Thread: For all you anti-logic, science bashers.

One final attempt. (a lousy one) Then you can all fuck yourselves and I couldn't care less.

look I'm sorry.....
its just I hate to be made fun of. its like telling people the world is round and they laugh at you and say its flat, and your insane. Its fucking frustrating.

please listen cause I am not typing it all out myself. This ses it just as well as I would say it if I had the time.


"Let’s first ask, what is life? And immediately we are stumped ok. By contrast, physicists throughout the world, regardless of country or creed, agree on a definition of matter—anything that has mass and occupies space. Matter is among the basic stuff of the Universe and we have a reasonably good idea how it (at least detectable, normal matter) behaves from quark to quasar. But biologists are hard-pressed to offer a clear, concise, standard definition of life. At issue, again, is life’s complexity. Life is so intricate, it’s hard to describe even though we ourselves are examples of it! Frankly, the biological community has been unable to reach a uniform consensus about life’s true character.

At first glance, then, we might take the italicized property above to be a peculiarity of life. But on second thought, this property is not at all restricted to life, for it’s also a property of matter. To see this, imagine removing a small part of a star normally fusing hydrogen into helium. The extracted chunk of matter would no longer release nuclear energy, since it would immediately disperse into space and grow cold. Yet if that chunk were surrounded by additional matter having an appropriate temperature and density, it would once again shine as brightly as before.

These statements are not meant to suggest that stars are somehow “living.” Quite the contrary. It is precisely because we can be sure that incredibly hot stars cannot possibly be alive that this comparison demonstrates how tough it is to define life. Thus we cannot claim that the “whole being greater than the sum of its parts” is a property solely of living systems. This property applies equally well to many objects that are not living, as in a watch, for instance, which is surely more than the sum of the gears and springs (or silicon chips and integrated circuits) of which it’s made. A watch’s structure is made of atoms, but its function tells the time!"

"Biologists often claim that the ability to heal itself is a peculiar property of a living system. A shallow cut on a finger, for example, usually heals quickly and the system goes on living. On the other hand, the aforementioned star from which a small chunk of matter was extracted would also eventually “heal” itself. The star would adjust a bit, eventually attaining a new balance between the inward pull of gravity and the outward pressure of heat. Having resumed its original spherical shape, the star would then go about its business of shining as a perfectly normal, though slightly smaller star."

"We might say that living systems have a special property that allows them to react to unforeseen circumstances. But a star wouldn’t expect to have a small part hypothetically removed, yet it would react quite adequately to this unexpected occurrence. Stars can react, and adapt, to new states too."

The ability to reproduce is clearly a special property of living systems. Still, we could imagine a contracting protostar which, because of faster and faster rotation, divides into two separate protostars. In this way, angular momentum is sometimes judged an agent of replication, or at least subdivision. Admittedly, this example probably occurs rarely, yet it has undoubtedly happened many times in the billions upon billions of years since the start of the Universe. Some of the binary stars in our Milky Way Galaxy may well have been formed in just this way. A better example of “replication among the stars” might be the process of sequential star formation proffered toward the end of the third, STELLAR EPOCH, whereby the concussive deaths of some stars naturally lead to the birth of others. Furthermore, mules don’t reproduce and neither do sterile men, so perhaps reproduction isn’t such a definitive, unique quality of life.

Surely, some property must be associated with life and only life. Bioscientists often raise the possibility that living systems can learn from experience. Most living organisms do have a memory of sorts. Yet some nonliving systems can also remember, and even learn from experience, such as chess-playing computers. When a well-programmed computer makes a mistake, it doesn’t forget it. These so-called neural networks can store mistakes in their hardware memory, never to be made again under the same circumstances. Accordingly, few humans can beat our best computers at chess and no one can beat them at blitz-chess (when the timescale for moves is much shortened). So some of our more advanced machines, which are still merely clusters of matter, can seemingly learn from experience, much like living systems.

Finally, life is often operationally defined as having an entire hierarchy of functions. Much of the activity of living systems is controlled by chemical hormones; hormones in turn are controlled by secreting organs called glands; glands by brain cells, and so on. Such hierarchies characterize all living systems from simple amoebas through advanced humans. Similarly, though, we can regard nonliving matter as being controlled by a hierarchy of functions: The motion of the Moon is dictated by Earth; Earth’s motion in turn is directed by the Sun; the Sun by the Galaxy, and so on through the galaxy superclusters. Many material systems have governing hierarchies that resemble those of living systems.

The point worth stressing is that we cannot easily specify any property applicable to life, and only life. (there, case closed.)

Apparently, under some circumstances, common properties of life can also apply to matter. In short, there seems to be no clear dividing line between what’s alive and what’s not—no obvious distinction between matter and life."

A rock is made up of matter. So there you have it. dumbasses. Don't make fun of me ok. Remember we are not looking at the atomic structure and process of the actual matter of the rock. The atoms are moving at incredible speed. The atoms are doing all sorts of things. And its also connected to other aspects which you don't see,in regards to matter itself, and processes you can't percieve when you simple observe the rock in your limited perception and understanding.

"All this back-and-forth discussion reinforces the notion that life is surprisingly difficult to define, even operationally. The old saw, popular even among biologists, that “I know life when I see it,” is cute, but not useful in a scientific context.

Degree of Difference Living and nonliving systems, then, do not seem to differ in kind. Their basic properties cannot be readily distinguished. However, living and nonliving systems do differ in degree. All forms of life are more complex than any form of matter.

eg a rock in not alive in the way that we are alive, but its matter, and you cannot really define matter as of itself. As was described above.

As a result, we could reasonably postulate that life is merely an extension of the complexities of matter. If correct, then everything around us—galaxies, stars, planets, and life—might well comprise a grand interconnected spectrum of all known objects in the material Universe, including ourselves. This is the crux, the very heart and soul, of the interdisciplinary subject of cosmic evolution.

Yes, saying that "it moves" is too simplistic of a defintion to describe life, not to say that you or bradybaker depend on that (I assume you're directing this mainly to him)

I know what it is like to try to tell people something and they disregard what you have to say, but explaining it wasn't sufficient to match their understanding of it like you have, and they end up going off on their interpretation of what you just delivered.

You're basically saying that life is not easily defined. And that the more complexes processes happen in the universe, the more we permit ourselves to define that as living, especially with the really complex process of self-rejuvenation. I was intrigued by your point that nonliving entites can also learn and adapt to a situation, which gave me the idea that maybe some scientific law like gravity was a "learned" skill by matter in the universe to balance things out. Though that's really out on a limb, too.

And of course, are not just talking about a rock, but every nonliving substance. They all contribute, and everything is moving. A living being's body is not his/her only extent of control, but that is what we usually accept in this life. Every single action we take has some sort of delay, even our bodily functions, but to a very small level. Every other cause and effect situation outside our body has much more delay, because of other factors that contribute and usually slow down reaction, like space and gravity. This may probably lead into some sort of new age discussion, but it's fun to see how it all may tie in.

Thank you AirRick. I'm glad someone understands.

Interesting how the term 'new age' is now used as a weapon against those trying to bring fourth greater truth. Think about how they have done this. It is very ingenious.
whenever anything is chucked into this new age' term category. It is ignored. This new age talk when it is defined as 'new age'. Becomes worthless. But who defines new age? Now we get to the mind control aspect of it. This is it. the manipulation. The connection is therefore. Get them to disregard new age,(a created conception) then get them believe when people talk of aspects of truth, they are talking about the created conception.
and so ignore it.

The idea probally came from the countless people getting payed to spew disinfo and fluffy bullshit concepts, intruding into the actual new concepts that are to be realized about truth, and disensitising it with such illogical crap and misconcpetions that people throw the baby out with the bathwater. While bringing the idea of science against 'newage' so it makes the illusion even stronger, they immitate truth, get you to believe people are talking about something they are not eg 'new age', so you then ignore it.

Hate to say it. Few understand this is an actual stragegy of the governments mass mind control techniques. Like I said there is many dark secrets. Also if you don't know an enemy exists. its not like your going to fight them. Oh yeah your government cares for you so much, I don't think so.

Anyway,

I'm sorry if I got carried away. I just don't like keeping quiet when I know something is been missunderstood. And I'm not that good at explaining. it. but it would sure help if people were willing to listen with an open mind and discuss it logically as possible. Otherwise if we fail I'll just keep quiet and not worry about this.

Nirvana, please answer these questions. After you do, I will have a better understanding of your view. Thanks.

Is a dead human body really alive?

Is there such thing as death?

Is it possible to murder a rock?

Why do you disagree with Brady's definition of life, which is the generally scientifically accepted definition? (It seems that that definition makes a clear distinction between living and nonliving matter.)

