For all you anti-logic, science bashers.

A common complaint that "science bashers" raise in philosophical discussions is that certain arguments are "only theories" and as such, they cannot be taken credibly.

I have decided to dispell this unfortunate myth.

As we wrestle with the universe to pin down its secrets, we organize our ideas and findings into theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defintion:
Theory - an intregrated set of principles that explain and predict observed events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In everyday conversation, the word "theory" often means "less than fact". A middle ground between fact and guess.

To the scientist, facts and theories are different things. Facts are agreed upon statements about what we observe. Theories are ideas that summarize and explain facts.

However, theories do not only summarize, they also imply testable predictions called hypotheses. By making specific predictions, a theory "puts its money where its mouth is", so to speak.

Hypotheses allow us to test the theory, test relationships between events, and give direction to research.

Finally, the predictive feature of a good theory makes it practical. For example, the theory of gravity is practical because we can use it to make extremely accurate predictions in fields such as rocket science and cosmology.

Similarily, theories of quantum mechanics, relativity and evolution have exceptional predictive power, thue making them very practical.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your time.

- BBak

Good job, BBak!

I'd go one step further to mention that models are built upon theory, and models are (if good) accurate predictors of future observation.

Bible Thumpers seem to be wrong nearly 100% of the time in predicting the future (which is interesting since a monkey with a pencil will do just as well or better), whereas a good model built on sound theory allows for exactly the opposite: prediction of future events at a very statistically significant rate.

It's funny, but in the philosophy forum this thread already feels like a sanctuary :D

It's still philosophy. Very much epistomology.

Since I am responding, does that make me a science basher?

There really is no difference between the ideas between religious people and scientifically endowed people except that science is information taken by human experiment, rather than divine hearsay. But though, it still doesn't rule out either.

I'm not sure what comes to mind when you typed this Brady, but maybe the arguments against evolution? It's a theory, yes. Theories are called theories because they are agreed to be dependable groups of data. In my observation, "science bashing" has more to do with protecting one's own argument for the sake of it rather than being open to new ideas and opinions.

Fact, theory, belief, hypothesis, or even "lies" are to some degree, just mental representations of ideas, so they are categorized based on how people use those ideas. Religious people tend to have an aversion to "theories" and "facts" outside their scriptures. They often do not like the idea of inventing the wheel when it comes to discovering more, except when they can use it for their argument. A lot of sentiment is involved.

Nice post by the way brady

Quote:

---

There really is no difference between the ideas between religious people and scientifically endowed people except that science is information taken by human experiment, rather than divine hearsay. But though, it still doesn't rule out either. [/b]

---

Except, as brady said, scientific experiments are backed up by evidence. Religion is backed up by..... a fuzzy feeling people get when they think about <insert local deity here>. Religion also cannot make any accurate predictions about the world, and when it does try it's not too correct (still waitin on that jesus character, whats he like 2000 years late now?)

I think you missed out an important part of what makes a theory brady - they are falsifiable. A theory that does not have an avenue to be falsified is a useless theory. For example, since everyone always brings up evolution - the one major thing anyone ever has to do is find a recent fossil in strata dating to the cambrian period (in an area which has not suffered major tectonic disturbances, which would probably distroy fossils anyway).

I think he knows that theories are falsible. I just think he's bothered when religious fanatics try to use that falsibility as a window of oppurtunity to prove their point, rather than really seek out truth. Everything is potentially falsible, because science is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. We can predict cause and effect, experiment with those and mind, and prove it to ourselves, but we can't do anything to create what is already there.

I've merely taken the standpoint of religion as the innovation of their time, and it wasn't all useless. And I think a lot of our current scientific data will likely be revamped anyway in the future too. To take a look from an anthropologist's point of view, it really served people in their time. And if anything, most religions branch off from primary ones to make it more simple (such as hundreds of denominations being rooted into Jesus's story, such as Mormons, Christian, Catholics...etc)

Both religion and science are mediums of trying to find answers, basically. And I don't think one should try to overpower the other. After several millenia, it sure hasn't happened, just like trying to figure out the answer to all these religious debates.

It hasn't happened because the majority of people are inherently sheep. They want to be lead around. The don't want to have to think too hard or know stuff. They don't want to have to take personal responsibility for their lives and actions: (I can kill a thousand people in cold blood, but if I tell god I'm sorry, it I repent and are saved, it's all ok!) (The devil made me do it)(I can't solve this problem, but if I give it over to god he'll solve it for me) (...)

