever get to is verification of sense data and thought processes amongst large groups of humans. As such, the opinions as to the 'correct' view of things is held to be that of the majority. For this reason, a deluded mentally insane person may not register their own insanity, whilst the rest of the human population regards them as 'insane'. Who is right? 'Wild type' is similarly defined as the most prevalent natural phenotype:

    wild type n. The typical form of an organism, strain, gene, or characteristic as it occurs in nature, as distinguished from mutant forms that may result from selective breeding.
    Wild-type - definition of Wild-type by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

    Normality is relative
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    ARRGHH My eyes are bleeding trying to read the OP 's small font

    But my opinion differs. There's no "life" in Nature. "Life" is a label invented by humans that is attributed to an arbitray ensemble of molecules that are interacting with other molecules according to an arbitrary set of guidlines. Is an Apple as "Fruble" on the "Fruble" scale as an ant? No, because I happen define "Fruble" to include characteristic X that the apple doesnt have. Though "Fruble" might not be useful as a concept, life is useful, but as useful as it may be we have to keep in mind that its a concept (unless I am mass murdering innocent hair cells when I shave in the morning or commiting partial suicide ).
    tridimity likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    unless I am mass murdering innocent hair cells when I shave in the morning
    You are, and you should feel really bad about it!

    I am inclined to agree with Icewendigo. 'Life' is a useful label for distinguishing exquisitely-controlled, replicable, series' of chemical reactions aka living things.

    One potential thing that exists outside of life apart from death (as a concept, if not materially): potential life forms that never came into being. E.g. you or I, with one nucleotide difference in our genome, that never came into being. Plus all of the innumerable possible organisms that could have potentially come into being, but never did. They were never alive, they never died... at least not in this Universe, perhaps in a parallel universe? In this Universe, they are merely an unrealised concept. Since concepts exist, does the above example exist as being outside of life and death, and yet still existing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    There's no "life" in Nature. "Life" is a label invented by humans that is attributed to an arbitray ensemble of molecules that are interacting with other molecules according to an arbitrary set of guidlines.
    I would go as far as to say your premise is more accurate than today's definitions... all or nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    One potential thing that exists outside of life apart from death (as a concept, if not materially): potential life forms that never came into being.
    That's deep. Concept stems from the living though, from life. Therefore if life is its root I would argue that it is life. Wait, didn't you mean to vote "yes" in the poll? If nothing but death exists outside of life then all matter (that exists) must be living... unless of course you would label 'inorganic' material as death. It is material though, so I would say that wouldn't be accurate, that matter can not be death. I would put death into the same category as darkness, cold, etc. Cold being the absence of heat, darkness the absence of light, and death the absence of life. Therefore presence, matter that is, can not be absence (death).

    Is anybody else's brain starting to throb yet?
    Last edited by LukeElevenNine; August 9th, 2012 at 10:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    The Enchanter westwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,079
    Naagh, But something is throbbing somewhere, Ohh... silly me, I was changing gears while trying to work this out. westwind.
    Words words words, were it better I caught your tears, and washed my face in them, and felt their sting. - westwind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    That's deep. Concept stems from the living though, from life. Therefore if life is its root I would argue that it is life. Wait, didn't you mean to vote "yes" in the poll? If nothing but death exists outside of life then all matter (that exists) must be living... unless of course you would label 'inorganic' material as death. It is material though, so I would say that wouldn't be accurate, that matter can not be death. I would put death into the same category as darkness, cold, etc. Cold being the absence of heat, darkness the absence of light, and death the absence of life. Therefore presence, matter that is, can not be absence (death).
    You can choose to define 'life' as loosely as you wish - but don't expect other people to treat your definition seriously if they are using their own definition, based on consensus. Like continuing to use empirical units when the rest of the scientific community is using metric or SI units. We are each free to entertain our own thoughts and ideas, in my opinion however, ascribing 'life' to the products of a conscious mind (for example, to the works of Shakespeare) is ludicrous. Whilst Shakespeare is memetically immortal (in that he influences the neuronal firing patterns of contemporary brains), he is dead and his works are inanimate! To suggest otherwise is folly. All living things are made of matter but not all matter is part of a living thing! To reiterate what I said earlier, there is nothing special about the matter itself. Life, as we know it, has the capacity to use an external energy source to actively maintain internal order.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    You can choose to define 'life' as loosely as you wish - but don't expect other people to treat your definition seriously if they are using their own definition, based on consensus. Like continuing to use empirical units when the rest of the scientific community is using metric or SI units.
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    As such, the opinions as to the 'correct' view of things is held to be that of the majority.