You didn't credit your source as far as biologists disagreeing.

Six years of biology inc. microbiology at one of the top-5 universities on the planet - and we never had such difficulties.

It either meets all the tests or it doesn't.

Does a proto-star respond to outside stimuli?

Does a rock have cellular mitosis? Does it respond to outside stimuli? Does it move in response to stimuli? Does it reproduce?

The whole conspiracy theory part of this is just silly and dumb. I'm not even going to bother there.

Originally posted by In copying and pasting from the article@ NirvanaStarseed
These statements are not meant to suggest that stars are somehow “living.” Quite the contrary. It is precisely because we can be sure that incredibly hot stars cannot possibly be alive that this comparison demonstrates how tough it is to define life.

Nirvana, as I showed in my recent response in the other thread, you are grossly misinterpreting what this article is trying to say.

The direct quotation above obviously shows that the author (who mysteriously goes uncredited) is not trying to suggest that stars and other inanimate objoect are alive. But rather the boundary between life and matter is difficult (but not impossible) to locate.

Once again, according to the article, the statements are not meant to suggest that stars are somehow living, quite the contrary. And, we can be sure that incredibly hot stars cannot possibly be alive.

This article could be better used to try and prove that "life" is actually non-living.

I know that a rock is not living like you and me are living. I understand the article. Thats why I put those letters in bold. Would I put the letters in bold, which were the most imporant to consider here, if I did not understand them? I didn't credit it in that particular post because I have already posted this about 5 times and assumed you would know by now where I have got this source from.

What I am saying basiclly is, defining living is more complicated than simple saying something is 'nonliving' or 'living' because there is no clear distinction as you go from a human being to a rock, the degree in living changes. But there is not clear cut off defintions qualitys to point where you can say such and such is not living and such and such is living, the qualitys vary in everything which is said to define living. That is the whole point of the article.

A human body is a human body.obviously If the body is no longer being used, eg the soul is deceased. Then obviously it is not functioning as it was and the cells will change form into another energy, that is what matter does. There is an interplay with that which could be called spirit and matter.

Death is sin

Is it possible to murder a rock?

In that context. It is not possible to murder anything. Because what did not have a beginning cannot have an end.

Why do I dissagree with brady's view?
I diassagree with his misinterpretation of scientific princibles.

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed
I know that a rock is not living like you and me are living. I understand the article. Thats why I put those letters in bold. Would I put the letters in bold, which were the most imporant to consider here, if I did not understand them? I didn't credit it in that particular post because I have already posted this about 5 times and assumed you would know by now where I have got this source from.

What I am saying basiclly is, defining living is more complicated than simple saying something is 'nonliving' or 'living' because there is no clear distinction as you go from a human being to a rock, the degree in living changes. But there is not clear cut off defintions qualitys to point where you can say such and such is not living and such and such is living, the qualitys vary in everything which is said to define living. That is the whole point of the article.

A human body is a human body.obviously If the body is no longer being used, eg the soul is deceased. Then obviously it is not functioning as it was and the cells will change form into another energy, that is what matter does. There is an interplay with that which could be called spirit and matter.

Death is sin

Is it possible to murder a rock?

In that context. It is not possible to murder anything. Because what did not have a beginning cannot have an end.

Why do I dissagree with brady's view?
I diassagree with his misinterpretation of scientific princibles.

Thanks. So this is what you believe...

- A human corpse is alive.
- There is such thing as death, in the form of sin.
- A rock cannot be murdered, although it is alive.
- The generally accepted scientific definition of life disagrees with scientific principles.

Is that right?

So what makes a human corpse a human corpse is just that the living is in a new form. Sin is the only death you have mentioned. A rock cannot be killed even if it is converted to a new type of matter. Science contradicts itself.

If a rock cannot be murdered, can a human?

Originally posted by First+ NirvanaStarseed--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(First &#064; NirvanaStarseed)</div>

I know that a rock is not living like you and me are living.[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-then@ in the same post no less, NirvanaStarseed
there is no clear distinction as you go from a human being to a rock

no universal that is not right.
Your question there has already been answered in my post above. If you want to understand what I am saying, wether it be right or wrong to you you have to try hard to observe and listen more carefully about what I am trying to say to the best of your ability. That will make it easier to understand where I am coming from.

brady
I know it may seem contradicting but its only because of your understanding what i am saying.

science does not contradict itself.

