to be alive?
Can scientists make living matter from non-living matter?
What is Life? What makes you you? What is consciousness?
What is Awareness? What makes us Alive?
"What must he added to non-living matter in order to make it living matter?"
"Does the world predate awareness?"
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 12:18 AMDepending how you define life, yes.
Yes, everyone can do this, you don't have to be a scientist.
Life is hard to define.
What makes us, us is our unique consciousness and experience.
Consciousness is equally hard to define, self awareness and the ability to make conscious, projected decisions may be a good basis.
Awareness is perception.
What makes us alive is that we meet our definitions of alive.
Nothing needs to be added to non-living matter to make it living matter, it just has to be arranged in a manner we agree on as living.
Yes it does. Awareness is a relatively late development in life, itself a late developer in the universe. -
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 12:34 PM<<Life is hard to define. >>
I have long ago.. given up on mental satisfaction towards such metaphysical questions..
I've focus my attention on the uncertain, the fuzzi..the vague, the ambigious..
abiding in congnitive dissonance
-
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 5:37 AMThere is no physical difference as fas as the matter is concerned between "living" and "non living." Carbon is carbon is carbon.
If we consider boundary cases, BSE, brain dead people, gene splicing, it becomes apparent that life is a certain level of self sustaining complexity. Once that level is achieved something is considered alive and when it is lost that thing has "died," decays and is non living again.
So can a computer reach a level of complexity such that it would be reasonably considered alive? Based on the current advances it seems very likely. In fact if there is to be any real colonization of space it will most likely be computer life forms since we are finding ourselves eminently unsuited for long stays away from our biosphere.
In the long run, if we don't kill ourselves off first, we will have to abandon earth as the sun begins th head towards nova. At the moment the only other world which has the potential for teraforming is Titan and it is unlikely that we would be the ones to do that. -
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 9:07 AM
I would like to address each of your post but first wanted to share some on this subject first
I think it's very important to see for materialist point of view and what makes us god. -Dog Star*
There is no such thing as "life;" there are only living creatures and plants. To "be alive" is not to have "life" but, "Being" alive is the property of a living creature.
While not the property of many of the actual parts making up the whole (the atoms and molecules), "being alive" is a property of the Whole when these parts interact in the appropriate dynamic pattern.
"the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts"
Something does not become alive, therefore, by having life added to the nonliving thing. Something becomes alive when its parts are ordered (by God this spiritual intelligence) in the appropriate dynamic interaction to exhibit being alive as one of its properties.
If the question is asked, therefore, "What must he added to non-living matter in order to make it living matter?" the answer is not that some essence of life must he added, but that the non-living matter must be brought into that dynamic patterned interaction appropriate for being alive.
There appears then to be no a priori reason why scientists cannot make living matter from non-living matter in the laboratory. *Their success or failure has no necessary theological significance. In no ease will they truly "create" life, for *they* (*living creatures) are needed to bring another living creature into being.
As soon as we ask what causes consciousness, we are struck by the fact that as far as we know consciousness is associated only with certain complex systems—
So to understand causes and effects of consciousness
We have to understand what consciousness is,
consciousness means Awareness "Being aware of"
At first thought it would SEEM that brains are needed
But, Plants have awareness too
there are different forms of consciousness (among other distinctions) phenomenal consciousness vs. access consciousness, direct experience vs. reflexive consciousness.
Consciousness is a product of brain activity, however we also know that consciousness is not a direct result of any neuronal activity, because there are plenty of things the neurons in our central nervous systems do of which we are not aware, like adjusting the size of the eye's pupil.
That's why Intuition is so important (SEE?) what we think is real or reality by are brains are actually Illusions. We have to open up our BANDWIDTH away from the brain and into the stomach, to know Not think
there's a bigger extent of energy transfer we are capable of experiencing within our consciousness -
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 9:07 AM
Consciousness and what depends upon it (NOT the brain) is inexplicable on mechanical figures and motions.
Once visiting the parts of the whole within it, we find only other parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain the perception or awareness (quantum levels)
It’s a simple substance (god is), and not in the composite of parts or in or of the machine.
the visitor (Scientist) upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals the inner workings of a conscious being.
there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to of the I (eye) in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be.
whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly whole, a single “I” properly regarded as one whole conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly whole and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life.