    I hear you. I would advise you though not to follow the majority's lead. Many have been greatly mistaken in doing so. In fact, science is where it is today because of the minority. Men like Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, all criticized for what at the time was considered by the majority of their respective communities to be the most ludicrous and rediculous of ideas (kind of like an idea I once heard that all things might be living ). The majority will believe the earth is the center of the universe. The majority will believe that life does not evolve. The majority will believe they are right because they are the majority. One could argue that this is the difference between all men: some follow the majority, and some lead it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Hi LEN, You are right, oftentimes the majority merely make tiny incremental advances in a field, the paradigm shift of which field came from the lone maverick, seemingly out of nowhere. For the time being, and until you are able to provide evidence to the contrary, I will side with the majority in believing that my desk is not alive! Best wishes, Tri
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,632
    Nobody leads the majority. One only represents a moment founded in time by the highest amount of voters. This is what i hate about the democratic system. You pick leaders for a period of several years. Where they have 4 years of freedom to do whatever they like. Then you can vote again.

    To get back to the life part... Is there anything but life, or not living, or is there something in between? i thought this would be an interesting topic, but it's filosophical now, and not getting anywhere.

    Just my penny, but no, i don't think there is just life, or not living.. There must be something more. As we can not even define living, or death, other then displaying biological functions, there must be a piece of matter bound to living, that is not bound to death materials.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    26
    [/QUOTE] You entire premise is faulty and this makes no sense. Life is made of matter. And how would you make a microscope out of life?[/QUOTE]


    because cells make up everything right a rock is made up of living cells? so the rock its self isn't alive but it is made up of particles that do exist. im not a scientist but i think that's how it goes.
    Last edited by ijin; November 6th, 2013 at 04:18 AM. Reason: i dont know how to quote properly new to this whole thread thing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by LukeElevenNine View Post
    First man found the molecule, then the atom, and then finally the subatomic particle… each time believing we had finally reached the end of the line. Today we have looked even further into the microscope, unearthing what the most modern science now calls elementary particles, many believing once again that further substructure likely will not be discovered. Yet again as we speak, theorists unite and new theories have arisen, that would focus us even further into mankind’s great microscope.

    What if life is the same? What if biologists, like physicists, cannot yet see the end of the line from where they stand? What if that line never ends? It is believed by the biological community that life arose from inorganic, non-living matter. One may beg to differ. The human system of biology has sought to define conscious life by certain fundamentals, by observing matter for all or most of what we call 7 “phenomena” (the capacity to reproduce, the capacity to grow, the capacity to adapt, etc.) But what if life, like matter, needs to be put further under the microscope to truly observe the infinitely shrinking substructure of consciousness, the line that never ends? In other words, what if all things are alive?

    Here’s a thought…

    Just as a microscope made entirely of matter is needed to observe the infinitely shrinking substructure of matter, the microscope that one would need to observe the infinitely shrinking substructure of life would itself need also to be made entirely of life.
    I don't see the purpose of this. Whilst there are various definitions of what constitutes life, replication and metabolism appear in almost all. Yes, viruses can be argued about but they DO replicate, given a suitable host.

    It seems to me that for any definition of "life" to have useful meaning, it has to allow that the things we regard as inanimate (e.g. rocks) are not alive.

    I seem to recall Teilhard de Chardin had some sort of concept of the soul which involved a continuous spectrum all the way from inanimate up to Man, but that is metaphysics, not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Hmmm... Whenever I see the terms ‘consciousness’ and ‘infinity’ broughtinto a science discussion, I know where the person is heading…and that is usually,down a spiritual path. Abstract definitions as to what ‘alive’ really means,etc…these discussions always lead down the path of the spiritual realm…eventually.
    exchemist likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by LukeElevenNine View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    You can choose to define 'life' as loosely as you wish - but don't expect other people to treat your definition seriously if they are using their own definition, based on consensus. Like continuing to use empirical units when the rest of the scientific community is using metric or SI units.
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity View Post
    As such, the opinions as to the 'correct' view of things is held to be that of the majority.




    I hear you. I would advise you though not to follow the majority's lead. Many have been greatly mistaken in doing so. In fact, science is where it is today because of the minority. Men like Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, all criticized for what at the time was considered by the majority of their respective communities to be the most ludicrous and rediculous of ideas (kind of like an idea I once heard that all things might be living ). The majority will believe the earth is the center of the universe. The majority will believe that life does not evolve. The majority will believe they are right because they are the majority. One could argue that this is the difference between all men: some follow the majority, and some lead it.
    What you say is undeniable. Unfortunately it is also what all purveyors of pseudoscience like, glibly, to say.

    The key point is that new hypotheses in science are such that predictions, in the form of observations, can be made to test the hypothesis. This was true of the hypotheses put forward by Galileo, Darwin and Einstein. But not of those of, ooh, say, creationists, Erich von Daniken or Charles Berlitz.

    If you hypothesise that rocks, for example, exhibit some sort of "life", how would you characterise that "life", in such a way that it could be tested for, by means of objective and repeatable observation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Hmmm... Whenever I see the terms ‘consciousness’ and ‘infinity’ broughtinto a science discussion, I know where the person is heading…and that is usually,down a spiritual path. Abstract definitions as to what ‘alive’ really means,etc…these discussions always lead down the path of the spiritual realm…eventually.
    Quite. Hence my reference to Teilhard de Chardin above.
    wegs likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    "because cells make up everything right a rock is made up of living cells? so the rock its self isn't alive but it is made up of particles that do exist. im not a scientist but i think that's how it goes"

    Rocks are made up of minerals, which are made up of elements. There are no cells involved.