My first quote I am explaining how a rock cannot do the things we can do as humans.

in the second quote. What I mean by no clear distinction is. The qualitys of living from human to matter, cannot be seperated or singled out with any definite clarity into categories of nonliving. As you go into the subatomic world of atoms, and study the process, it is difficult to pin point the exact cause of the life essence, as it is all through matter itself.

Saying a human corpse in living like a human being is inaccurate.
When a 'human' "dies" The matter that was used as the vechile of the life essence is no longer animated and and at interplay with the matter,when the life essence has left it and gone back to the souce of it. nothing has really died. Since the interplay of spirit has finished with the matter of that form, the connection is broken and so the cells no longer function as they did, because they cannot without the interplay. what is really happening when the actual cells 'die' is they are also changing form back into the source of it. As the spirit that was at interplay did.

for simplicity you can say a human died. and that it is a dead corpse. but you have to understand what I mean when you use the term 'death' in regards to the death of the current form of the life essence. in regards to its interplay with matter. Otherwise you will get confused and think that something 'dies'

Nothing that did not have a beginning can have an end.

>> you can say a human died. and that it is a dead corpse

No you can't. Atleast not without being redundant, because, by definition, there is no such thing as a "live corpse".

Nirvana, I asked you why you disagreed with Brady's list of science's generally accepted characteristics of life, and you said that it disagrees with scientific principles. How could that not be a contradiction in science?

And how was it inaccurate, according to your philosophy, for me to say that a corpse is alive? You just explained how you think it is. You said, "Nothing has really died." You talked about how a corpse is a new form of life, but you said that it is alive.

It also seems to me that you think a human can be murdered if one is converted to that new form of life, so why can't a rock be murdered if it is transformed into a new form of life by being chemically altered?

Most importantly though, I still don't understand why you don't agree with science's definition of life.

I do not agree with bradys interpretation of the definitions. Not the definitions themselves in the context of explaiing qualititys of life.

There are many other things you misunderstand about what I say.

Universal

And how was it inaccurate, according to your philosophy, for me to say that a corpse is alive?\"[/b]

It is inaccurate that the corpse is alive in the context that you are speaking about the life of a human being. When a human 'dies' as we call it. The corpse is a result. That is why we say it is a dead corpse. It is the definition of 'dead' we are getting confused about. We could replace the word dead with passed on, Or whatever, the word implies a transistion of leaving one form to starting something else. A great portion of the individual cells in the body indeed do not stop living immediately after 'death' of the entity. Overall the individual cells of the body will decay and die themselves in the same way that the entity did. Thats when the corpse goes into being matter, which is another form. Because the life has gone out of it that was once in it. Things have transistioned into another state. But nothing has ultimately died. As I have already said. What did not have a beginning can not have a end.
The form of the physical bodys make up had a end because it had a beginning. But the consiousness that used it did not. Thats why it is said ultimately all matter is an illusion. Something consiousness has created for its own purposes. I'm not saying a corpse is a new form of life. It is in a different state than that of a living human.

universal

It also seems to me that you think a human can be murdered if one is converted to that new form of life, so why can't a rock be murdered if it is transformed into a new form of life by being chemically altered?[/b]

We say a human is murdered. Because another lifeform of similar character ended the entitys life in that form. A rock does not have the ability to do this to another rock. The quality of matter is more simplistic than a consious human. When fire consumes a piece of wood. You don't say that the fire murdered the wood. Because we understand fire does not have a consiousness like we do and so it cannot apply here.

In the same way when someone who kills another human being for example. It is just another process of this life, but more complicated. In this case called 'murder' With the more complex consiousness of this human lifeforme, comes more complicated results and situations about life. We have labelled this 'murder'. But Once again its your understanding of the concept murder and how it applies to the process of life that matters here. If you are confused about the true definition of the word murder in its proper context. You will also be confused about how you cannot 'murder' a rock.

Universal

Most importantly though, I still don't understand why you don't agree with science's definition of life.[/b]

I do agree with science's definition of life.

This is just a passing speculation. I can't even admit that I've read every word in the thread, but:

Nirvana. I think you are confusing the others by using the terms "life and death" where they don't necessarily apply. If I'm correct, you're saying that an inanimate object is Alive in the sense that it is connected to the supposed singular consciousness that exists in all things. There is nothing wrong with that, because if you follow that particular, and possible, viewpoint, then what you are saying is correct. However, you are also explaining the transition from "living" matter to "nonliving" matter. This is to mean Living in the scientific context. If you believe in the singular consciousness, then what a rock and a corpse have (after scientifically accepted death) is not "life." The connection with the singular consciousness, the 'living' network that extends through all things material and not, is still there, even if the material object/person is inanimate, but this connection to the singular consciousness can still not be defined as "Life." At the very least, not by the scientific context. These items are still Dead, by any and all scientific measurements. That is the state "Death" is defining. The underlying, still unconfirmed conscious connection is not even applicable when defining something as "dead or alive," but I think I understand your reason for labelling it that way.
I think your mistake was not making the distinct difference between the two apparent in your text. (Or perhaps you did and I skimmed over it, in which case I appologize) But I think that you're saying "you can't kill something that never began" is completely out of context with "the parameters of scientific death." You cannot even argue the two. You can't say that a rock is "alive." Ideally, if you subscribe to singular consciousness, it is connected with the Lifeforce of all, but if you are defining something in terms of "life and death" this, by default, would be speaking of what we humans consider "life and death" in which case, a rock, a corpse, or any inanimate object cannot be described as "living."
I think I understand your view of a rock being "alive" in the sense of singular consciousness, but if that is your main point, I just find it a little out of context with a conversation about the scientific explaination of "living and non." The two are simply too different to even compare and belief in one does not make the other right nor wrong.
Hope this makes sense. Like I said, its just a passing speculation. Tell me to sit down and shut up whenever you're ready. lol.

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed
I do not agree with bradys interpretation of the definitions. Not the definitions themselves in the context of explaiing qualititys of life.

There are many other things you misunderstand about what I say.

Universal

And how was it inaccurate, according to your philosophy, for me to say that a corpse is alive?\"

It is inaccurate that the corpse is alive in the context that you are speaking about the life of a human being. When a human 'dies' as we call it. The corpse is a result. That is why we say it is a dead corpse. It is the definition of 'dead' we are getting confused about. We could replace the word dead with passed on, Or whatever, the word implies a transistion of leaving one form to starting something else. A great portion of the individual cells in the body indeed do not stop living immediately after 'death' of the entity. Overall the individual cells of the body will decay and die themselves in the same way that the entity did. Thats when the corpse goes into being matter, which is another form. Because the life has gone out of it that was once in it. Things have transistioned into another state. But nothing has ultimately died. As I have already said. What did not have a beginning can not have a end.
The form of the physical bodys make up had a end because it had a beginning. But the consiousness that used it did not. Thats why it is said ultimately all matter is an illusion. Something consiousness has created for its own purposes. I'm not saying a corpse is a new form of life. It is in a different state than that of a living human.

universal

It also seems to me that you think a human can be murdered if one is converted to that new form of life, so why can't a rock be murdered if it is transformed into a new form of life by being chemically altered?[/b]

We say a human is murdered. Because another lifeform of similar character ended the entitys life in that form. A rock does not have the ability to do this to another rock. The quality of matter is more simplistic than a consious human. When fire consumes a piece of wood. You don't say that the fire murdered the wood. Because we understand fire does not have a consiousness like we do and so it cannot apply here.

In the same way when someone who kills another human being for example. It is just another process of this life, but more complicated. In this case called 'murder' With the more complex consiousness of this human lifeforme, comes more complicated results and situations about life. We have labelled this 'murder'. But Once again its your understanding of the concept murder and how it applies to the process of life that matters here. If you are confused about the true definition of the word murder in its proper context. You will also be confused about how you cannot 'murder' a rock.

Universal

Most importantly though, I still don't understand why you don't agree with science's definition of life.[/b]

I do agree with science's definition of life.[/b]

You said that a human can die according to a certain definition of "die," but you also said that a rock CANNOT DIE. You did not offer a definition of "die" which would include what rocks do, but you did lay one down for how humans can die. This is not an inaccurate account.

You have not gone down the list of requirements for living status and said how a rock meets all of them. You keep saying there is no clear distinction between living and nonliving, but you will not explain in direct detail how science's requirements for living status apply specifically to rocks. You say you agree with science's definition of life, right? Then tell us specifically how a rock meets each requirement. That will clear up everything. So far, you have said you agree with science's requirements, but you have also said that there is no clear distinction between living and nonliving. That seems to be a contradiction because I think science has set out a clear distinction. If you will just go down the list and talk directly about how rocks meet EACH requirement, then you can perhaps show the lack of clarity in science's definition of life.

If you insist. The reason I have not already done that is because we have only just got up to that part of the discussion.So now it calls for an explanation. You will continue to say that science has confirmed this and said that, and defines this and implies that, according to your own beliefs about science.

But no problem, I will answer your misconceptions about my last post with this next one. I will explain it according to the list as is appropriate. I will explain the exact definition of What I mean by non living and living as it applies to sciences definition and how science has defined it in this context. And where science is in its discovery to these princibles and also discuss the general misconceptions people have about science and why they are misconceptions.

But not at this moment because I don't have time. It is important I type that one out myself. Without any other sources pasted in, which was done in the other post there to free up time with the links and such getting to the point we were discussing. This one calls for a more precise response that is not so vague. If you want me to go ahead I warn you that it will be a long post to read through and understand. So if your up for it no problem.

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed
If you insist. The reason I have not already done that is because we have only just got up to that part of the discussion.So now it calls for an explanation. You will continue to say that science has confirmed this and said that, and defines this and implies that, according to your own beliefs about science.

But no problem, I will answer your misconceptions about my last post with this next one. I will explain it according to the list as is appropriate. I will explain the exact definition of What I mean by non living and living as it applies to sciences definition and how science has defined it in this context. And where science is in its discovery to these princibles and also discuss the general misconceptions people have about science and why they are misconceptions.

But not at this moment because I don't have time. It is important I type that one out myself. Without any other sources pasted in, which was done in the other post there to free up time with the links and such getting to the point we were discussing. This one calls for a more precise response that is not so vague. If you want me to go ahead I warn you that it will be a long post to read through and understand. So if your up for it no problem.

That sounds good. I request that when you do that you give a summary of how a rock meets each requirement and then elaborate all you want. Long answers that don't get to the point right away tend to dodge the questions they are supposed to be answering. So if you would give a quick summary of how each requirement is met before you talk a great deal more, that would be very informative and interesting.

A whole lot of belly buttons, here![/b]

Ring around the rosey!

P.S. O' by the way trying to convince a carnal person, of spiritual things is like slapping the snot out of a pitbull, and expecting it not to BITE you in the A*S! not real smart!
The Rev.

Originally posted by kimpossible


Does a proto-star respond to outside stimuli?

Yes, because of energy released by the gravitational in fall of material, the influx of matter drawn into its grasp increases the star’s mass and gravitational force increase.



Yes, It does, Does it hold geosynchronous orbit within the Universe?

Yes, therefore it "IS" responsive to outside stimuli

But, does it respond like a particle or like a wave?

The Rev.

That's not responding to external stimuli. Absorbing matter is not responding to stimulus.

Try a science class, please! You might like it!

The star does not produce its own mass, by the increased influx of new material ,outside its own mass, which increases it in mass, thereby effecting it with stimuli which was not originally of its own mass. It became form outside its own mass. You can not increases your mass, unless you take on other mass from outside your self, (so put down the Twinkie) lol, just as proto-stars do in their formation, the gases and other material which it is pulling in on its self is in fact causing an effect which would not occur without the outer stimuli, of the other matter. It ain’t growing by its self

The Rev.

[Deleted post screw up]

:finger:

The star does not produce its own mass, by the increased influx of new material ,outside its own mass, which increases it in mass, thereby effecting it with stimuli which was not originally of its own mass. It became form outside its own mass. You can not increases your mass, unless you take on other mass from outside your self, (so put down the Twinkie) lol, just as proto-stars do in their formation, the gases and other material which it is pulling in on its self is in fact causing an effect which would not occur without the outer stimuli, of the other matter. It ain’t growing by its self [/b]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm....

...Technically, the man's got a point on that one. hehe.

Hmm...but then you have to bring in the question of energies, and whether or not they "qualify" as "acceptable" outside stimulus for the experiement....

I don't know how detailed the clarification of "outside stimulus" is in the text books, but I'd suppose there are a few inanimate things that "respond to outside stimulus" if you want to take the phrase so literally. Plastic burns, cardboard corrodes over time, metal rusts after prolonged exposure to the elements..ooh...sound vibrates glass. Various forms of pressure bends glass. All of these inanimate things, and many more, "respond to outside stimuli." But if this were the actual benchmark for the textbook definition of that "sign of life," this would be taking the phrase Very literally, if you ask me. But considering how you look at the question, it would work.

If you don't embrace the spirit of truth, it will never embrace you.
When I get the chance I will talk about this. Nothing is 'nonliving'.