Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 79 of 79

Thread: Life Itself, and the Universal Organism

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    Are you saying that the 'irreducible beginningless absence' before the beginning of a temporal Reality would NOT be just as present and real as the temporal Reality would be (IF it existed)?
    I am saying that incoherent statements about anything is not logic. Nor are assertions about vague subjects. Moving the goalposts to an vague "temporal Reality" from "Reality itself" does not help.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Jun-20 at 12:18 AM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Bacteria NATURALLY emerged FROM the matter and energy comprising the Earth so:
    IF06a: Does the Earth containing bacteria mean that the Earth is alive?
    If your answer is yes then
    IF06b: Show that the Earth has the properties of life (eats, metabolizes, excretes, reacts to external stimuli, reproduces).
    What happened is the conscious features NATURALLY emerged FROM the matter and energy comprising the Earth (which is itself a non-conscious feature of the universe).

    These agreed upon properties of life are based upon the incorrect belief that the conscious features of the universe are fundamentally discrete living organisms. They are not. So these definitions are fundamentally flawed.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    What happened is ....
    Irrelevant to what I asked:
    IF06a: Does the Earth containing bacteria mean that the Earth is alive?
    IF06b: Show that the Earth has the properties of life (eats, metabolizes, excretes, reacts to external stimuli, reproduces).

    The agreed upon properties of life are what allows people to discuss life! Without a common vocabulary no discussion of anything is possible. That is why science textbook have definitions in them and why people use those definitions.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Jun-20 at 12:37 AM.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Irrelevant to what I asked:
    IF06a: Does the Earth containing bacteria mean that the Earth is alive?
    IF06b: Show that the Earth has the properties of life (eats, metabolizes, excretes, reacts to external stimuli, reproduces).

    The agreed upon properties of life are what allows people to discuss life! Without a common vocabulary no discussion of anything is possible. That is why science textbook have definitions in them and why people use those definitions.
    The fact that the Earth (which is a particular feature of the universe) does not react to external stimuli means that the Earth is a non-conscious feature of the universe. The fact that the universe is a single process that sometimes naturally has conscious features means that the universe can not be non-living.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    151
    Relinquish,

    By the word "process", I mean a finite flow of change that is naturally moving away from a beginning and towards an ending.
    Good point!

    James A Putnam

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    The fact ....
    Ignoring my questions:
    IF06a: Does the Earth containing bacteria mean that the Earth is alive?
    IF06b: Show that the Earth has the properties of life (eats, metabolizes, excretes, reacts to external stimuli, reproduces).
    But apply your definitions of "single process ", "conscious", "features", "naturally"?, etc. to the Earth. We have that the Earth is a single process that sometimes naturally has conscious features. That means that the Earth can not be non-living. And "not be non-living" = living!

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    151
    Relinquish,

    The fact that the universe is a single process that sometimes naturally has conscious features means that the universe can not be non-living.
    The intended, I think, point about "cannot be non-living" might be worded differently but with similar insight. The "fact that the universe is a single process" is a good point!

    James A Putnam

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Ignoring my questions:
    IF06a: Does the Earth containing bacteria mean that the Earth is alive?
    IF06b: Show that the Earth has the properties of life (eats, metabolizes, excretes, reacts to external stimuli, reproduces).
    But apply your definitions of "single process ", "conscious", "features", "naturally"?, etc. to the Earth. We have that the Earth is a single process that sometimes naturally has conscious features. That means that the Earth can not be non-living. And "not be non-living" = living!
    The Earth is not a discrete process. It is a particular feature of the only process that is truly occurring in Reality; the universe (which is, itself, not a feature of anything).

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Third stone from the Sun, Old Country, the land of Saints, Navigators and Poets.
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    The Earth is not a discrete process.
    Why ? And by the way, your definition of process is still nowhere to be seen....
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    It is a particular feature of the only process that is truly occurring in Reality; the universe (which is, itself, not a feature of anything).
    What is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof...
    As of now, you're only repeating, ad nauseam, your opening statement. It's time to prove it
    Eppur si muove....

    This works
    This DOESN'T work...


    Fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
    ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza

    Ye were not formíd to live the life of brutes,
    But virtue to pursue and knowledge high.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    151
    The question is, why would consciousness EVER shine from a fundamentally nonliving universe?
    Good question?

    James A Putnam

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    9,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    By the word "process", I mean a finite flow of change that is naturally moving away from a beginning and towards an ending.
    What evidence do you have for a beginning?
    What evidence do you have for a ending?

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by UntrainedObserver View Post
    Why ? And by the way, your definition of process is still nowhere to be seen....

    What is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof...
    As of now, you're only repeating, ad nauseam, your opening statement. It's time to prove it
    What is the difference between 'the perfect conditions for the Earth to form' and 'the formation of the Earth'? Where exactly is the line between these two? If the perfect conditions are present, the formation of the Earth can not be stopped. If the Earth doesn't form, something must be stopping it's formation, and thus the perfect conditions can not be present.

    Therefore, there is no real difference (or line) between these 'two'. The formation of the Earth is EXACTLY the perfect conditions for the Earth to form.

    It's all ONE.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    What is the difference between 'the perfect conditions for the Earth to form' and 'the formation of the Earth'? Where exactly is the line between these two? If the perfect conditions are present, the formation of the Earth can not be stopped. If the Earth doesn't form, something must be stopping it's formation, and thus the perfect conditions can not be present.

    Therefore, there is no real difference (or line) between these 'two'. The formation of the Earth is EXACTLY the perfect conditions for the Earth to form.

    It's all ONE.
    Relinquish,

    Please stop answering questions with questions. You are obligated to provide timely, direct answers to the questions asked of you. Not only is the quoted post not a direct answer, it isn't even an answer to the question that was asked. If you want this thread to remain open, you need to do a better job of complying with our rules and supporting your assertions.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,407

    Yes or No

    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    The Earth is not a discrete process. It is a particular feature of the only process that is truly occurring in Reality; the universe (which is, itself, not a feature of anything).
    Relinquish, with all due respect, this 'answer' is so much meanigless word salad. Could you please support your ATM with real obervations and real evidence, and not just your non-sensical asstertions? And this, I might add, is a real question from me, which you may answer with a real yes or a real no. Very easy. I expedt an answer; this is ATM, and answering questions is the rule.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2017-Jun-21 at 12:02 AM. Reason: typo
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,407

    Not Fast Enough, Sorry, Brett

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Relinquish, with all due respect, this 'answer' is so much meanigless word salad. Could you please support your ATM with real obervations and real evidence, and not just your non-sensical asstertions? And this, I might add, is a real question from me, which you may answer with a real yes or a real no. Very easy. I expedt an answer; this is ATM, and amswering questions is the rule.
    Peters Creek got in one minute ahead of me; doesn't change anything, Relinquish, I still expect a yes or no.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    The Earth is not a discrete process.
    So now we have a newly introduced, undefined term of "discrete process".
    IF07a: What is your definition of "discrete process"?
    IF07b: What makes the Earth not a "discrete process"?
    IF07c: What makes the universe a "discrete process"?

    IF06a: Does the Earth containing bacteria mean that the Earth is alive?
    IF06b: Show that the Earth has the properties of life (eats, metabolizes, excretes, reacts to external stimuli, reproduces).

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    151
    Relinquish,

    The "fact that the universe is a single process" is a good point!
    Could you please say more about this?

    James A Putnam

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    151
    Relinquish,

    The reason I asked for more to be said about the single process of the Universe is to understand how you link that idea to this:
    Occuring against this causeless 'infinite background presence' is the eternally cyclic 'finite foreground process' (commonly known as 'the universe').

    The absolute asymmetry of the universe is naturally derived from the fact that it is the inseperable opposite of the perfectly symmetrical presence that is the infinite background.

    Because the 'perfect symmetry' of the background is naturally devoid of structure, and is therefore devoid of coherence, the 'absolute asymmetry' of the foreground is naturally coherent, and is therefore structured. It's characteristic 'fractal' structure is the simplest (and therefore, only) possible structure that the 'coherent foreground' can have. This is the fundamental reason why the universe is the way that it is.

    ALL apparent 'things' and 'events' are as they are simply because they are all 'features' of this one eternally cyclic, dynamic fractal asymmetry.
    It appears to me that the above quote states your belief in there being no need for justification of your
    causeless
    beginning only after which the need for explanation has its beginning. The single process idea appears to fit into the idea of the existence of unity. Yet the above quote does not appear to me to address the existence of that single process. I read it as saying that the process follows along with the late entry of explanation
    This is the fundamental reason why the universe is the way that it is.
    I am not asking for the innumerable details of how the Universe evolved. I am asking: Why is the Universe a single process? You have spoken about the connection between the beginning and the results. Where does the single process begin? Is it your position that the above quote from your opening message describes the early stages of a single process?

    James A Putnam

    .

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    If 'not the tree' were occuring at all differently to the 'not the tree' that is currently occurring, 'the tree' (as it is currently occurring) would not be occurring at all.
    ....and a wood chuck, could chuck wood??


    Seriously, what in the heck does this mean???

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •