what causes something to be living

[Runewolf1973]

Then the word...'beginning'...has absolutely no meaning to you.

That right?

There are always new beginnings and new forms. It is all matter and energy. That which is neither created, nor destroyed, only changes form.

 

[Sees]

There are always new beginnings and new forms. It is all matter and energy. That which is neither created, nor destroyed, only changes form.

That there is no creation, only creating, gives some people the fits because of the doctrines they hold on to. The Beginning, The Creation, The Sandwich, etc.

Other than abstract concepts is there anything really the same as it was a second ago? Change and plurality is nature and reality. There is no One or The outside of abstract concepts.

 

[Runewolf1973]

That there is no creation, only creating, gives some people the fits because of the doctrines they hold on to. The Beginning, The Creation, The Sandwich, etc.

Other than abstract concepts is there anything really the same as it was a second ago? Change and plurality is nature and reality. There is no One or The outside of abstract concepts.

Yes, change and plurality.:yes:

 

[Thief]

That there is no creation, only creating, gives some people the fits because of the doctrines they hold on to. The Beginning, The Creation, The Sandwich, etc.

Other than abstract concepts is there anything really the same as it was a second ago? Change and plurality is nature and reality. There is no One or The outside of abstract concepts.

Nay...regression leans to it.
Science would take you back to the beginning.
At the 'point'...there is no One there?

If the beginning is self starting then all of this is one complex accident.
So are you.
The chemistry is the source of all spirit....and is terminal.
So are you.

And Man is a mystery without purpose.

 

[Sees]

Nay...regression leans to it.
Science would take you back to the beginning.
At the 'point'...there is no One there?

If the beginning is self starting then all of this is one complex accident.
So are you.
The chemistry is the source of all spirit....and is terminal.
So are you.

And Man is a mystery without purpose.

Why would that be the case just because there is not a The Beginning?

Science does not take anybody there or anywhere with a point that has no existence to speak of. It only tries to understand the current transitory form of the local, observable universe - how it may have looked billions of years ago and how it may look a billion years from now and all sorts of in between and probabilities.

No facts, no magic universe-rabbit out of a nothingness-hat....there is misunderstanding of science by irreligious and religious both.

 

[Thief]

Why would that be the case just because there is not a The Beginning?

Science does not take anybody there or anywhere with a point that has no existence to speak of. It only tries to understand the current transitory form of the local, observable universe - how it may have looked billions of years ago and how it may look a billion years from now and all sorts of in between and probabilities.

No facts, no magic universe-rabbit out of a nothingness-hat....there is misunderstanding of science by irreligious and religious both.

For science the 'point' of singularity IS the beginning.

Theology goes that one step further....Spirit first.

 

[McBell]

Nay...regression leans to it.
Science would take you back to the beginning.
At the 'point'...there is no One there?

If the beginning is self starting then all of this is one complex accident.
So are you.
The chemistry is the source of all spirit....and is terminal.
So are you.

And Man is a mystery without purpose.

False dichotomy.

 

[McBell]

Theology goes that one step further....Spirit first.

Yet there is nothing to support your magic universe-rabbit out of a nothingness-hat belief outside your wishful thinking.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Here is an interesting article...

Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blog Network

This basically follows my thinking...

There is no such thing as Life, only those forms of matter which are more or less lifelike based on the complexity of their interactions.


---

 

[idav]

Here is an interesting article...

Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blog Network

This basically follows my thinking...

There is no such thing as Life, only those forms of matter which are more or less lifelike based on the complexity of their interactions.


---

I agree somewhat but the notion of being able to experience throws a wrench in the idea of life not being real. What there appears to be are different levels of cognition that increases in complexity. Not that various levels of cognition make things more life-like. So in essence all of it is as "life-like" as it will ever be and abilities increase with complexity.

 

[Skwim]

1. energy

2. energy

In as much as each resultant form (the story and the high C note) are vastly different, it would appear their prior energy forms were also quite different. If they were not then why the different resultant forms? What differentiates the prior energy form of the story from that of the high C note? If you postulate some interceding factor---something that manipulates the energies of each---then all you're saying is that stories, notes, pizzas, farts, etc. are all the products of energy, which were directed to different purposes. Hardly a notable much less profound observation. Yet, by using the term "form" to signify a prior state ("Nothing is ever "created", it only changes form.) you suggest a notable difference in the prior state of each. Nothing like: "stories and trumpet notes are simply forms of manipulated energy." But the fact remains that out of this singular prior form, energy, things were created; stories were created from the energy (they didn't exist as such before they were generated) as was the high C I blew on my trumpet (it didn't exist as such before it was generated).