In short: If ignorance is bliss, they're happy all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kimpossible
Bible Thumpers seem to be wrong nearly 100% of the time in predicting the future (which is interesting since a monkey with a pencil will do just as well or better)

---

HAHA

You know, I always intend to post something useful, then I forget what I was gonna say after laughing at something like that

brady nice thread for someone who got the definition of life wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AirRick101
There really is no difference between the ideas between religious people and scientifically endowed people except that science is information taken by human experiment, rather than divine hearsay.

---

This is a loaded statement.

Whenever someone makes a claim about religion like this, it seems pretty obvious that he or she is referring to one religion in particular. I'm not at all religious, so unfortunately I don't care enough to find the time required to point out the particulars on how wrong this statement is, or least how it is very poorly worded.

That you see religion and science connected in this way is an accident of appearances. For example, like I said, I'm not religious, but (here you'll see why I just had to repeat that) I was raised in Catholic schools, and never has there been any notion that the modern Catholic Church competes against science. The recent condemnation of neodarwinism by the new Pope, although disappointing, is harmless.

What's FAR more harmful is the system of coercive schooling we have adopted, that herds students like animals and locks them up like prisoners.

Finally, it's unfortunate that we have had to suffer religious people of the extremely foolish variety. Granted, the foolish are particularly prone to becoming dependent on religion, but that does not necessarily deface religion, any more than moths deface the flame.

*Any endorsement of fire worship in the last statement is completely unintentional.

**Oh yeah, Kim is right on, as per usual. I'm really not going to like the day when we disagree, because I have a feeling it'll be because I'm wrong.

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

Answering that deductively is impossible. There is no certainty in science.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NirvanaStarseed)</div>

Quote:

---

brady nice thread for someone who got the definition of life wrong.[/b]

---

I stated the scientifically accepted definition of life. Sorry if I left out all the new age mumbo jumbo.

Wait, no I'm not.

Nice try at changing the topic by the way.

<!--QuoteBegin-evolo
There is no certainty in science.

---

Correct. "Cogito ergo sum". That's all we can be certain of. You can't be sure that the wall behind you exists until you turn and look at it.

However, with a few fairly safe assumptions (ie. we live in a universe with certain constants), the scientific method has proven quite effective. Where can you find evidence of that? The computer sitting right in front of your uncertain face.

[quote]I stated the scientifically accepted definition of life.[/brady]

No you didn't. You said that science concludes a rock is 'non living'. And in this you were mistaken.

And because I am correcting you on this issue does not mean it is automaticlly new age mumbo jumbo. It just means I have pinned down you illogic in regards to science.

Now all you need to do is show us where accepted science has proven that the rock is living (ie. has cellular mitosis, reproduces, etc.) and you won't look nearly as foolish as you do right now.

I think he meant

http://latinoreview.com/films_2006/u...mages/Rock.jpg

I'm sure his cells reproduce, though who would want them to?????

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed
For something to be considered scientifically alive, it has to exhibit ALL of the following phenomena at some point during its existence:
1) Growth
2) Metabolism (consuming, storing and transforming energy, excreting waste)
3) Motion (either moving itself or internal motion)
4) Reproduction
5) Response to stimuli

---

That is the scientifically accepted definition of life. According to this definition, a rock does not qualify.

Quote:

---

Now all you need to do is show us where accepted science has proven that the rock is living (ie. has cellular mitosis, reproduces, etc.) and you won't look nearly as foolish as you do right now.[/b]

---

kim. I already gave links and explained it not long ago in another thread. In which brady had no answer for.

Even the entire biological community agrees it cannot say that a rock is nonliving. It cannot say that a computer is nonliving, and as a matter of fact there is nothing they can say is 'non living'. When you don't understand the core aspect of this subject of science (biology, definition of living). Its difficult to take this thread seriously. You can't talk about logical science accurately when you don't understand the concept of it yourself. As is evident in your belief a rock is nonliving. I know your not the only one with this misconception, but I picked on you cause your making a thread about logical science.

....... :wtf2: ?

He amazes me also, somehow. :o

my argument meant nothing here. omitted.

I understand very well what it takes for science to accept that something is living.

1) Growth
2) Metabolism (consuming, storing and transforming energy, excreting waste) (aka cellular mitosis)
3) Motion (either moving itself or internal motion)
4) Reproduction
5) Response to stimuli

Please tell me where a rock falls into these? (Thanks for listing them all, Brady!)

So me that a rock reproduces.

my argument meant nothing here. omitted.

pOOp - that was directed at Nirvana more than you. I understood where you were coming from.

That was an argument that I tried back in gradeschool. And got the ***** slapped out of me for.

In short - it's intended to reinforce cellular decay. The process of being "used up" rather than "washed up" if you will.

If I take a rock and put it in a sealed chamber with air pumped in and feed and water it every day - it's not going to age and die like, say, putting NirvanaStarseed in a sealed chamber with air pumped in and feeding and watering him every day.

It still won't meet all the tests. Then again - NS probably doesn't meet the reproduction test, so we can just invalidate the whole theory. ;)

Actually Nirvana, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say and the biological definition of a living must have these factors.

1) Growth
2) Metabolism
3) Motion
4) Reproduction
5) Response to stimuli

This is a scientific fact, now if you can clear up what you are getting at I will reconsider my opinions again.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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. :chuckle:

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NirvanaStarseed
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'.

---

The problem here is that you're operating according to a different definition of life than the rest of us. So, if you are ok with that, go for it buddy. Have a blast. But just know that the "definition of life" you keep talking about is NOT the scientifically accepted definition of life. You may have issues with that defintion, and that's fine, go publish a paper on it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. But for the time being, the scientific definition of life is what it is, so a rock doesn't qualify. Sorry.

Quote:

---

If you don't embrace the spirit of truth, it will never embrace you.[/b]

---

Words of the wise, my good friend. Let us all embrace truth, as well as the coherency of that sentence!

WOW! post with a conclusion! :cheers: :goodjob:

When the wind picks up dust, its mass is increased.

The wind is not responding to a stimulus from the dust.

Neither is the star.

That's not the definition of external stimuli.

The wind isn't, but the dust is!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
The wind isn't, but the dust is!

---

I'm glad you're here kim, I've been dealing with statements like these for more than a year now...after a while you start to question your own sanity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker

I'm glad you're here kim, I've been dealing with statements like these for more than a year now...after a while you start to question your own sanity.

---

I had a dream (non-lucid, like most of the posts people are making in this thread lately) last night.

I was arguing stimuli with a playing card whilst Grace Slick was belting out White Rabbit in the background, almost drowning out the argument such that we had to shout to be heard over it. Somehow I don't think the dream interpretation on this one is terribly tough. ;)


One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small,
And the ones that Mother gives you don't do anything at all.
Go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall.
And if you go chasing rabbits, and you know you're going to fall,
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call.
Call Alice when she was just small.
When the men on the chess board get up and tell you where to go,
And you've just had some kind of mushroom, and your mind is moving low,
Go ask Alice. I think she'll know.
When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead,
And the white knight is talking backward, and the red queen's off with her head,
Remember what the dormouse said: "Feed your head! Feed your head!"

"Feed your head! Feed your head!"

"Feed your head! Feed your head!"

- Jefferson Airplane
White Rabbit

brady not everyone believes what you think about science, least of all those who take it seriously.

sorry I havn't posted yet.

No - only those who make millions of dollars applying it to the real world.

Not those who sit around their dorm room getting high imagining they know something.

I know the difference is subtle, but maybe if you get high enough it might make some sense to you.

Kim In a ideal world scientist know what science is and those with the passion of truth preach it in areas of teaching and worship of it in temples (or churches), but this is not entirely an ideal world. Many scientist are not capable of applying logic, and many people who preach in the churches are not capable of teaching the truth about god. And many get ritch from applying lots of illusions. As can be seen on your tv set. Just because humanity has not evolved to the point where the collective understand about the essence of life. It does not mean it is logical to look back to them and expecially use the collective misconceptions and present errors to prove I am wrong and then tell me how much money everyone is making, and compare it to your misguided interpretation of what I believe. Followed by a personal insult about me getting high in a dorm. This response is so ridiculous it becomes clear it is an emotional one more so than something thought out with the intention of seeing any truth. That response being created from what I said,(in an intention to resonate with truth) Is a trend among many that can be explained in the revelations, 'it is the smoke that is created' they are not events coming to pass, but symbolize the unveiling of ones consiousness in realizing the soul. Which I was thinking about posting the interpretation.

Anyway I'll make this a short a post as I can. I have decided I'm wasting my time posting something to long when only something brief was requested by universal.

