Present Evidence Here II

[TheCloser]

english is not your first language obviously, sentence structure is important. I accept your apology.

yeah I gotcha.  I am stupid, dumb, no nothing whateverist you need me to be.

But we will have to stay on topic for your stance to be more valid.

Compare the earth's biosphere to a non living set of events, like a rock, to a living set of events, like an amoeba, and to a tweener life thing, like a virus.

what does it look like it matches up better with?

you make the call.

[Baruch]

"My hypothesis is that the system we are in resembles life more than it does non life."

I agree completely, but not for materialist or rationalist reasons.  Life isn't rational or material.  We characterize part of our human experience as living, another part as non-living, as material or as non-material ... and those categories cross each other up.  But we are the ones doing the categorizing ... nobody else, not G-d, not QM.  You can't take the "people" out of any "people" thought ... they are always implicit if not explicit.

[TheCloser]

we measure things as best we can.  Those measurements are really just comparisons to other things we think we understand.  But in the end you are dead right, everything we describe, everything, is in human terms.

The universe is having a human experience, so to speak.
human thinking star stuff.

I don't go so far as to claim life is rational or irrational.  I just don't know enough.  as far as "material" vs "non material" we only have the stand model and it is incomplete at best.  I just don't base any of my hypothesizes off of anything I don't know.  I don't know of 'immaterial" anything but "energy" and I have no idea what energy is other than the ability to do work.

[Baruch]

Energeticism ... the failed idea from the late 19th century, that energy explains everything.  It explains a lot, just not everything.  Not even entropy does.

"Man is the measure of all things" ... Protagoras.

Parmenides invented logic, and he used it for reductio ad absurdum ... particularly his pupil Zeno of Elea.  Reality is absurd.

[Mike Cl]

/quote]
Why not?  Can nonalive things exist in me?  Sure.  We are alive in a universe that cares not if we live or die--are alive or not alive. 

[Baruch]

Part of the problem with TheCloser's problem ... is the difference between subject and predicate/object.  Alive things in the non-alive, or non-alive things in the alive.  This is only a problem if thy think there is a separation.  My body's microcosm extends an indeterminate way into myself, but my macrocosm extends to infinity and beyond.

[TheCloser]

[quote author=TheCloser link=topic=44.msg1158808#msg1158808 date=1482030350


Can we be alive in a system that is not alive?



Why not?  Can nonalive things exist in me?  Sure.  We are alive in a universe that cares not if we live or die--are alive or not alive.

these are a mixture of idea's so let me see if I understand.

2) The universe doesn't care about us.  Ok, That is a valid claim.  I lean this way myself.
3) Can non-living things exist in you.  As most people use the word ... Definitely valid.

back to number 1  why not?

I guess we could if we were in a ship or something. Good question.

But lets look at you in a system of life that is keeping you alive.  Like the biosphere. 

when we compare the biosphere to others things we call life, non-life, and tweeners, would you call the biosphere life or non life?

Remember, measurements are comparison to other things that we think we know.  Brauch correctly points out the limits with taking that notion too literally.

[TheCloser]

Part of the problem with TheCloser's problem ... is the difference between subject and predicate/object.  Alive things in the non-alive, or non-alive things in the alive.  This is only a problem if thy think there is a separation.  My body's microcosm extends an indeterminate way into myself, but my macrocosm extends to infinity and beyond.

A neutrino would agree with you.

I take you apart and find no you.  hmm, that is an observation that needs to be addressed.  I use the word "illusion" and not "delusion". An illusion is something that  "is there" but we think its something different.  Versus a delusion, where we see something that is not there.

[Mike Cl]

these are a mixture of idea's so let me see if I understand.

2) The universe doesn't care about us.  Ok, That is a valid claim.  I lean this way myself.
3) Can non-living things exist in you.  As most people use the word ... Definitely valid.

back to number 1  why not?

I guess we could if we were in a ship or something. Good question.

But lets look at you in a system of life that is keeping you alive.  Like the biosphere. 

when we compare the biosphere to others things we call life, non-life, and tweeners, would you call the biosphere life or non life?

Remember, measurements are comparison to other things that we think we know.  Brauch correctly points out the limits with taking that notion too literally.

Seems to me that biosphere is a specific collection of living and non living things.  A human body needs certain minerals (that are not alive) to remain well and alive.  Those minerals are part of a chemical process within our bodies; without them, we would die--but the chemical reactions are not from an organic source, even.  So, non living things  are essential for humans to live.  In a sense,
the universe is just the ultimate biosphere--and it does not need to be alive for life to happen within it.

[Baruch]

Seems to me that biosphere is a specific collection of living and non living things.  A human body needs certain minerals (that are not alive) to remain well and alive.  Those minerals are part of a chemical process within our bodies; without them, we would die--but the chemical reactions are not from an organic source, even.  So, non living things  are essential for humans to live.  In a sense,
the universe is just the ultimate biosphere--and it does not need to be alive for life to happen within it.

The difference between society and the individual.  Some claim that society exists, but the individual doesn't.  Others claim that society doesn't exist, but the individual does.  Looks like bipolar mania to me.  Maybe both are right?  How can we allow that with binary logic?  Don't limit yourself to binary logic.  There isn't a contradiction, only the use of overly simplistic logic.

[Mike Cl]

The difference between society and the individual.  Some claim that society exists, but the individual doesn't.  Others claim that society doesn't exist, but the individual does.  Looks like bipolar mania to me.  Maybe both are right?  How can we allow that with binary logic?  Don't limit yourself to binary logic.  There isn't a contradiction, only the use of overly simplistic logic.

What?????

[Hydra009]

Does the earth look like a rock?

Honestly?  Yeah, just a tad.  It is literally called earth for a reason.

Take away water and vegetation and I'd be impossible to conceptualize the planet as anything other than a giant rock.

Is there any separation between "stuff" on planet earth?

There's no élan vital, if that's what you're asking.  However, being made of the same sort of stuff doesn't mean that everything is literally exactly the same.  Because obviously, that's not true.

Even the most understanding of atoms and subatomic particles says there is no clear separation.

There's also no clear difference, at an atomic level, between the contents of my fridge and a landfill.  Doesn't make them the same thing.

[Baruch]

Put all the sophistry on one side of the scale, and all of tradition on the other ...
King's College Choir Cambridge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSotvFWKvhc
Samaritan tradition longer than Rabbinic tradition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC1XRB06tr4
Muslim Friday worship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWOKB5EzHSo
Hindu pilgrimage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9tApZIaCN8

The evidence is present in human thought, emotion and behavior ... because religion doesn't exist outside of people.

[Blackleaf]

My reaction after reading the last several pages:



Edit: 666 posts! Woot!

[TheCloser]

Honestly?  Yeah, just a tad.  It is literally called earth for a reason.

Take away water and vegetation and I'd be impossible to conceptualize the planet as anything other than a giant rock.
There's no élan vital, if that's what you're asking.  However, being made of the same sort of stuff doesn't mean that everything is literally exactly the same.  Because obviously, that's not true.
There's also no clear difference, at an atomic level, between the contents of my fridge and a landfill.  Doesn't make them the same thing.

The words inaccurate and precision apply your measurement system.

By your measurements we can call a basket ball a planet.

"the same stuff" is not what I implied or said.  I said compare the interactions of the biosphere to those interactions within a rock.  There most certainly is a difference between the interactions withing your refrigerator and those of a landfill. 

When I compare the refrigerator's interactions and landfill interactions I would classify them as both non life.  As I would your teeth and stomach.