Pick another word.
So life is only life if it has an element of complexity. Therefore life is a synonym for complex.Life refers to a specific combination and iteration of patterns.
Only because you say so. You pull a definition from your hat and authoritatively proclaim it's therefore true. So, ordered things that are not life go in this box and ordered things that are life go in that box. What can you gain by doing that other than to present yourself with a new problem? How do the ordered things in the nonlife box get into the other box?Not all order is life. Life is a particular kind of order, with specific behaviours.
So appealing to emotion.Wow....So Christian.You'd have to define god before I could understand what you mean. And define perfect. All that exists is perfect or it wouldn't exist.
In the other thread you insisted "charge" is a pattern which somehow explains how a plus charge knows a minus charge is near. Now, conveniently, you're saying subatomic charges cannot be patterns because then it would be alive.Any non living matter/energy.Fine. Good idea, but show me something with no iterating patterns. Everything that exists does so because it was selected for and the evidence for that selection is stored in the thing that exists.
You're making a pattern of using "pattern" too much.
I vaguely remember saying something to that effect but honestly didn't think you'd catch it, so touche for that. "All" is just too convenient of a word to not use it, but I can make no logical statements about everything. When I say all things are alive, it means anything I can observe has the life-property inherent to it or I would not be able to observe it because it would, as James would have put it, not have a potential to affect.But you do....all is alive.I don't believe in absolutes. Absolutes are arbitrary abstractions dissected from dualities.
You begin with 'all'. That is an absolute.
Your retort is 100% water does not = 70% water + 30% stuff?No, you are not seeing how man is 70%water but water is not man.You're still not seeing how dna is the result of the same natural processes that form water. It's just that water doesn't have as much to remember.
Yes yes I get that you keep saying that, but how does a specific configuration engender a property that is not inherent to the universe?Life is a particular kind of configuration patterns....not all patterns are life.
It's as if you're suggesting a witches brew where a magical combination of herbs and mouse ears will conjure spells. I'm saying that if it does, it's a property already inherent to the universe and the recipe has nothing to do with it other than being a roadmap to higher forms of consciousness merely by providing avenues for more energy metabolism.
That's not true at all. There is no place on this planet that doesn't have life. Nuclear cores, geothermal vents, saline lakes, and your own body has at least as many other lifeforms as what cells you can claim as your own, which begs the question of how you could claim to be just 1 entity.That earth is a minuscule part of the cosmos....says something about life's uniqueness. Most of what we see is lifeless. Even most of the earth is lifeless.Earth didn't have time to cool down before the party started. That suggests life is quite common and starts readily. And that suggests it's a mundane and perfectly natural aspect of the universe and no cause for giant celebration when we finally realize that.
They've even found life in gold mines deep under ground feeding off of nuclear decay. If that is the case, then life (by your definition) is probably everywhere in the solar system... anywhere there is an energy source. We just haven't found it yet or haven't recognized it.
You're suggesting the universe has a goal?Your goal is not a universal goal.Is there anything else to do? If there is no goal to anything, then all possible activities are non-goal.
Stop projecting yourself into everything.
Wikipedia and textbooks are not scripture; they are account of empirical evidence and standardized nomenclature for the facilitation of the practice of the philosophy of science.Empiricism is reading text?Umm... looking up things in textbooks is a appeal to popular narrative? You brought up the topic of empirical evidence.
So reading Scripture is exploring reality. Reading books is exploring world.
Delineating ordered life from ordered nonlife by drawing random lines on slippery slopes is not obscurity?like you use life to refer to everything, obscuring all, creating a noetic uniformity because you fear seeing, distinguishing divergence. you want all to be one and the same - god.That's what I hate about Nietzsche. He deliberately obfuscates language with sesquipedalian vernacular to make himself appear smarter than he really was, which all that accomplishes is to make it hard to decipher what he's on about.
There's that "all" word again.All is diversity.
All is declining towards absolute chaos - randomness.
If all things are declining towards chaos and randomness, then how do we get predictable energies that may or may not combine into organisms?Patterns are repeating consistent predictable energies, that may or may not combine into organisms.
More "all" word. Time is an artifact of space and space is an artifact of a speed limit on light. Light sees no time or space. Even though it took 13 billion years for light to reach us from the farthest galaxy, from light's point of view, it was instant.Expansion of time/space also means fragmentation of dimensions....all is fragmenting.....we call this linear time.
I don't see it that way. Life is ubiquitous, but not the level of consciousness that humans have. The iteration you often talk about just results in higher levels of consciousness, but it doesn't differentiate life from nonlife by spontaneously crossing some threshold of complexity to produce consciousness from nothing.How insignificant you make your life by making life ubiquitous.But at least I am alive.
All to escape the price of being aware of living. The uncertainties and risks and costs.
I only explain when I come across someone who can understand. Otherwise I play, or I ignore...or I use them to talk to those who may understand.You're using lots of words, but not clarifying anything.
In your case, I am using you top explain my positions on a forum where not everyone is known to me, and I am not known to them.