What does yellow taste like?

A bit windy.

 

[Skwim]

Here is an interesting article...

Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blog Network

This basically follows my thinking...

There is no such thing as Life, only those forms of matter which are more or less lifelike based on the complexity of their interactions.


---

Nice article. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Runewolf1973]

In as much as each resultant form (the story and the high C note) are vastly different, it would appear their prior energy forms were also quite different. If they were not then why the different resultant forms? What differentiates the prior energy form of the story from that of the high C note? If you postulate some interceding factor---something that manipulates the energies of each---then all you're saying is that stories, notes, pizzas, farts, etc. are all the products of energy, which were directed to different purposes. Hardly a notable much less profound observation. Yet, by using the term "form" to signify a prior state ("Nothing is ever "created", it only changes form.) you suggest a notable difference in the prior state of each. Nothing like: "stories and trumpet notes are simply forms of manipulated energy." But the fact remains that out of this singular prior form, energy, things were created; stories were created from the energy (they didn't exist as such before they were generated) as was the high C I blew on my trumpet (it didn't exist as such before it was generated).


A bit windy.

I am an artist myself, so in a way I do agree with you that we can "create" in an artistic sense. In a sense we are also energy workers. We manipulate energy and in the process generate new and beautiful forms.


---

 

[Thief]

Here is an interesting article...

Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blog Network

This basically follows my thinking...

There is no such thing as Life, only those forms of matter which are more or less lifelike based on the complexity of their interactions.


---

Waiting for someone to do a science experiment that you are then able to believe in Something Greater than yourself?

I think I've already pointed out...that won't happen.
Science can take you TO the singularity.
Science cannot proceed further.

You have to think about it.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Waiting for someone to do a science experiment that you are then able to believe in Something Greater than yourself?

I think I've already pointed out...that won't happen.
Science can take you TO the singularity.
Science cannot proceed further.

You have to think about it.

Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Your posts aren't making sense to me.


---

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Here is an interesting article...

Why Life Does Not Really Exist | Brainwaves, Scientific American Blog Network

This basically follows my thinking...

The title of the article is misleading; the writer is arguing that there is not a single, definitive definition of life- and that is true enough, so far as it goes. But two things; that there is no such thing as life is a rather large non-sequitur, nor does it follow that there aren't definitions which are not adequate for particular contexts.

There is no such thing as Life, only those forms of matter which are more or less lifelike based on the complexity of their interactions.
---

I'm not even sure this is intelligible; if there is no such thing as life, what does it mean to be "more or less lifelike"? That's seems like saying there's no such thing as water, only things that are more or less waterlike...

 

[Runewolf1973]

I'm not even sure this is intelligible; if there is no such thing as life, what does it mean to be "more or less lifelike"? That's seems like saying there's no such thing as water, only things that are more or less waterlike...

By lifelike I mean something dynamic, having movement, change, ability to interact, etc... Based on their complexity, some things or some forms have a greater ability to interact, move around, change, etc... It is simply a matter of how complex those chemical interactions are within a form that determines how lifelike or animated that form is. Perhaps animated is a better term. All matter is animated to some extent. What we call life forms are simply more animated due to their complexity.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

By lifelike I mean something dynamic, having movement, change, ability to interact, etc... Based on their complexity, some things or some forms have a greater ability to interact, move around, change, etc... It is simply a matter of how complex those chemical interactions are within a form that determines how lifelike or animated that form is. Perhaps animated is a better term. All matter is animated to some extent. What we call life forms are simply more animated due to their complexity.

I know what you mean, we've been over all this before, I'm just pointing out that the way you've phrased this is problematic.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I know what you mean, we've been over all this before, I'm just pointing out that the way you've phrased this is problematic.

You are right. I should have phrased it a little better.

 

[Thief]

Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. Your posts aren't making sense to me.


---

Shall I assume you're not trying?
Other participants seem able enough.
(I get frubals now and then)