Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 90 of 90

Thread: Life Itself, and the Universal Organism

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,463
    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
    3,463
    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
    169
    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
    3,463
    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
    169
    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
    277
    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
    169
    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
    9,864
    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
    11,371
    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
    4,498

    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
    4,498

    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
    3,463
    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
    169
    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
    169
    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
    13,494
    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???

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    169
    Relinquish,

    By the word "process", I mean a finite flow of change that is naturally moving away from a beginning and towards an ending.
    Could you please say more about 'What is a beginning?' and 'What is an ending?' I am an interested reader. I see a lot of leeway there.

  21. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    A human embryo spends about 5 weeks after conception without any eyes, but eventual eyes are implicit in the embyo from the moment of conception. In the same way, the universe may spend it's first few billion years without any conscious features, but eventual conscious features are implicit in the universe from it's very first moment.
    I don't often read ATM threads, and comment even less, however, the superb elegance of this thought and its implications made the reply button irresistible.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    A human embryo spends about 5 weeks after conception without any eyes, but eventual eyes are implicit in the embyo from the moment of conception. In the same way, the universe may spend it's first few billion years without any conscious features, but eventual conscious features are implicit in the universe from it's very first moment.
    Alas, unlike an embryo, the universe does not have a blueprint that dictates how it develops. i.e. consciousness is not implicit in any "code" of the universe at the moment of creation.

    "But how do we know that?" you ask.

    Well, sure. If we are supposing fancifully what the universe might do, without evidence, precedent, logic or defense, then the supposition "it was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arklseizure" is equally as valid an hypothesis as the OP's. I am comfortable putting those two hypotheses in the same plausibility category.
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2017-Jul-02 at 05:07 AM.

  23. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Alas, unlike an embryo, the universe does not have a blueprint that dictates how it develops. i.e. consciousness is not implicit in any "code" of the universe at the moment of creation.

    "But how do we know that?" you ask.

    Well, sure. If we are supposing fancifully what the universe might do, without evidence, precedent, logic or defense, then the supposition "it was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arklseizure" is equally as valid an hypothesis as the OP's. I am comfortable putting those two hypotheses in the same plausibility category.
    Not my ATM, and therefore not appropriate to take up the point as much as I would enjoy doing so. It will come up elsewhere, someway, I'm confident. Then, maybe.

    Edit: Just to add at the risk of contravening my own restriction: the idea above is no more "fanciful" than one put forward by a prominent well qualified Australian cosmologist, Professor Davies, that we are presently exercising influence upon the early universe, shaping it to achieve its present state. No-one in the mainstream scientific community has mocked him in articulating such an idea, particularly those focusing their intelligence upon quantum loop theory. The idea above seems to me even more conservative and mainstream (by approximately half) than the one put forward by Professor Davies. I shall post nothing more on the subject for now, unless obviously appropriate, particularly in this ATM. Thank you for the indulgence.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Jul-02 at 10:34 PM. Reason: inserted Professor Davies name

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    169
    Relinquish,

    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).
    Hi, The use of the word Naturally with your apparent intended meaning (Perhaps that consciousness occurs from known and unknown properties of the universe.) looks to be clear in meaning. Until science is finished with studying the Universe, what occurs in the Universe occurs naturally by properties of the Universe that may not yet be understood or not fully understood. Does this fit with your ideas? However, your reference to matter instead of specific or even some proposed properties of matter; and, your dependence upon energy as, I assume, a source or perhaps more strongly the source of change, is not quite clear enough as cause for me. Could you please provide a few examples of: What does what? Just a few examples would be helpful enough to get an idea about the direction of your thinking.

    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.
    Good point! Hope you decide to return.

    James A Putnam

  25. #85
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    In truth, the presence of Reality Itself is inherently beginningless, endless and edgeless.

    If this were not the case, the 'irreducible edgeless absence' beyond it's edge, the 'irreducible beginningless absence' before it's beginning and the 'irreducible endless absence' after it's end would be just as PRESENT and REAL as the presence of Reality Itself.

    Likewise, if the pure presence of Reality Itself were ABSOLUTELY absent, the 'irreducible absolute absence' that would therefore remain would be just as PURE, PRESENT and REAL as the pure presence of Reality Itself.

    In this way, the pure presence of Reality Itself EQUALS the absolute absence of Reality Itself, and as such, can have no ACTUAL beginning, ending or edge.

    It simply IS.

    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.

    Evidently, there are (at least for the moment) certain 'organic' features of the universe that are conscious of themselves and of their surroundings, just as there are certain 'inorganic' features of the universe that are NOT conscious of themselves or of their surroundings. This basic fact indicates that the universe is actually a (or rather, THE) Living Organism, naturally possessing a countless number of 'nerve ends' at all the appropriate points of it's 'body' (which are commonly known as 'life forms').

    This, in turn, indicates that the infinite background is actually none other than Life Itself.

    Some of the nerve ends of the Universal Organism are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings. This hypnosis makes it SEEM to these extremely complex nerve ends (a.k.a. intelligent body/mind life-forms) that all the features of the Organism that can be perceived (including themselves) are in fact 'solely self-inclusive forms' (which is to say, that they are all fundamentally existing separate things that have their own independent nature), and that they themselves have their own personal consciousness and are the separate, autonomous originators of their own particular movements.

    As such, the absolute harmony that naturally exists between all the features of the Organism (and therefore, the Organism itself) is impossible to be seen by these hypnotized nerve ends. In it's place is seen a situation that seems confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening. Seeing this, the hypnotized nerve ends are bound to suffer.

    But this harmony certainly IS Here and Now, outside of the hypnosis, ever-patiently awaiting 'our' realization of (and resting in) it.

    In this resting, there can be no suffering...


    Thanks for reading.

    Really and this confusing suffering article is not made by a MOD. Dude, "I think therefore I am". Descartes said it. I almost unddrstand what u chat bout. Take out all living organisms in the sea you get like half or a third of the sea left. So apply this thought to the universe ok i get that. However the sheer randomness of your post should not have been allowed by the trump rules of the ATM. It is non scientific. This has to be a mod post right. They close my post and let this pass. Have nothing else to say.? 😂😂😂😥😟😟😟

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,142
    Quote Originally Posted by LearningTruth View Post
    Really and this confusing suffering article is not made by a MOD. Dude, "I think therefore I am". Descartes said it. I almost unddrstand what u chat bout. Take out all living organisms in the sea you get like half or a third of the sea left. So apply this thought to the universe ok i get that. However the sheer randomness of your post should not have been allowed by the trump rules of the ATM. It is non scientific. This has to be a mod post right. They close my post and let this pass. Have nothing else to say.? ��������������
    Off-topic derailment, accusatory (falsely accusing a poster of being a moderator in disguise), disruptive, and toss in a little politics to boot. Infraction.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Relinquish View Post
    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.
    This is looks like circular reasoning, Relinquish. You have a still vague assertion about "conscious features of the universe". So you want to redefine the properties of life to fit your assertions. Thus making your assertions right. Which is where you started from!
    This is not what should happen. You need to show that the definitions that you are talking about are flawed regardless of your assertions. For example what in the properties of life in science is based on "conscious features"? Eating? Excreting? Reproducing? The scientific definition of consciousness means that the properties of life are not dependent on conscious features. Bacterial eat, excrete and reproduce and are not scientifically conscious.
    The dictionary definition of conscious
    1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. ...
    basically excludes bacteria as well.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    169
    Relinquish,

    When I read your opening message, I see a description that reaches beyond a mechanical interpretation of the nature of the Universe. I see a search for the origin of intelligent life. I also see claims that seem to me to be taken for granted. For example:

    The absolute asymmetry of the universe is naturally derived from the fact that it is the inseparable opposite of the perfectly symmetrical presence that is the infinite background.
    If this is a self-evident logical statement, I don't see how it is necessarily true. What makes needing two extreme opposites necessary? Perhaps your boldest statement for me is:

    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.
    What is an example of the
    'fractal' structure
    of physics properties; and, why is it
    the simplest (and therefore, only) possible structure that the 'coherent foreground' can have.
    ?

    How are a few of the properties of the Universe like force and mass "fractile"? I am not implying anything more by my question than: What is "fractile" in your viewpoint; and, how do mechanical aspects fit with empirical evidence? I accept that you have thought a great deal about this. So, you may reform this question into one who's answer better introduces your ideas.

    If you are not going to return, please let me know. Thank you.

    James A Putnam

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,463
    Unfortunately what you quote from Relinquish's OP is mostly word salad, James Putnam. An unclear, unsupported "absolute asymmetry of the universe" is somehow related to an unclear, unsupported "infinite background". Followed by more unsupported and incoherent assertions, e.g. why is fractal in single quotes? Ditto for 'coherent foreground'. Ditto for 'perfect symmetry'.

    Questions might address even more basic issues, e.g. for the first 6 words: What universe is this? What does "absolute asymmetry" mean. What evidence does he have for "absolute asymmetry of the universe".

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    169
    Relinquish,

    Your thread remains open for the moment. I have continued interest in receiving your response.

    James A Putnam

Posting Permissions

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