But I found Pathos of distance...so my stay is nearing its end.
Pathos of distance?
Yeah, well, first create an unnecessary problem in order to create an unessential solution. Mirrors pharmaceutical companies.Theories abound...some believe they've solved the mystery.....they know it all.And to introduce a new problem of how to get life from nonlife.
A sample size is a sample size regardless how you distort the space around it. I don't see how tugging on space is going to increase the number of elements inside to influence the number of possibilities. There was no singularity, but a condition where information traveled instantly; hence no time or space... or we could say an infinity of time passed instantly since each unit of causality passed in zero time. Infinity x zero = zero. So the universe wasn't infinitely small and dense, but small enough that space and time could not be realized.One theory states that space is possibility, and matter/energy is probability. so expanding space is an expansion of possibilities. Therefore the emergence of life is inevitable in an expanding field of possibilities.
Absolute order means a singularity. No possibilities but one certainty. Life would be superfluous.
Life can only emerge in a state of chaos/order, where chaos is increasing.
Simply a lower form of consciousness.Consciousness = discrimination.Define consciousness. What evidence is necessary to determine if something is conscious? Responsiveness? Well, atoms respond, so come up with a test for consciousness that leaves atoms unconscious. Engineer a definition that meets your conditions for the sole purpose of posing yourself another question which is how said consciousness was derived from the unconsciousness you've defined. And remember, you cannot say a mind is a more-complex form of consciousness because that would be conceding atoms are conscious, so you'll have to introduce an outside force that magically enables collections of unconscious things to somehow become conscious.
Plants are conscious on a rudimentary level.
Reactivity is another matter.
Will is the focus of an organism's aggregate energies (patterns) - their focus on an object/objective.
Will is made from rudimentary matter.
It doesn't matter how you unpack it, whatever happens, happens in this universe.How does the conscious organism react to perceived divergence? this needs a lot of unpacking and I am not going to do it here....but I've done it elsewhere.
It's a misconception that electricity chooses the path of least resistance. It actually takes all available paths and some have more resistance.Only life can choose the path-of-more-resistance. It competes for resources. This is a method of outperforming other organisms.
We sue words to differentiate...to make clear, not, like your ilk, to complicate and mystify and imply uniformity.What is awareness and how is that different from consciousness?
In the dark all seems the same...it is light where things are distinguished.
Therefore, awareness/consciousness can be sued to refer to the same, or as tools, can be used to distinguish a difference.
I can be conscious of what I cannot adequately define, describe, pinpoint...as feeling.
Awareness can be sued to refer to what is clear.
What you must learn is what language is.
It is a tool to differentiate, to categorize, to clarify by separating, by distinguishing.
Using them as toys, or as sex toys, is not a proper use.
Therefore, when I say order, I do not mean life...as when I say cat I do not mean dog.
I use words and symbols properly...and when I can only use them as metaphors I am cognizant of this fact.
I use words like morality, human, sex, male/female, value, love, one/nil, properly.
If I can I connect them to a phenomenon i can observe - a behaviour.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply tell me what differentiates awareness from consciousness rather than giving me a speech about language?
I'm the one claiming no real difference between body and environment and you accuse me of naming things as if I were claiming this is "body" and that is "environment"? The point I'm driving home is there is nothing distinct from the universe; it's all connected in continuum. So carving out a "thing" is subjective, arbitrary, and opens the door to confusion.You interpret reality.....you translate the phenomenon, the apparent, into a noumenon (abstraction), an idea, and then you name it, you give it a symbol. If you mistake the name, the word, the representation, for the represented, you intentionally or not confuse yourself, with word-games.There is a perceived difference, but it's imaginary and it really doesn't exist. From what I can tell, I exist somewhere inside my head, as a thought of myself.. a concept of myself... which really makes my blood stream merely part of my environment. I know you're gonna throw a fit, but it's true. I don't consciously regulate what's going on there and can't control it anymore than I can the sun. Where does my body end and the environment begin? I can control the temperature of my room easier than I can my own body. I can make plants grow in the yard better than I can control how I beat my own heart. I can affect some guy on the other end of the world with words with more control than I have over my thyroid gland.
So is the environment.So many questions...all of which I've answered.What is my body? What is my environment? There is no distinction, but we arbitrarily place the boundary at the skin to separate ourselves from the world to perpetuate our ego. So yes, I agree with you that the perceived difference is what engenders our feeling of self, but it doesn't exist outside of that construct.
Not here...but on KT.
Body - the manifestation of past. Past made present. Past AS presence.
More needless delineation.We can divide the individual into EGO<>self<>Self....each term/symbol signifying a nuanced difference. We do so to clarify, not arbitrarily, not to obscure and hide and make uniform.
ego - lucid aware
self - subconscious
Self - inherited code (DNA) - interactions/experiences encoded and passed on to the offspring. Jung's Collective Unconscious.
Self is continuous with the universe and is therefore one whole. Ego is a thought of oneself which doesn't exist except as an illusion.
I thought you said atoms are not patterns because life is pattern?Each atom is a combination of patterns in balance.Atoms are different how?
Ever-present repulsion force?This balance may be achieved when a third or fourth pattern combines with two that would repel each other.
Balance is an excess of attraction within a system, overpowering the ever-present repulsion force.
Attraction/Repulsion is a measure of harmony between different patterns. non-Patterns are always disharmonious...as they are not stable, never consistent, repeating, predictable. Therefore non-patterned vibrations/oscillations (energies) cannot be integrated into stable balanced unities, like atoms.
Chaos and its unpredictability make their becoming patterns a matter of time/space...and interactions between patterns makes the creation of chaos part of the process.
This also requires unpacking....which I will not do here.
That is good stuff. Give me more like that and less of the ad hom stuff. The only thing I would add to that is the harmonious pattern that was discovered to form the atom is somehow remembered by the universe since atoms can be ripped apart and quickly reassembled without have to take millions of years to randomly figure out how. Somehow the method to form atoms is retained in the fabric of the universe.
We could say that mass is not aware of other mass because there is a mechanism to explain gravity, which is simply that mass consumes the fabric of space and therefore draws objects closer by that action. But in the case of charge, it would seem one particle has to be aware of the other particle by some mechanism. Telling me that mechanism is attraction/repulsion is only restating the problem. How does it know to attract/repel?There's that question that presumes knowledge and then expects an answer.Then how does it know to interact? Furthermore, how it is decided whether a particle will bounce off a barrier or go straight through it?
Pattern interacts...it does not have to know, it IS pattern.
How it relates to other patterns is called attraction/repulsion. it does not have to know, or decide...it has no choice in the matter.
How stone reacts to metal is not a matter of choice. It does not know, it does not look into its memory to see how it is supposed to behave.
Another word for pattern is order, another word for order is probability.Not always. Patterns are regularly observed not because they are following a law, but because that's what's most likely to happen.
Probability IS matter/energy and space IS possibility.
I see what you're trying to say and that seems like a good idea that I haven't yet given much thought.
But how a cow behaves is a result of processes. Behavior is a process.I distinguish the essence of a cow by its behaviour. How it interacts with me and with others.Why the need to distinguish behavior from process?
The essence of a cow IS its behaviour.
I can't remember specifically what my comment was about, but you tend to make declarations that are just convenient definitions. I could say life is: X or Y or Z and then decide which definition I want to apply to underpin an idea I fancy. It's totally subjective and cannot possibly be based on reasoning.My brain's reasoning....tested against that of anothers.By what authority do you make that declaration?
I say why draw lines between life and nonlife just to introduce the problem of how life comes from nonlife.
You say we should draw lines between what is life and nonlife and I'm not sure of the motivation to draw arbitrary lines. So if you do choose to draw lines, it is by your authority that you do so, since drawing lines is subjective and arbitrary.
You could desire to call all stools, chairs. I say, ok, fine with me, now hand me a chair that doesn't have a back. All you're doing is defining a nomenclature.
Define nonlife that's never been alive.
You can't just assume I know what you mean by these words. If you ask me if I believe in god, you have to tell me what you mean by "god". Do you mean Zeus? Yahweh? Allah? Brahman? Can Brahman even be considered a god? It's not a object of worship.
Yup, me too.I distinguish my errors from how my ideas apply in real-time, and how they relate to those of others....that's how I construct a higher probability theory.
Precedent, memeory, is how i build my probability data base.
Application is how I evaluate it, how I test it. I can also juxtapose it as theory. Comparing it with another theory and then both to world as both of us experience it.
This is called a value-judgment.
Value only means something in relation to a goal, an objective.
In the case of philosophy the objective is clarity relative to reality. An approach towards an agreement between subjective interpretation and objective fluid interpreted.
I can approach but never finalize...because all is flux. My theory can be superior but never omnipotent/omniscient...never perfect.
You're saying you can't know everything and the reason for that is inherent to the universe? Then what does that say about who you really are? Is it a stunning coincidence that you can never know the entirety of reality and you can never know the entirety of yourself?
It's a word without a perfect definition.Perfect is another misused word...it means absolute. Some use it to refer to desirable, necessary, in my self-interests. perfect in relation to my objectives and my needs.
Who has made that claim? My assertion is the mystery can never be known because an eye cannot look at itself. Case closed, but not solved because it's a pointless and infinite endeavor.And yet some claim to have solved the mystery and they know the fabric of existence.Seems ironic, but the universe is stranger than we could imagine.
That's a good observation. It's very hard not to cling to something. Faith is actually expressed by not clinging to any ideology.I deal in probabilities not absolutes.
What is more or less probable. Not I know the absolute truth, I've seen into the mind of god, I've solved it all.
Usually it turns out to be a matter of word-manipulations to impress and to convince the needy - preaching to the choir.
When the abrahamic one-god, was discredited, and declared dead, this was premature.....he has risen using a different name.
Yes, very true.Many think they are atheists, and have outgrown Christianity but they've replaced one set of words, names, for others to claim the same concepts as absolutely true.