Everything is either 'alive' or 'dead'.

@Riordan,

Riordan wrote:

Orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a good start.

Sorry but wot are you on about an orbital way of thinking and you show me the moon orbiting the earth.How does that give me a new way of thinking? have i got to run round in circles while i think of a problem? Could you answer my other request please...

@xris,

xris wrote:

Sorry but wot are you on about an orbital way of thinking and you show me the moon orbiting the earth.How does that give me a new way of thinking? have i got to run round in circles while i think of a problem? Could you answer my other request please...

I'm saying orbit is a system. Put that into context with my other posts.

@Riordan,

Riordan wrote:

I'm saying orbit is a system. Put that into context with my other posts.

Ive tried that and i have not got a clue what your on about.Try answering my other question please..give examples of self generating self sustaining evolutionary robotic systems, similar to living organisms.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Ive tried that and i have not got a clue what your on about.Try answering my other question please..give examples of self generating self sustaining evolutionary robotic systems, similar to living organisms.

I'm saying it is possible to build these machines because they are physical systems that operate, predictably, in a certain way. I never said they exist yet.

@Riordan,

Riordan wrote:

I'm saying it is possible to build these machines because they are physical systems that operate, predictably, in a certain way. I never said they exist yet.

So if they dont exist how can you give them as an example ? Tell me if its possible why has someone not made them? Science has no idea how to replicate anything like life, so your proposition is not valid.Life is nothing like dead, its formula is a secret of evolution.If it was like dead it would be self creating all the time.Thanks Xris..

@xris,

xris wrote:

So if they dont exist how can you give them as an example ? Tell me if its possible why has someone not made them? Science has no idea how to replicate anything like life, so your proposition is not valid.Life is nothing like dead, its formula is a secret of evolution.If it was like dead it would be self creating all the time.Thanks Xris..

That's absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying 2000 years ago they had no concept of a computer, therefore it is impossible. There are many robotic systems in their infancy which are starting to show capabilities that life exhibit.

You are also completely missing the point of my original post. The fact that you notice the differences between a system that functions as alive and dead has nothing to do with the level of discussion I'm having.

@Riordan,

Life is not an arbitrary construct.
Plants, animals, etc.
mammals, reptiles, etc.

Life is harder to define than a very specific species.
Life is a very abstract concept, the definition of which touches on very general ideas (read vague and confusing) like reproduction, growth, adaption, evolution. It is hard to grasp why when a rock changes, divides, and melds with other rocks, it is not doing the same thing. But... there are differences between the two systems and at the end of the day, a rock or group of rocks is quite difference from a cat.

So, I think I understand what you are saying. It isn't arbitrary, it's just confusing. It becomes clearer if you keep in mind that by "life" we mean, plants, animals... and that cat right there brushing up against your leg.

@Riordan,

Riordan wrote:

That's absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying 2000 years ago they had no concept of a computer, therefore it is impossible. There are many robotic systems in their infancy which are starting to show capabilities that life exhibit.

You are also completely missing the point of my original post. The fact that you notice the differences between a system that functions as alive and dead has nothing to do with the level of discussion I'm having.

You made the claim that dead and living is the same and im asking for proof , you dont appear to want to.If you think we are even remotely near achieving anything like life, show me.

@Riordan,

When Frankenstein had Igor throw the switch and the monsters finger moved, we all came to the same conclusion; "it's alive!" What was it before? The difference must have been a condition of process that fundamentally changed. So too a satellite in orbit is a process, but we do not recognize it as a life? Why, probably because it is not biological? It must be our biological perspective that biases our definition of life. We can think of a virus as being alive and yet a computer program that is just as responsive is not considered alive. Why, because it is not biological. And yet if something that was not biological was shown to be sentient, we would be inclined to say it was alive. Go figure.

@ogden,

You have to describe life before you make your claims.Is it scientific or some romantic notion of a mechanical driven machine? Life to me means more than an orbiting satellite or steam train puffing away up an incline.
Accepted life is that spark that man has no idea about reproducing, the ability to self sustain reproduce evolve.you tell me what you think life is?

@ogden,

What do you mean by biological? Bio means life, I think. Were you trying to say something about "carbon-chauvinism"?

Careful with computer virus and virus. I don't know much about viruses, but I think there may be an equivocation waiting to be made here. I don't know much about viruses, but I'm confident enough to say it is not because computer viruses are none carbon-based that computer viruses are not alive. "Real" viruses i.e. viruses viruses i.e. non-computer viruses (equivocation?) are not alive either. They are and then they aren't. It is difficult to say.

Which is my point. It is difficult to define life. It is a difficult concept. If you feel, at times, tempted to say that a falling object is alive, I understand. Life is not another word for movement though. A difficult concept is made easier if you start with considering the simpler things, as for instance birds, mammals, plants, and animals. With that in mind, we ask, "what do cats and dogs share that falling objects do not?"

@Ultracrepidarian,

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

What do you mean by biological? Bio means life, I think. Were you trying to say something about "carbon-chauvinism"?

Careful with computer virus and virus. I don't know much about viruses, but I think there may be an equivocation waiting to be made here. I don't know much about viruses, but I'm confident enough to say it is not because computer viruses are none carbon-based that computer viruses are not alive. "Real" viruses i.e. viruses viruses i.e. non-computer viruses (equivocation?) are not alive either. They are and then they aren't. It is difficult to say.

Which is my point. It is difficult to define life. It is a difficult concept. If you feel, at times, tempted to say that a falling object is alive, I understand. Life is not another word for movement though. A difficult concept is made easier if you start with considering the simpler things, as for instance birds, mammals, plants, and animals. With that in mind, we ask, "what do cats and dogs share that falling objects do not?"

The ability to stand up and walk away.Life is difficult to define but i know what it is not and a falling object is not alive.viruses are not alive! could you be more specific.Thanks xris.

@Riordan,

Riordan wrote:

At the most fundamental levels of the universe, there exists basic building blocks which has constructed our reality. We have all deemed ourselves as 'alive' and given this special meaning, some postulating that there is some 'greater' meaning to life due to it's special properties. However, I'd like to point out that we are no different from a rock, ecosystem, or orbiting Sun. How can we know this to be true?

All objects are constructed of strings.
Strings are either alive or dead (according to your perception).
All objects are alive or/and dead.

I contend that any labeling of matter to be alive or dead simply because of its atomic make up is arbitrary (IE a cell, plant, 'organic' atom). Life is merely an illusion -- it is just another system of the universe.

Interestingly enough, this truth would allow 'life' to come from nothingness without a creator -- which is something I also am a proponent of. What say you?

All things are made up of electrons.
Electrons have spins

So all things have spins.

Right?

Chairs are neither alive nor dead. Although they are either alive or not alive.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

All things are made up of electrons.
Electrons have spins

So all things have spins.

Right?

Chairs are neither alive nor dead. Although they are either alive or not alive.

This thread is becoming more profound by the minute....Records spin ,my heads spinning to the music, like a record baby you spin me..spin me... like a record baby..
Electrons spin, chairs are dead but not yet dead..ye man..you spin me like a record ...Sing this to a record baby..sing and spin...

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

All royalties to be sent to xris..care of philosophy forum..

@xris,

xris wrote:

The ability to stand up and walk away.

Yes. Cats and dogs both also have whiskers I think, whereas most falling objects do not.

xris wrote:

Life is difficult to define but i know what it is not and a falling object is not alive.

Me too! Unless the falling object is a virus. I think I just blew my mind.

xris wrote:

viruses are not alive!

You say Tomato, I say Potato.

xris wrote:

could you be more specific.

No, the weather does not permit.

xris wrote:

Thanks Xris

Thanks, Xris.

I don't mean to get into a discussion on virology. Viruses, last I heard, are not alive because genetic information by itself does not constitute life. It has to infect an organism before it becomes part of a living system. I don't know much about it. That is my point. For the purposes of the discussion, does it matter whether viruses are alive or not? Life is hard to define, but if we keep in mind that cats and dogs have whiskers, the problem becomes easier to solve. Bear in mind that life refers to fish, trees, and saber tooth tigers, then worry about the difference between a tree and a bush or the problem of defining all of these things from other kinds of complex chemical compounds or mechanical systems and ... and stuff.

@Ultracrepidarian,

Im sure life is ....self sustaining and reproductive..the trouble for me is a pea dead or alive...

@xris,

xris wrote:

You made the claim that dead and living is the same and im asking for proof , you dont appear to want to.If you think we are even remotely near achieving anything like life, show me.

I've actually covered it pretty simply in my fist post. The fact that we have constructed something that 'achieves' life is really missing the point because what constitutes life is arbitrary by this definition:

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision

(Although here are some examples: Self-replicating machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Evolvable hardware - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , Quantum computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , there are plenty of examples of integrated neuron/hardware systems responding to stimuli, systems that regulate outside forces, and new systems that are capable of adaptation if you look for them)

We made observations on what we think is common place in this system -- made possible because the system builds on itself. The line that divides a non-living object with a living one is blurred as can be seen when considering the qualities of a virus.

Most people consider 'life' to have special purpose and thus needing some continuance after it is dead or special treatment. 'Life' is the center of much philosophical debate unlike the 'special purpose' of an orbital system, computer system, solar system, or ecosystem.

You, the rock, and the sun, at the most fundamental level, are constructed of the very same building blocks. So at which point does something becoming 'living' and worthy of respect? It is no secret that objects have properties that are constituents of their smaller parts. In essence, you get a concrete building having made it of concrete, or you get a mass of metal, having made it from metals. No matter which case you can think of, in every situation, the most basic fundamental parts of the universe are non-living.

We are simply deceiving ourselves by considering ourselves as 'separate' from other objects in the universe. We see through the eyes of a biological system which is required to interact with the environment to continue and, most understandably but not justified, we have a bias of judging the universe around us through a 'life' perspective.

We have taken for granted that we are 'alive' and special, when we are just is much like the planet, its systems, or the flower outside.

Since people are making the claim that life exists, can anyone prove that the qualities that make up life are not arbitrarily decided? Life is no different than notions of justice, right, wrong, or favorite color. We have invented a little bubble that we 'live' in.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

Yes. Cats and dogs both also have whiskers I think, whereas most falling objects do not.

Me too! Unless the falling object is a virus. I think I just blew my mind.

You say Tomato, I say Potato.

No, the weather does not permit.

Thanks, Xris.

I don't mean to get into a discussion on virology. Viruses, last I heard, are not alive because genetic information by itself does not constitute life. It has to infect an organism before it becomes part of a living system. I don't know much about it. That is my point. For the purposes of the discussion, does it matter whether viruses are alive or not? Life is hard to define, but if we keep in mind that cats and dogs have whiskers, the problem becomes easier to solve. Bear in mind that life refers to fish, trees, and saber tooth tigers, then worry about the difference between a tree and a bush or the problem of defining all of these things from other kinds of complex chemical compounds or mechanical systems and ... and stuff.

The issue here is that we can just 'decide' that viruses are alive. Viruses are most likely a key to what was around before 'life'.

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:21 PM ----------

kennethamy wrote:

All things are made up of electrons.
Electrons have spins

So all things have spins.

Right?

Chairs are neither alive nor dead. Although they are either alive or not alive.

Correct. "Although they are either alive or not alive" is following our logic and is our perception. There is no inherent 'alive' or 'dead' to the universe because we are all constructed of the same quantum pieces. It would almost seem contradictory until further analyzed.

@xris,

xris wrote:

This thread is becoming more profound by the minute....Records spin ,my heads spinning to the music, like a record baby you spin me..spin me... like a record baby..
Electrons spin, chairs are dead but not yet dead..ye man..you spin me like a record ...Sing this to a record baby..sing and spin...

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

All royalties to be sent to xris..care of philosophy forum..

Yes. Electrons do spin, and people are made up of electrons. But people do not spin. So, from the fact, if all things are made up of strings, and strings are either alive or dead, it does not follow that the things they are made up of are either alive or dead. Do you see why your argument is no good?

And, besides, it is not true that strings are either alive or dead. It makes no sense to say of strings (or chairs) that they are dead, since they are not capable of being alive. You are confusing everything is either alive, or not alive, which is true, with everything is either alive or dead, which is false.

So your argument not only is invalid (since the conclusion does not follow from its premises) but it also has a false premise. So, your argument is unsound in both the ways in which an argument can be unsound: invalid, and false premises. Way to go.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Yes. Electrons do spin, and people are made up of electrons. But people do not spin. So, from the fact, if all things are made up of strings, and strings are either alive or dead, it does not follow that the things they are made up of are either alive or dead. Do you see why your argument is no good?

And, besides, it is not true that strings are either alive or dead. It makes no sense to say of strings (or chairs) that they are dead, since they are not capable of being alive. You are confusing everything is either alive, or not alive, which is true, with everything is either alive or dead, which is false.

So your argument not only is invalid (since the conclusion does not follow from its premises) but it also has a false premise. So, your argument is unsound in both the ways in which an argument can be unsound: invalid, and false premises. Way to go.

Actually people are vibrating and spinning. You are 99.9999% empty space -- which I can prove mathematically if you are interested -- which leaves plenty of room for these atoms to 'spin'. If these things are spinning at the near the speed of light, its appearance to us would be spherical dots that make us up (similar to pixels on a screen). Why aren't we spinning? It is happening at a small level so that we cannot see it. The fact that you cannot 'see' it happen is really invalidated and my premise still true.

Instead of "living", use the words "Alive" or "Not Alive".

@kennethamy,

I fear you protest tooo much..I see life as independent of outside assistance..it dont need a computer geek or engineer..Life is self sustaining, reproductive...tell me can any of your human engineered objects perform to that criteria?

Philosophy Forum

Everything is either 'alive' or 'dead'.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know