“in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.”
If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct an argument against materialism as follows:
matter can’t explain awareness. Awareness is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to awareness. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception or consciousness. -
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 9:38 AM
God is consciousness and beyond, the potential for all that is, then it because an action ...
This is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question!
a witness through your minds eye and intelligence - God is looking through your eyes, your heart, your soul, and is our discerning factors judgments...(much like animals don't debate Evilution) this is how we are all connected...
this is how we share Love, remember this is a very smart and intelligence force who designed you and everything in the world -
IDT is one way of seeing the intricate parts of DNA it's as cut and perfected as a bugs ear (smiles)
Thought is an energy, then it creates even down to your dna ...Nothing Exist
God is a Black woman ...
there is no space and time, so not light can enter, and gives birth to the world and beyond and everything in it
That's why mama africa is so important ;-P
www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTekDCWMHS31.html
There does not have to be a start point or a creation point. Imagine something that always was, and always will be. You have heard the circle analogy before, no start or end point, or the mobius strip, anything which curves back into itself is immortal! That is the self-reflexive nature of consciousness itself.
Yes we have heard that before, but it’s impossible to have something which always WAS, even if you can design something like a torus6 which can reflect back in on itself forever.
Just as the energy within the torus reflects back in on itself, so too can thought reflect back in on itself and create that which it is reflecting back in upon, namely, itself.
Hmm… I guess I just don’t get it. It must be one of those profound pieces of bullcrap that is above my level of awareness.
Well, we are trying to explain something which has never been created, to those who believe there MUST be a start point to something. And that is true, there must be a start point to something. Consciousness is not a thing. A thing is that which is created from consciousness –– a result of thought.
Consciousness is that–which–creates–itself.
Yes, but you said that consciousness creates thought and can perceive thought, so it must, fundamentally, be compatible with energy and have mass. Energy must be created because something can’t come from nothing. Even a photon that supposedly has no mass must have been created! So who or what created the energy that reflects–back–in–on– itself and forms consciousness?
Our answer is that which creates itself creates the energy which reflects back in on itself to continually create itself again and again. This is the seed – tree – fruit analogy, the fruit contains the seed, which then starts the cycle all over again.
Ask yourself, where did your virtual potential come from? You say, it did not come from anything because it IS nothing –– it doesn’t exist but is the creator of all things. That is no different from what we say –– we are just using different words. The only important thing is that there is no starting point –– there is just continuing. In a linear perception of time this makes no sense, because in human form you can see the body born, grow, and die, so you conceive that there must be a start (and end) point. But there IS no start point, do you get a little bit of what we are saying?
There IS no start point –– that is just how it must be said.
A conscious aware being has always been conscious, by definition. It can never ‘remember’ a ‘time’ when it was not conscious. By definition, consciousness is forever, with no start or end point. The idea of start and end is a wonderful thing, truly it is. It is one of the concepts that enabled an eternal consciousness to dream up a physical existence in the first place –– in order to experience what it would be like to have a ‘begin’ point and an ‘end’ point!
Yes, but when you are building something you have to start somewhere!
Yes, that is true — when you build someTHING you have to start somewhere. A THING must always have a start point –– a car starts out as minerals in the ground, an apple starts out growing as a bud from an apple tree, etc.
But consciousness has always been and always will be –– because it is self aware, and something which is self–aware cannot conceive of a ‘time’ when it was NOT.
OK, I get a little bit of what you are saying — but just because consciousness can’t conceive of when it was not doesn’t mean that something greater than itself could have created it. What about the apple tree? You say it is conscious, but there was no apple tree there at one time! Something else had to come along and plant the seed so that it could then become conscious. So consciousness MUST have a start point!
*Yes, but we ask, who planted the seed? *It was a conscious being! So consciousness existed before the apple tree became conscious.
Yes that is what I am saying! A greater consciousness planted the seed so that the lower consciousness could experience.