Quote:

---

For something to be considered scientifically alive, it has to exhibit ALL of the following phenomena at some point during its existence:

1) Growth
2) Metabolism (consuming, storing and transforming energy, excreting waste)
3) Motion (either moving itself or internal motion)
4) Reproduction
5) Response to stimuli[/b]

---

At some point during its existence.

keep in mind the princibles of this is what matters. The original princibles. Not the shallow interpretation of them. Do you think a female all her life physically unable to have a baby, renders her nonliving? No because it is the essence of the princible behind these definitions of living that define the nonexistence of 'nonliving'. A tree does not move.(3 motion) Does that mean its not living? Again it's the original princibles behind the definitions. As explained below.

1) How was a rock created? Remember this. Matter must have been created as a result of growth and its processes. As was the subatomic world. Else it would not exist. The micro sub atomic world is relatively perfected. Thats why there is a misconception here about the fact there is no growth. What has happened is we have Our consious attention on a higher level. (time/evolution/life/consiousness=growth)

2)As a rock does not run around and do things that require alot of energy, it does not have to eat green vegtables and meat to excrete waste and gain the energy to continue being a rock. This doesn't mean it doesn't follow the same princible. The atoms within the rock have to 'feed' on some kind of energy to continue its processes in some form to maintain its existence, As does all matter.The main thing to remember here is without this princible of storing and transforming the needed energy for the matter. The rock would not be abe to continue to exist for long. In the same way the power to your computer is needed for you to read this. And the fuel for your car is needed for it to be drivin. Matter and such things as rocks, Also need this process of transforming energy in it's own context. According to its existence. Once again, the princible of this energy use is inherent in all things in different degrees and ways. Excreting waste of this energy in whatever form is also consistent in all these things. Just because your flowers, bees, trees, and insects in your backyard don't ask you if they can use your toliet. Doesn't mean this princible does not apply here.

3) The individual atoms and their makeup electrons ect. Is moving at incredible speed. To create the entire rock as it is being. Which seems from your perspective it is not moving. It's moving alright. Thats why it exists as a vibration.

4) Does a rock mate with another rock and produce a baby rock that needs changing at 3:30am? yeah ofcourse not. It is missing the princible of the definition. However matter is reproduced. Ultimately that is how we were produce too. We are also made up of matter. (how can we forget?) A human from sperm grows into a baby (utero) through the same process at the deepest level that a rock was created. That is how the sperm and the particles that make up the sperm and everything that makes up matter itself was created. And that is how everything reproduces. If you have intelligent life that has a form capable of choosing and producing a function of creating more of its form through a process, you could mistake that princible which is an expansion of the original princible of creation of life, can be found that which gives birth to matter.Which is ths same princible that gives birth to all things.

5) All things respond to stimuli as has already been discussed here. If you put enough pressure on a rock its going to crack. What the rock is capable of doing (cracking and all that happens when a rock is broken) is a response to what you have done to it. It responded to the stimuli by cracking into pieces. The expansion of this princible in more intelligent form could represent a spiritual pressure on a human being that causes them to 'crack' go insane, or kill themself. Or become very depressed, from not physical pressure but a spiritual pressure of the world and their life situation. Not the same thing as a rock cracking from pressure but it is all response to stimuli. Which is all essentially spiritual in its essence, as is life.

Gosh, this is so flawed that I just don't even know where to start!
It's unlikely you'd begin to grasp how flawed your "reasoning" is if I did!

>> Do you think a female all her life physically unable to have a baby, renders her nonliving?

No. If I poke her in the toe, her leg twitches. Responds to external stimulus. Check

She ages. Check

She consumes nurishment, goes through cellular mitosis, and excretes the waste product. Check.

She moves around the room under her own power. Check.

Her cells reproduce. Check The class of organism she belongs to reproduces in general. The flaw in her reproduction is identifiable - but still it exists. Check.

She's alive. Period. End of discussion.

>> Matter must have been created as a result of growth

No. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. It can be converted from and or to energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed. Matter is potential energy and vice-versa.

>> The atoms within the rock have to 'feed' on some kind of energy to continue its processes in some form to maintain its existence,

If it's feeding, where's the waste-product? Where's the cellular mitosis?

>> The individual atoms and their makeup electrons ect. Is moving at incredible speed. To create the entire rock as it is being.

Does the rock move under its own power? No. You have to pick it up and actually throw it at the morons who think it's living.

>> However matter is reproduced

No it's not. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

>> you put enough pressure on a rock its going to crack.