    Also, my quote feature does not appear to be functioning properly.
    ijin likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Hmmm... Whenever I see the terms ‘consciousness’ and ‘infinity’ broughtinto a science discussion, I know where the person is heading…and that is usually,down a spiritual path. Abstract definitions as to what ‘alive’ really means,etc…these discussions always lead down the path of the spiritual realm…eventually.
    Quite. Hence my reference to Teilhard de Chardin above.
    Yes, I saw your reference, and smiled. And, if someone is spiritual, that’s cool. Different strokes, etc. But, what irks me is when I see discussions (similar to this one) that clearly have spiritual undertones, positioned to look scientific. Spirituality with a scientific ‘’spin,’’ if you will. And scrolling through, looks like the term ‘heaven’ has been mentioned at least once already… Yep, we’re heading there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Hmmm... Whenever I see the terms ‘consciousness’ and ‘infinity’ broughtinto a science discussion, I know where the person is heading…and that is usually,down a spiritual path. Abstract definitions as to what ‘alive’ really means,etc…these discussions always lead down the path of the spiritual realm…eventually.
    Quite. Hence my reference to Teilhard de Chardin above.
    Yes, I saw your reference, and smiled. And, if someone is spiritual, that’s cool. Different strokes, etc. But, what irks me is when I see discussions (similar to this one) that clearly have spiritual undertones, positioned to look scientific. Spirituality with a scientific ‘’spin,’’ if you will. And scrolling through, looks like the term ‘heaven’ has been mentioned at least once already… Yep, we’re heading there.
    Just realised….we've both been suckered - by PhDemon - into resuscitating a corpse: this thread had been dead since mid-August [cue asses' ears all round].
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Wasn't me, it was ijin, I just corrected some of his bullshit -- couldn't leave nonsense of that potency lying around.
    Ha. Sorry, yes indeed, so I see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,925
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Hmmm... Whenever I see the terms ‘consciousness’ and ‘infinity’ broughtinto a science discussion, I know where the person is heading…and that is usually,down a spiritual path. Abstract definitions as to what ‘alive’ really means,etc…these discussions always lead down the path of the spiritual realm…eventually.
    Quite. Hence my reference to Teilhard de Chardin above.
    Yes, I saw your reference, and smiled. And, if someone is spiritual, that’s cool. Different strokes, etc. But, what irks me is when I see discussions (similar to this one) that clearly have spiritual undertones, positioned to look scientific. Spirituality with a scientific ‘’spin,’’ if you will. And scrolling through, looks like the term ‘heaven’ has been mentioned at least once already… Yep, we’re heading there.
    Just realised….we've both been suckered - by PhDemon - into resuscitating a corpse: this thread had been dead since mid-August [cue asses' ears all round].
    Doh! Does that mean our points are no longer valid?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    26
    nooooooo the universe continues on infinte right it is always expanding never stopping. so that being infinte was there ever a start for something like that to exsist
    “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
    Richard Dawkins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    26
    omg how does this happened i am definitely not religious. i just made this thread last night too btw. but i didnt mean reincarnation like bhuddist reincarnation. with spirit and all i just ment like what is inside of me will one day become someone else but iam totally wrong i get it
    “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
    Richard Dawkins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    26
    omfg wrong thread im sorry im dumb as hell. sorry. i just seen the same people commenting on this ahahaha.
    “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
    Richard Dawkins
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,657
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    Hmmm... Whenever I see the terms ‘consciousness’ and ‘infinity’ broughtinto a science discussion, I know where the person is heading…and that is usually,down a spiritual path. Abstract definitions as to what ‘alive’ really means,etc…these discussions always lead down the path of the spiritual realm…eventually.
    Quite. Hence my reference to Teilhard de Chardin above.
    Yes, I saw your reference, and smiled. And, if someone is spiritual, that’s cool. Different strokes, etc. But, what irks me is when I see discussions (similar to this one) that clearly have spiritual undertones, positioned to look scientific. Spirituality with a scientific ‘’spin,’’ if you will. And scrolling through, looks like the term ‘heaven’ has been mentioned at least once already… Yep, we’re heading there.
    Just realised….we've both been suckered - by PhDemon - into resuscitating a corpse: this thread had been dead since mid-August [cue asses' ears all round].
    Doh! Does that mean our points are no longer valid?
    No, just that we are preaching to the converted (each other), which arguably is a bit of a waste of effort.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Life After Death... What do you think?
    By Wellz in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: November 18th, 2012, 09:19 AM
  2. Life after death
    By sunlight7 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 9th, 2010, 07:24 AM
  3. Life after death proven
    By Leon23 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: February 15th, 2009, 11:09 AM
  4. Biological life and death ?
    By BARCUD in forum Biology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 25th, 2008, 10:47 AM
  5. Life, Death and Probabilities
    By zinjanthropos in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 24th, 2006, 03:00 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •