Everything is either 'alive' or 'dead'.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Ultracrepidarian
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:47 pm
@kennethamy,
"The issue here is that we can just 'decide' that viruses are alive."

Yes, I was trying to address that issue. You don't think I succeded, do you?

"Viruses are most likely a key to what was around before 'life'."

That is interesting. For the sake of argument, suppose that I agree.

...

Darn, I really thought I was addressing the issue. Back to the drawing board, I guess.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 12:49 pm
@Ultracrepidarian,
viruses can sustain themselves and reproduce so they are defined as living....
 
Riordan
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:05 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
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?


I don't see the relevancy of your question. Can people bend space and time? Can people replicate tectonic systems? It don't feel it really address what I'm talking about.

---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------

xris wrote:
viruses can sustain themselves and reproduce so they are defined as living....


Viruses are not considered living. Virus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are considered replicators.

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------

Ultracrepidarian wrote:
"The issue here is that we can just 'decide' that viruses are alive."

Yes, I was trying to address that issue. You don't think I succeded, do you?

"Viruses are most likely a key to what was around before 'life'."

That is interesting. For the sake of argument, suppose that I agree.

...

Darn, I really thought I was addressing the issue. Back to the drawing board, I guess.


It's not necessary -- but consider a virus combining with phospholipids in the sea which picked up useless RNA... Hmmm.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:11 pm
@Riordan,
Riordan wrote:
I don't see the relevancy of your question. Can people bend space and time? Can people replicate tectonic systems? It don't feel it really address what I'm talking about.

---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------



Viruses are not considered living. Virus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are considered replicators.

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------



It's not necessary -- but consider a virus combining with phospholipids in the sea which picked up useless RNA... Hmmm.
The question is extremely relevant when we are talking about alive and not alive.Stop avoiding the questions, it is becoming a habit of yours..Tell me where it claims viruses are not living..I think its wishful reading..xris..
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:20 pm
@Riordan,
i was prevented from posting a moment ago so im trying again..Where does it claim viruses are not living?

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Whatever humans can or can not do they cant replicate the simplest of life forms.
 
Riordan
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:26 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
i was prevented from posting a moment ago so im trying again..Where does it claim viruses are not living?

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

Whatever humans can or can not do they cant replicate the simplest of life forms.


Are Viruses Alive?

You may be right about human lack of abilities, but I still do not understand how that is relevant to what I'm discussing.
 
Ultracrepidarian
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:49 pm
@Riordan,
Riordan wrote:
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)


Riordan wrote:
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.



Riordan wrote:
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.


What is this paragraph's special purpose?

Riordan wrote:
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?


Are you talking about the debate on abortion now? At what point? What do you want, a specific time for the first life on Earth?

Riordan wrote:
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.


If I have two apples and I give you one, how many apples do I have? What happens though if you plant an apple seed and water it? A tree!!! I was expecting a mass of apple seeds.

Riordan wrote:
No matter which case you can think of, in every situation, the most basic fundamental parts of the universe are non-living.


I'm sorry. I can't respond to this because all I see is letters and individually letters don't communicate any idea to me.

Riordan wrote:
We are simply deceiving ourselves by considering ourselves as 'separate' from other objects in the universe.


Yes. "deception" "separate". Hmm. Ponder that.

Riordan wrote:
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.


What do you mean "biological system"? This is arbitrary. If we did not see through the eyes of this arbitrary construct, we wouldn't have to think of things around us as "living" or "non-living"

Riordan wrote:
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.


Yes. For too long has this belief gone unchallenged. Cats are not special. Sure, you might say they're cute when they're playing with balls of yarn, but "alive", "special"? Cute I will give you. Alive? Special? Give me a break.

Riordan wrote:
Since people are making the claim that life exists, can anyone prove that the qualities that make up life are not arbitrarily decided?


I cannot! I confess! I saw them throwing darts and downing beer just before they decided upon the definition of life.

Riordan wrote:
Life is no different than notions of justice, right, wrong, or favorite color. We have invented a little bubble that we 'live' in.


"bubble" hehe.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:56 pm
@Riordan,
Riordan wrote:
Are Viruses Alive?

You may be right about human lack of abilities, but I still do not understand how that is relevant to what I'm discussing.
It still does not claim viruses are not living..Is this the best you can demonstrate between living and not living? Im at loss to your intentions.
 
Ultracrepidarian
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 02:03 pm
@Riordan,
It dawned on me. Riordan, I understand you to say that life is a mystical concoction we manufacture in our bubbles because, because... actually, fill me in here.

Anyway, speaking for myself. I'm not a mystic. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were the mystic for denying the existence of life. Weird.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

Life is a difficult concept to define. I don't understand it.

What is more like a cat, a dog or a rock?
What is more like a mammal, a reptile or a whirlwind?
What is more like an animal, a plant or cave system?

What do animals and plants have in common that makes them more similar to each other than to cave systems, whirlwinds, and rocks?

Do you see my point? I'm not being mystical.

dictionary.com defines Life this way:

1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Sounds good to me. I'm no biologist, admittedly. Does it all sound kind of vague? Yes. Change? reproduction? adaption? But so what? It is very abstract. I would be surprised if it didn't sound vague to me.
 
Riordan
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 02:41 pm
@Ultracrepidarian,
Ultracrepidarian wrote:
What is this paragraph's special purpose?


There is no purpose.


Ultracrepidarian wrote:

Are you talking about the debate on abortion now? At what point? What do you want, a specific time for the first life on Earth?

No. I'm saying that matter is fundamentally the same.



Ultracrepidarian wrote:

If I have two apples and I give you one, how many apples do I have? What happens though if you plant an apple seed and water it? A tree!!! I was expecting a mass of apple seeds.

The apple seeds have qualities of a tree when you add water and minerals to it. You aren't understanding the implications of what I am saying.



Ultracrepidarian wrote:

I'm sorry. I can't respond to this because all I see is letters and individually letters don't communicate any idea to me.

That's funny because words are symbolic, an 'idea', which isn't applicable to what I was talking about. You are contorting what I say again.



Ultracrepidarian wrote:

Yes. "deception" "separate". Hmm. Ponder that.

Nonsense. What am I supposed to pull from this sentence?



Ultracrepidarian wrote:

What do you mean "biological system"? This is arbitrary. If we did not see through the eyes of this arbitrary construct, we wouldn't have to think of things around us as "living" or "non-living"

A 'biological system' as defined by humans. I am referring to a system using words we can understand. It's impossible to argue against the existence of life when you use its own definition to justify itself. That in itself is fallacious.


Ultracrepidarian wrote:

Yes. For too long has this belief gone unchallenged. Cats are not special. Sure, you might say they're cute when they're playing with balls of yarn, but "alive", "special"? Cute I will give you. Alive? Special? Give me a break.

A common conjecture is that 'life' is special. Unless you've never heard of it -- but I sincerely doubt you are unaware of this sentiment considering you are in a philosophy forum.

---------- Post added at 03:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------

Ultracrepidarian wrote:
It dawned on me. Riordan, I understand you to say that life is a mystical concoction we manufacture in our bubbles because, because... actually, fill me in here.

Anyway, speaking for myself. I'm not a mystic. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were the mystic for denying the existence of life. Weird.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:03 PM ----------

Life is a difficult concept to define. I don't understand it.

What is more like a cat, a dog or a rock?
What is more like a mammal, a reptile or a whirlwind?
What is more like an animal, a plant or cave system?

What do animals and plants have in common that makes them more similar to each other than to cave systems, whirlwinds, and rocks?

Do you see my point? I'm not being mystical.

dictionary.com defines Life this way:

1.the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Sounds good to me. I'm no biologist, admittedly. Does it all sound kind of vague? Yes. Change? reproduction? adaption? But so what? It is very abstract. I would be surprised if it didn't sound vague to me.


It doesn't matter what the dictionary says. I'm not arguing against "we defined it so it exists." It's nonsense. You can't argue with nonsense.
 
Ultracrepidarian
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 02:47 pm
@Riordan,
I didn't say we defined it therefore it exists.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

"What do animals and plants have in common that makes them more similar to each other than to cave systems, whirlwinds, and rocks?"

That is the question I would put to you first. The question is premised on the assumption that animals and plants have more in common with each other than they do with cave systems, weather patterns, ocean currents, or satellites etc.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 07:04 pm
@Riordan,
Riordan wrote:
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".


Tell me, in general, if every part of something has property, p, must that something also have property, p?

The fact remains that not everything is alive or dead. That was the original claim.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 01:10 pm
@Riordan,
I am jumping in here so if I repeat something please forgive me guys

A candle or a crystal could be said to be alive in some sense, it is our consciousness that subjectively assures we are living beings

Is a rock alive, it might contain vibratory images and memories about its surroundings.

The universe might be alive and conscious , a great brain of a colossal entity in which we are just quantum particle flashing into existence and decaying and vanishing in an infinitesimal moment compared to its huge live span

In a sense anything subject to entropy could be considered alive
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 01:26 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
I am jumping in here so if I repeat something please forgive me guys

A candle or a crystal could be said to be alive in some sense, it is our consciousness that subjectively assures we are living beings

Is a rock alive, it might contain vibratory images and memories about its surroundings.

The universe might be alive and conscious , a great brain of a colossal entity in which we are just quantum particle flashing into existence and decaying and vanishing in an infinitesimal moment compared to its huge live span

In a sense anything subject to entropy could be considered alive
Considered is the word Alan.We are determining the difference and life is not a mystical explanation.We must deal in certainty not romantics otherwise we are capable of making any claim we wish.EG....Everything is dead till its alive, gods life is an illusion for those who seek sanctuary,we must die before we can experience life..Life is not dead.All these statements dont ask the fundamental scientific reason why we ask what is life what is living.
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 02:42 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Considered is the word Alan.We are determining the difference and life is not a mystical explanation.We must deal in certainty not romantics otherwise we are capable of making any claim we wish.EG....Everything is dead till its alive, gods life is an illusion for those who seek sanctuary,we must die before we can experience life..Life is not dead.All these statements dont ask the fundamental scientific reason why we ask what is life what is living.


Hey xris I just realized something awful, before I was born I was dead for all of past eternity

Each night we go into what primitive folk often call The little death the real mystery is the big sleep?

I wrote this poem a while back , allow a little poetic license
[CENTER][CENTER]
THE END POEM
[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

As I approach the infinite long dark night

I resist and resist it with all my might
I try and try to comprehend this end
To which all men must descend

Is it a sleep that all must take?
Or is it an eternal end that all must make?
I like to dream of awakening in light not dark
In a beautiful place to which all righteous men depart

Do we sleep the sleep of forever?
Or do we awake some other place together?
Does the answer to this ultimate question
Remain forever a process of eternal redemption?


On one glorious day from timeless sleep I awoke
And heard a beautiful and kind voice that sweetly spoke


My faithful son at last you have became to understand
Exactly your place in this troubled land

You my beloved have truly never ceased to seek
The infinite destiny that in eternity for you I keep
So for you and your family no eternal death awaits
Because of your zeal to know your fate

Soon I will bring you all to this most Holy Place
And there I will you never forsake
Very soon you shall hear a sweet call in the dark of night
Come, come into the Holy Glory of the Father Spirit of Mighty Might

I walk in the cool of evening along sweet meadows I have never seen
I smell the beauty of grasses that have never been
Strange golden streams of crystal water flows
As blue glory of mighty skies above glows

I search the long forgotten memories in the attic of my mind
Along the twisted channels the very depth soul that I could not find
I see before me things so wonderful I knew from long long ago
I puzzle over the enigma of knowing what I do not know

Out there far beyond the knowledge of any man is revealed
Something of such great mystery to it my heart had appealed
Why have I on this one thing so many years stalled?
Is this most infinite knowledge from many man would be appalled?

Walking on through the shade of great trees that give eternal life
I hear the sweet forgotten voice that comes to free all from everlasting strife
High green new grasses in this new do land grow
As transparent waters chuckle dance and sparkle and flow

Alan McDougall (COMPOSED 16/2/2007)
 
Riordan
 
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 11:09 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Tell me, in general, if every part of something has property, p, must that something also have property, p?

The fact remains that not everything is alive or dead. That was the original claim.


Only because we define them. They do not actually exist in reality. These are constructs made by us. Ex: A song is a matter of perception. Although there may be different notes; all songs are notes. The qualities of the song are made up by us.
 
Ultracrepidarian
 
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 09:55 pm
@Riordan,
The only things that actually exists in reality are super strings, do I have you right?
 
Alan McDougall
 
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 07:20 am
@Ultracrepidarian,
Ultracrepidarian wrote:
The only things that actually exists in reality are super strings, do I have you right?


I really don't think so, when I last looked, in the mirror I did not look anything like a string, much less a superstring Smile

Have a peek at your mirror the only strings you might see are your shoe laces

Uncle Alan is only kidding!
 
Ultracrepidarian
 
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 01:07 pm
@Alan McDougall,
I'm sorry, it was to Riodran I was addressing the quesetion. I should have made that more explicit.
 
Paggos
 
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 12:14 am
@Riordan,
Life is alive, or else we wouldn't be here. If it isn't real it is alive, or dead? The perception of the object is still present, but the actual object is not, would it be dead, or alive?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 03:14:54