Well, you need to look a little deeper. You are assuming again that that there is one consciousness of the apple tree, and another consciousness separate or higher than it, which planted the seed and created the consciousness of the apple tree.
We tell you IT IS ALL THE SAME CONSCIOUSNESS.
The consciousness of the tree is the consciousness of the human who planted the seed –– it is all the same thing, just focused differently.
OK, then if universal consciousness created this universe, then there must be other universal consciousness just like it, creating other universes, and so what appears to be universal consciousness is really just an extension of an even larger consciousness, which then is part of a larger consciousness, etc. Where is all this going?
You have gotten yourself into quite a conundrum! From our vantage point we do not perceive any beginnings or endings of our awareness. We have always been and always will be, that is something so integral to us that it is never even an issue. You see, we are so busy having fun, endless, always different and exciting fun, that it just does not seem to us to be ‘real’ in any sense.
To sum up, from our vantage point: awareness, consciousness, always was and always will be. That’s just how it is perceived, known on all ‘levels,’ as some humans would say, to any conscious being.
So I am never going to get an answer to the question of who or what created consciousness.
You can’t get an answer because there is no answer, IF you are looking for an answer which requires there to be a higher power that creates consciousness, do you see? There is really only one answer, and that is consciousness itself!
This is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question!
Consciousness is the alpha, the omega, the beginning, the ending, the creator of all things, the experiencer of all things. An answer means ‘here is the response that tells you how it will be forever and ever.’ We have responded with an answer that tells you that consciousness is always aware of itself and there never was/is/will be a ‘time’ when it is not aware of itself. So this should satisfy you!
This may sound confusing, but we are trying our best to express in words something which IS itself, the answer to every possible question that could be asked by itself.... you see, the whole thing is always circular, always never–ending and never–beginning, always itself the answer to any question which could be asked... (by whom? itself, of course!).
Whew! OK, my brain is spinning and my mind is out of control. We’ll stop now. Thanks!
-
-
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 10:11 AM<<There is no physical difference as fas as the matter is concerned between "living" and "non living." Carbon is carbon is carbon. >>
There is obviously some difference.. and if it is not physical.. then one has to expand the realm to make such distinction, otherwise there one ends up in nihilistism--not much. -
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 12:08 PMConsciousness is just the normal operation of the brain, the same as the heartbeat is to the heart and digestion is to the gut.
The difference is that we don't proclaim the heartbeat or digestion to be the "alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of all" because only consciousness is capable of the requisite narcissism to elevate a biological function to a cosmic phenomenon.
It's the job of consciousness to find consciousness fascinating because the point of consciousness is to understand the consciousness of others so that we may be socially successful and thereby more likely to pass our genes on to the next generation.
Heartbeats don't need to understand other heartbeats in order to be a benefit. Digestion doesn't spend time musing on whether there's an "ultimate digester" or "first digester" or whether some kinds of digestion are "sinful" or "enlightened" or "transcendent." It's enough that digestion works.
If our digestive and circulatory systems were principally concerned with how OTHER people pump their blood and digest their food, then our conception of God would be that he's the "great stomach in the sky" and we'd all be trapped by white noise arguments about how there had to be a "first stomach" and/or an "ultimate stomach" otherwise there's no reason to eat. -
-
Perpetual Paradox
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 1:08 PM
"Religion is for those who believe in hell,
spirituality is for those who have been there." - David Bowie
"We speak of the evolution of Life in Matter, the evolution of Mind in Life; but evolution is a word which merely states the phenomenon without explaining it.
"...A hundred years ago, paradox meant error to the scientific mind. But exploring such phenomena as the nature of light, electromagnetism; quantum mechanics and relativity theory, physical science has matured over the past century, to the point where it is increasingly recognized that at a certain level, reality is paradoxical...
Mystics have spoken to us through the ages in terms of paradox. Is it possible that we are beginning to see a meeting ground between science and religion?
When we are able to say that "a human is both mortal and eternal at the same time" and "light is both a wave and a particle at the same time", we have begun to speak the same language. Is it possible that the path of spiritual growth that proceeds from religious superstition to scientific scepticism may indeed ultimately lead us to a genuine religious reality..." M.Scott Peck in the Road Less Travelled - A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth
"...We speak of the evolution of Life in Matter, the evolution of Mind in Life; but evolution is a word which merely states the phenomenon without explaining it... Yoga means a change of consciousness; a mere mental activity will not bring a change of consciousness, it can only bring a change of mind... The capital period of my intellectual development was when I could see clearly that what the intellect said might be correct and not correct, that what the intellect justified was true and its opposite was also true.... " Sri Aurobindo - The Guture Evolution of Man
"..we are infinite spirits living in a finite situation, hearts made for union with everything and everybody meeting only mortal persons and things. Small wonder we have problems with insatiability, daydreams, loneliness, and restlessness! We are Grand Canyons without a bottom. Nothing, short of union with all that is, can ever fill in that void. To be tormented by restlessness is to be human..." The Torture of Endless Desire - Ronald Rolheiser
From Matter to Life to Mind...AN UNFOLDING CONSCIOUSNESS
www.tamilnation.org/sathyam/...lding.htm
"...The (mind)... seems to deal effectively only with parts of the total reality. It directs its attention to discrete and separate parts of the whole. In order that it may understand, the mind separates and conceptualises. It separates that which is connected and the very process of separation distorts an understanding of the whole.
The mind thinks in sequence in time. The present is a fleeting moment and is then gone forever. Thoughts are so much grist to its mill. Words and concepts are the instruments of its trade. The mind seeks to clarify one concept by having recourse to another. It defines one word with another. There is no end to this process nor is there a starting point. The mind deals in opposites.
Yoga means a change of consciousness; a mere mental activity will not bring a change of consciousness, it can only bring a change of mind... The capital period of my intellectual development was when I could see clearly that what the intellect said might be correct and not correct, that what the intellect justified was true and its opposite was also true.... " Sri Aurobindo -
The Guture Evolution of Man
"We are infinite spirits living in a finite situation, hearts made for union with everything and everybody meeting only mortal persons and things. Small wonder we have problems with insatiability, daydreams, loneliness, and restlessness! We are Grand Canyons without a bottom. Nothing, short of union with all that is, can ever fill in that void. To be tormented by restlessness is to be human...
"The Torture of Endless Desire - Ronald Rolheiser
"Man's highest aspiration - his seeking for perfection, his longing for freedom and mastery, his search after pure truth and unmixed delight - is in flagrant contradiction with his present existence and normal experience. Such contradiction is part of Nature's general method; it is a sign that she is working towards a greater harmony. The reconciliation is achieved by an evolutionary progress.
We speak of the evolution of Life in Matter, the evolution of Mind in Matter; but evolution is a word which merely states the phenomenon without explaining it.
For there seems to be no reason why Life should evolve out of material elements or Mind out of living form, unless we accept the Kemtic solution that Life is already involved in Matter and Mind in Life because in essence Matter is a form of veiled Life, Life a form of veiled Consciousness. And then there seems to be little objection to a further step in the series and the admission that mental consciousness may itself be only a form and a veil of higher states which are beyond Mind... ...." - Sri Aurobindo in the Life Divine
we develop through a predetermined unfolding of our personalities in eight stages... Each stage involves certain developmental tasks that are psychosocial in nature. ... The child in grammar school, for example, has to learn to be industrious during that period of his or her life, and that industriousness is learned through the complex social interactions of school and family.
The various tasks are referred to by two terms. The infant's task, for example, is called "trust-mistrust."... Each stage has a certain optimal time as well. It is no use trying to rush children into adulthood, as is so common among people who are obsessed with success. Neither is it possible to slow the pace or to try to protect our children from the demands of life. There is a time for each task.
If a stage is managed well, we carry away a certain virtue or psychosocial strength which will help us through the rest of the stages of our lives. On the other hand, if we don't do so well, we may develop maladaptations and malignancies, as well as endanger all our future development...
Please see 8 Stages of Psychosocial Development on the website
www.tamilnation.org/sathyam/...lding.htm
"... human beings' needs (are) arranged like a ladder. The most basic needs, at the bottom, were physical -- air, water, food, sex. Then came safety needs -- security, stability -- followed by psychological, or social needs -- for belonging, love, acceptance. At the top of it all were the self-actualizing needs -- the need to fulfill oneself, to become all that one is capable of becoming. ... unfulfilled needs lower on the ladder would inhibit the person from climbing to the next step. Someone dying of thirst quickly forgets their thirst when they have no oxygen... People who dealt in managing the higher needs were... self-actualizing people..."- Abraham Maslow
"...man's primary motivational force is his search for meaning. Since persons are capable of deciding, they are also responsible for their decisions. A human being is not a mere puppet of biological, hereditary and environmental forces, but is always free to take a stand toward inner conditions and outer circumstances..." - Viktor Emil Frankl
"...As there is no end to the refinement in our method of analyzing parts, there is no end to the concept of totality... Another basic concept is that man is seen in motion, constantly on his way. Consequently the question arises: "Where is he going?" If we know where a person is going, we can understand why he is moving the way he is moving. In other words: we understand his behavior..." Alfred Adler
"...Men have always debated whether the mind governs the body or the body governs the mind. Philosophers have joined in the controversy and taken one position or the other; they have called themselves idealists or materialists; they have brought up arguments by the thousand; and the question still seems as vexed and unsettled as ever
"...The strong man holds in a living blend strongly marked opposites. Not ordinarily do men achieve this balance of opposites. The idealists are not usually realistic, and the realists are not usually idealistic. The militants are not generally known to be passive, nor the passive to be militant. Seldom are the humble self assertive or the self assertive humble. But life at its best is a creative syntheses of opposites in fruitful harmony.... ;-)
-
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 12:54 PM"There is obviously some difference.. and if it is not physical.. then one has to expand the realm to make such distinction, otherwise there one ends up in nihilistism--not much."
No, there's no difference. A carbon atom in a person is the same as in a particle of smoke. -
-
Re: Can Scientist make a computer come to life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 1:33 PMAlright, then where do you see the difference in live versus non-life? or do you claim there is no difference? if so, then do you think there is any utility in the concept of life? and if so, then where do you make the denotations?
-
-
life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 1:39 PM"There is obviously some difference.. and if it is not physical..."
The difference is in the organization.
-
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 3:05 PM<<The difference is in the organization.>>
So your concept of life is dependent on physical organization.
That seems simple enough.. so how does your definition become useful in your life? -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 3:16 PM.: so how does your definition become useful in your life?
No everything must be useful, but this knowledge does have its utility. For example it points out that there is no reason the fear the decomposition of the body or keep it around once it is dead. -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 3:26 PM<<is no reason the fear the decomposition of the body>>?
how so? -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 3:32 PMOnce it is dead, there is no need for further concern. -
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 6:10 PM.: so do you fear anything?
Mainly perceived immediate threats.
Occasionally I'll get worked up about something non tangible for a bit, but usually I can't sustain that very long before feeling pretty silly instead.
-
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 3:49 PM<once it's dead there is no need for further concern>
Exactly Swarm,wich is why the mainstream Religious concept of burying bodies in the ground is little more than taking up space on an already oercrowded Planet.
Once the "SOUL" either Dies or goes off to Heaven(or any other "Faith Destination") the human body is left to ROT and take up acres and acres of valuable space.
Ashes in a Jar take up nearly no permanent space at all.
"Gravesites" (Cemetaries?) are the biggest waste of land space on this Planet. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 3:52 PMI have nothing to fear
Life is what WE Make of it,not the Church Teachings of a Faith.
Faith Teachings are what perpetuates FEAR in Humans,such as the Fabled :"FEAR of GOD" drummed into every single five year old in Sunday School.
Without these "False Gods" and their imminent threats People have NOTHING to "Fear" in Life. -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 3:57 PMso Jake, do you think your life is an organization of matter?
I agree with the notion of "nothing to fear" but I still fear anyway..
it's something i am working on.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 4:01 PM>Gravesites" (Cemetaries?) are the biggest waste of land space on this Planet<
Naw, golf courses...just ask George Carlin -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 4:04 PMOf course life is an organisation of matter
All life began as a single Atom and Human life began with a single cell. -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 4:07 PM"All life began as a single Atom"
do you think an atom is a life form?
-
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 4:15 PMFear is prerational and can be effectively managed with a variety of spiritual, philosophical, psychological and/or physiological interventions.
Fear may be an unavoidable response, but it is possible to train yourself not to make decisions on the basis of fear. The best method I've found is to divest oneself of outcome-based thinking and just ask "would I make this same decision 100 times if given the opportunity?"
Worrying about what "might" happen is much less effective than distributing your resources across a reasonable range of outcomes. For example, we buy life and property insurance and pay a certain premium against the risk of poor health or catastrophic loss. It's not that we "fear" getting sick or experiencing a fire or robbery. It's that we know it's a possible outcome and we hedge our bets against it.
Now, selling a cure for fear on the basis that the entire universe has been contrived with human psychology in mind and that, come what may, we will be granted an eternal reprieve from any and all suffering just so long as we believe a bunch of ridiculous nonsense made up by bronze age nincompoops who needed a magic man to tell them to be nice to each other (a magic man who, by the way, was just fine with the institution of slavery), well, all I can say is caveat fucking emptor.
There's nothing humble or enlightened in imagining that all of creation is interested in you and your life. It's enough for me to have been invited to this party. I don't need to be the guest of honor.
And there's nothing to be scared of...not even fear itself. -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 4:33 PMAlright..for all those who think life is a bunch of organized matter, let's turn it around..
is there reason to love life? -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 5:14 PM> is there reason to love life?
Is there a reason NOT to love life? It's an inherent function of being alive.
And if life is NOT a bunch of organized matter, what then would be the reason for loving it?
We have more reason to love life when we know what it is. Whatever else it may be, life is at the very least an information pattern expressed in matter and energy.
Now, if it's more than matter, energy and information, then what is it, exactly, that we love? -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 6:57 PM<<life is NOT a bunch of organized matter>>
so jason, what is life? -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 7:02 PMI mean you say it's informational pattern.. but information is a subjective...so is life a subjective affair? -
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 7:11 PMInformation is not subjective. It simply is what it is. Your interpretation of information is subjective. -
-
Re: life?
Fri, May 9, 2008 - 6:07 AMja: Information is not subjective. It simply is what it is. Your interpretation of information is subjective.
I'm not so sure information is an inherent quality independent of subjective evaluation. -
-
Re: life?
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 7:36 PMA single Cell IS a "Life Form" so YES I believe that's how the Human Species came to be instead of God Fashioning a Woman out of "Adam's Rib" wich is "Laughable!" -
-
Re: life?
Mon, May 12, 2008 - 1:41 PMOne of the basic problems with defining life is that we only have one "data point" - and that makes generalization impossible.
All life on earth is obviously closely interrelated. All living things are made of cells - and all of these cells have the same basic structure. They also all have the same basic DNA/RNA and other mechanisms for perpetuating themselves. ALL living cells are so closely interrelated, in fact, that they all share the common ability to engage in the metabolic process of glycolysis. Viruses might be considered as an exception to this - but in fact viruses are incapable of existing without cells, on which they depend for reproduction, whereas cells do not depend on viruses - so there is no need to consider viruses independently. To think of a virus as "alive" would be like saying that the individual organelles of a single cell are somehow "alive".
In order to generalize about life in any meaningful sense we would need lots of other "data points" - independent examples of life that evolved elsewhere. If there is no such thing then that means that "life" as we know it on earth is one of the most amazing anomalies in the entire universe - something that I personally doubt very much. But if there are other life forms then we would need to study them extensively to learn what "life" is in a general sense.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: life?
Thu, May 8, 2008 - 7:08 PM> so jason, what is life?
You will notice that I didn't say life is not a bunch of organized matter, I said IF IF IF IF IF it is not a bunch of organized matter, then what it is it that we love? That would be a question for you.
What is life? It's a word used to describe a number of different phenomena.
Biologically, it's a biochemical process (ie "we the living.") Biographically, it's the sum total of personal experiences of a living organism (ie "my life.")
Is it really all that confusing?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-