That is not a response to external simulus. If you hit it with a hammer and it jumps up and kicks your ass, THAT is a response to stimulus.

As I said - your entire premise is flawed from the first words.

kim honey. It is not flawed. Please be rational and think about what I have posted. Just really sit down and think about it. That's the only way you will tune into the princibles and truth that I wish to speak to you about and understand. If you have ears listen. Else the misconceptions on your behalf, which I am not going to go through or it will be simply repedative, will get the better of you. You need only read my post and contemplate it intelligently. Otherwise its your choice to either ask logical questions or continue to be blind to that which I have already said. You will only see what you want to see, and what you are willing to see or open up to, or able to. To me what you have mentioned is already clarified in the other post and there is no need to go over it. If you do not understand about something ask honeslty. And I will answer about it.

Do you dissagree with me because you want to and for the sake of dissagreeing? I was not arguing that the girl was not alive or living. I thought it was obvious my point is she is living darling ;) As I explained the subatomic world is relatively in perfection in regards to its evolution. It moved under the same power we move. Our attention is on this level now.

If matter was not created, and is not destroyed. Consider the big bang. There is definetely some kind of creation going on there with matter, Your physical body was not always here. And it will not always be here. Matter does transform and is created. It's a simple observation.

The rock does not have the ability and it's not its function to 'jump up and kick your ass' ofcourse. It doesn't mean you can define this matter as something which is nonliving or void of life essence with no quality that defines consiousness in all these things. because it does not speak to you when you hit it with a hammer, doesn't mean it does not respond.You are unaware of its response. You must remember the individual particles that make up the rock and what they are. There is life in the subatomic world but it is 'asleep' somewhat due to the relative perfection achieved in that world. It is creating all the matter of these things. If you were able to decend to the smallest particles of that rock and communicate with it. It would respond to you. And it would ask you why you wake it from its slumber. That is if you had that privlidge. You would know it is alive. It would be the same being that is as a whole of this universe, when you expand and commune with the universe as a whole.

You're wrong. You have absolutely no concept of science and the physical world. You had no sensible answer to any of the points presented.

Just to get the next person that decides to take it up with you started: As noted, matter is neither created nor destroyed. The big bang was a conversion of energy to matter. Nothing was created. The mass that is my physical body was not created. The matter that makes it up started as energy and was converted. Looooong before that mass became a body.

I see very little point in having a further battle of wits with an unarmed man.

True that the energy is present before the matter is created, else it would not be possible. What does not have a beginning cannot have an end. That is my point about the definition of 'living' Matter is part of the original energy that is was created from it. If you go back and define the energy and the process you will find your consiousness at its essence is that which defines you and everything that exists.

And it's not a battle of wits honey. We are trying to explain the truth of the matter. Anyone for truth is for me. But anyone against truth is against me.

Quote:

---

Anyone for truth is for me. But anyone against truth is against me.[/b]

---

I'd be careful about saying stuff like that...

...historically...psychologically...that is possibily the Most Common Lie. :|

A ventriloquist dummy has a heartfelt such for truth, unlike me. :? A rock is conscious, but I am nonliving. :wink:

:?

Ever notice:

That when (K) impossible says something it is constructed in such a way as to lead all other readers to the conclusion that hers is the final word on the matter. Wow, haven’t seen that much arrogance since Lucifer buffed up like a balloon, and then blew away.

The Rev.

The big mistake is imagining I'm hunting your soul.

The souls of the drowned weevels in the bottom of my cheerios bowl have more intrinsic value.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kimpossible


- Jefferson Airplane
White Rabbit

---

That was SUCH an awesome band. They're my second favorite, second to The Beatles. In one of my first long lucids, I went back in time and watched them perform "Won't You Try/Saturday Afternoon" at Woodstock. The experience ranks very high in my lucid hall of fame.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Universal Mind
A ventriloquist dummy has a heartfelt such for truth, unlike me. :? A rock is conscious, but I am nonliving. :wink:

---

I have no idea what that was about. I don't even remember writing it. The only thing I remember about last night is a cop threatening to take me to the "Brandon Hilton" (Brandon jail) if my friend's neighbors call him again. On that note, I have officially quit drinking, again. :shakehead2:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Universal Mind


I have no idea what that was about. I don't even remember writing it. The only thing I remember about last night is a cop threatening to take me to the \"Brandon Hilton\" (Brandon jail) if my friend's neighbors call him again. On that note, I have officially quit drinking, again. :shakehead2:

---

Lmfao. :chuckle: