belief in an afterlife

[Cris]

LG,

Now you are avoiding the issue not by alluding to the microscopic but the macroscopic - people still die in the presence of the sun, just like people still die in the presence of oxegyn and glucose.

Did you miss my statement about the heart being damaged?

so to get back to your analogy of the electrical wire, its not clear how the sun is the source because people lose their livliness even in the presence of the sun, unlike an electrical wire which doesn't lose its livliness in the presence of electricity

Oh dear this is like talking to my children when they were 6 years old. Without the energy from the sun complex carbohydrates and other biological matter that we consume as fuel would not be able to form.

The wire analogy was simply to demonstrate that it is the same matter whether it has an electrical current or not, to compare it with your assertion that a live person and a dead person have the same matter. Nothing more was implied. The analogy served its purpose within that specific context. The difference between alive and dead is the animation mechanisms that are present, e.g. electrical flow, or active metabolism.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ Now you are avoiding the issue not by alluding to the microscopic but the macroscopic - people still die in the presence of the sun, just like people still die in the presence of oxegyn and glucose. ”

Did you miss my statement about the heart being damaged?

Hardly relevant - even wire can get damaged by environment- the question is what would cause a functional heart cease to function (outside of environmental influences) - if you can address that you can get back on track with establishing how the reductionist paradigm determines the source of energy for the living entity

“ so to get back to your analogy of the electrical wire, its not clear how the sun is the source because people lose their livliness even in the presence of the sun, unlike an electrical wire which doesn't lose its livliness in the presence of electricity ”

Oh dear this is like talking to my children when they were 6 years old. Without the energy from the sun complex carbohydrates and other biological matter that we consume as fuel would not be able to form.

But even in the presence of such universal arrangements for living in the world people die, so you are not actually addressing what is the ultimate cause for life of the living entity. I agree that the sun enables all variety of life and existence, but it doesn't explain why people still die, since the sun still shines despite a 100% mortality rate throughout history

The wire analogy was simply to demonstrate that it is the same matter whether it has an electrical current or not, to compare it with your assertion that a live person and a dead person have the same matter. Nothing more was implied. The analogy served its purpose within that specific context. The difference between alive and dead is the animation mechanisms that are present, e.g. electrical flow, or active metabolism.

and my original issue was that reductionism cannot establish what it is that essentially animates the animation mechanisms of living entities - originally you proposed it was glucose and oxegyn, but clearly these are not the absolute cause, since degeneration occurs even in the presence of these things

 

[Cris]

Lg,

what would cause a functional heart cease to function (outside of environmental influences)

I don’t understand the phrase in parenthesis. Otherwise I’m sure you must be aware of the myriad events that can cause a heart to stop, from disease to a bullet. I’m sure that can’t be the gist of your question though.

What is it that you are looking for here?

.. you are not actually addressing what is the ultimate cause for life of the living entity.

I wasn’t attempting to since that is quite different to your question of what is the difference between a dead body and a live one.

But the same answer applies. Energy transfer and animation mechanisms, e.g. electrical flow and metabolism.

I agree that the sun enables all variety of life and existence, but it doesn't explain why people still die, since the sun still shines despite a 100% mortality rate throughout history

Still no idea what you are after here. People die through a myriad of things that I am sure you could list yourself. As for the 100% rate that is primarily due to a disease known as aging that we haven’t cured yet.

and my original issue was that reductionism cannot establish what it is that essentially animates the animation mechanisms of living entities - originally you proposed it was glucose and oxegyn, but clearly these are not the absolute cause, since degeneration occurs even in the presence of these things

I don't understand your issue. The answer is the same -electrical flow and metabolism. Degeneration occurs because of disease that increases with time.

What do you mean by absolute cause?

 

[superluminal]

Lg,
“ what would cause a functional heart cease to function (outside of environmental influences) ”

I can't see what you're getttt , um ting... look, a bird just flew into thet tree. pretty, I was thinking that if birds could talk.. well some can and they... wait. Where was I?

“ .. you are not actually addressing what is the ultimate cause for life of the living entity. ”

The ultimate cause is clearly a... damn, that itches! I really need to see someone about that. Maybe I'll make an appointment on saturday... No, that won't work. I have a... crap. What was I saying??? Oh right...

“ I agree that the sun enables all variety of life and existence, but it doesn't explain why people still die, since the sun still shines despite a 100% mortality rate throughout history ”

Wow! That's deep as all hell! What a revelation and a it clears up so many... things. but... umm... the sun is umm... what? Yes, I think it's umm, sunny outside today. Yes, yes it is. No, wait. It's nighttime. Where am I???

“ and my original issue was that reductionism cannot establish what it is that essentially animates the animation mechanisms of living entities - originally you proposed it was glucose and oxegyn, but clearly these are not the absolute cause, since degeneration occurs even in the presence of these things ”

Oxegyn. Is that, like, a gynecologist for oxen? Maybe. Sounds plausible. But my vet says that oxen don't need oxbgyns. They just drop the mini ox onto the ground and hope for the best. Which reminds me, theres a cool show on tonight about oxen... or something... wild animal. What?

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ what would cause a functional heart cease to function (outside of environmental influences) ”

I don’t understand the phrase in parenthesis. Otherwise I’m sure you must be aware of the myriad events that can cause a heart to stop, from disease to a bullet. I’m sure that can’t be the gist of your question though.

What is it that you are looking for here?

I see the problem - I meant environmental causes that are obvious disruptions (like a bullet) - at the moment your argument seems to be that the source of life for the livign entity is a combintation between the heart and the sun - while there is an element of truth to this, it is not a definitive analysis since people die in the presence of a functional sun and heart (after all they still use hearts for transplants)

“ .. you are not actually addressing what is the ultimate cause for life of the living entity. ”

I wasn’t attempting to since that is quite different to your question of what is the difference between a dead body and a live one.

But the same answer applies. Energy transfer and animation mechanisms, e.g. electrical flow and metabolism.

electrical flow does not answer the question of why electricity flows until you come to the source of the electricity - in the same the difference between a living and dead body is answered by determining the source of life

“ I agree that the sun enables all variety of life and existence, but it doesn't explain why people still die, since the sun still shines despite a 100% mortality rate throughout history ”

Still no idea what you are after here. People die through a myriad of things that I am sure you could list yourself. As for the 100% rate that is primarily due to a disease known as aging that we haven’t cured yet.

the source of life is greater than mere old age since even young people die

“ and my original issue was that reductionism cannot establish what it is that essentially animates the animation mechanisms of living entities - originally you proposed it was glucose and oxegyn, but clearly these are not the absolute cause, since degeneration occurs even in the presence of these things ”

I don't understand your issue. The answer is the same -electrical flow and metabolism. Degeneration occurs because of disease that increases with time.

What do you mean by absolute cause?

The absolute cause of an electrical current is not the machinations that the electrical current enables, nor the strength of the voltage passing through the cable, nor through the redefiniton of energy by passing through transformers, - all this is caused by the dynamo.

To address the source of life you have to go deeper than pointing out the machinations of organs that life enables or the metabolism of the different systems in the body, because these are not absolute causes

 

[superluminal]

The absolute cause of an electrical current is not the machinations that the electrical current enables, nor the strength of the voltage passing through the cable, nor through the redefiniton of energy by passing through transformers, - all this is caused by the dynamo.

You don't have a clue. You have no idea of how electricity works.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

I see the problem - I meant environmental causes that are obvious disruptions (like a bullet) - at the moment your argument seems to be that the source of life for the livign entity is a combintation between the heart and the sun - while there is an element of truth to this, it is not a definitive analysis since people die in the presence of a functional sun and heart (after all they still use hearts for transplants)

I am making no such argument.

Neither do I have any idea what you mean by a source of life. This is an imaginative fantasy that you have created and haven’t explained and which I am not addressing.

Life simply exists because of bio-electrical enabled animated mechanisms. People die in the presence of the sun because the sun isn’t directly responsible for their life sustaining mechanisms. The sun is part of a long chain of indirect processes that make life possible. People can also die with a functional heart because of other damage to critical parts of their body.

electrical flow does not answer the question of why electricity flows until you come to the source of the electricity - in the same the difference between a living and dead body is answered by determining the source of life

Electricity in biology differs little from the electrical energy that can be obtained from a chemical battery. See this Wikipedia article on bioelectricity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectricity This bio energy is again only possible if metabolism is active, the primary sustaining mechanism of a living organism.

the source of life is greater than mere old age since even young people die

I have no idea what that might mean.

The absolute cause of an electrical current is not the machinations that the electrical current enables,

Really atrocious English. What I think you are saying is that the source of a current isn’t the result of that current. If that is the case then you are correct. However, the source of bioelectricity though is the result of metabolism that in turn derives its energy from the fuel that is ingested by the bio organism. I.e. that is why we have to eat food.

To address the source of life you have to go deeper than pointing out the machinations of organs that life enables or the metabolism of the different systems in the body, because these are not absolute causes

We’ve already been there and I thought you understood that the sun is the ultimate source of energy for this planet. Perhaps you didn’t understand that it is an indirect source and operates through a long chain of bio-chemical energy transfers.

Living organisms simply use available energy to sustain their structures until those structures degrade and deteriorate to the point where their metabolic functions cannot persist.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

“ I see the problem - I meant environmental causes that are obvious disruptions (like a bullet) - at the moment your argument seems to be that the source of life for the livign entity is a combintation between the heart and the sun - while there is an element of truth to this, it is not a definitive analysis since people die in the presence of a functional sun and heart (after all they still use hearts for transplants) ”

I am making no such argument.

Did you miss my statement about the heart being damaged?
In the narrower sense you need to study how chemical compounds are transformed into the energy needed by biology, and for that you need to study how metabolism operates.
and
Ultimately the source of energy for anything on this planet is the sun.

so far you have talked about glucose, oxegyn, the sun, and the heart - you say that metabolism enables the glucose to be transformed into energy - the problem is that despite being in the environment of glucose, oxegyn, the sun and the heart metabolismis sometimes seen to fail - if metabolism is the cause of life, why is it sometimes seen to dissipate inthe presence of everything it requires to continue?

Neither do I have any idea what you mean by a source of life. This is an imaginative fantasy that you have created and haven’t explained and which I am not addressing.

Don't worry its nothing esoteric - simply put, what is the ultimate energetic source of life in a living organism, since as a man of science you are probably not in the business of advocating sourceless causes for energy.

Life simply exists because of bio-electrical enabled animated mechanisms. People die in the presence of the sun because the sun isn’t directly responsible for their life sustaining mechanisms. The sun is part of a long chain of indirect processes that make life possible. People can also die with a functional heart because of other damage to critical parts of their body.

So we see an array of systems for the transformation of energy (digestive system, respiratory system etc) and we also see how they co-ordinate together to enable life - all that is missing is an understanding of the source of the energy - there are numerous critical mechanisms in a car, but the most critical is the driver, thus it is understood that the source of energy for a car is the person driving it - what you are doing at the moment is talking about gaskets, drive shafts and fuel caps (heart, metabolism etc etc)


“ electrical flow does not answer the question of why electricity flows until you come to the source of the electricity - in the same the difference between a living and dead body is answered by determining the source of life ”

Electricity in biology differs little from the electrical energy that can be obtained from a chemical battery. See this Wikipedia article on bioelectricity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectricity This bio energy is again only possible if metabolism is active, the primary sustaining mechanism of a living organism.

All energy, apart from displaying symptoms, also displays a source - metabolism is the pathways of energy transformation amongst living entities, not the source of energy

“ the source of life is greater than mere old age since even young people die ”

I have no idea what that might mean.

old age is not the ultimate cause of "losing metabolism" since even young people are seen to experience it

“ The absolute cause of an electrical current is not the machinations that the electrical current enables, ”

Really atrocious English.
.

Just relying on the words you used in your analogy

What I think you are saying is that the source of a current isn’t the result of that current. If that is the case then you are correct. However, the source of bioelectricity though is the result of metabolism that in turn derives its energy from the fuel that is ingested by the bio organism. I.e. that is why we have to eat food

Metabolism is not the cause, because metabolism is seen to diminish, and even expire completely , in the full presence of everything required for metabolism - just like gasoline in a car is not the cause of its going since even a car with a full tank and a perfect engine goes nowhere without a driver.

“ To address the source of life you have to go deeper than pointing out the machinations of organs that life enables or the metabolism of the different systems in the body, because these are not absolute causes ”

We’ve already been there and I thought you understood that the sun is the ultimate source of energy for this planet. Perhaps you didn’t understand that it is an indirect source and operates through a long chain of bio-chemical energy transfers.

Living organisms simply use available energy to sustain their structures until those structures degrade and deteriorate to the point where their metabolic functions cannot persist.

your very statement alludes to an entity remarkably similar to the analogy of the driver in the car

 

[Sarkus]

...simply put, what is the ultimate energetic source of life in a living organism, since as a man of science you are probably not in the business of advocating sourceless causes for energy.

You are seeking answers where there are none to be had.
Energy exists in this universe. Period.
To answer your question we need to answer the question of the origin of the Universe - which we will never know.

But if you see your "driver" in this lack of an answer, then so be it.
Just make sure he doesn't crash.

 

[Kron]

if metabolism is the cause of life, why is it sometimes seen to dissipate inthe presence of everything it requires to continue?

Because metabolism can be destroyed. By shooting someone, you destroy important systems in their body. Head = nervous system, Heart = Circulatory system. Once a system fails, everything else does in a cascading manner. Then there isn't any metabolism left to harness the resources around it.

Don't worry its nothing esoteric - simply put, what is the ultimate energetic source of life in a living organism, since as a man of science you are probably not in the business of advocating sourceless causes for energy.

This is solar energy (and chemical energy if you're talking about life at the bottom of the oceans), for Earth-life anyway. Nuclear energy if you want to look at the source of solar energy.

there are numerous critical mechanisms in a car, but the most critical is the driver, thus it is understood that the source of energy for a car is the person driving it - what you are doing at the moment is talking about gaskets, drive shafts and fuel caps (heart, metabolism etc etc)

The energy source isn't the driver. It's the gasoline.

 

[lightgigantic]

You are seeking answers where there are none to be had.
Energy exists in this universe. Period.
To answer your question we need to answer the question of the origin of the Universe - which we will never know.

But if you see your "driver" in this lack of an answer, then so be it.
Just make sure he doesn't crash.

on the contrary there are many obvious sources of energy perceivable in the universe - eg, sun, fire, light bulbs, motors, etc etc

but that aside
kind of curious why it can never be known that we could know about the origin of the universe - the only way you could say that is if you are currently omniscient

 

[lightgigantic]

Kron

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if metabolism is the cause of life, why is it sometimes seen to dissipate inthe presence of everything it requires to continue?
”
Because metabolism can be destroyed. By shooting someone, you destroy important systems in their body. Head = nervous system, Heart = Circulatory system. Once a system fails, everything else does in a cascading manner. Then there isn't any metabolism left to harness the resources around it.

Metabolism is still seen to expire in the presence of all material arrangemnets for its continued existence

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Don't worry its nothing esoteric - simply put, what is the ultimate energetic source of life in a living organism, since as a man of science you are probably not in the business of advocating sourceless causes for energy.
”
This is solar energy (and chemical energy if you're talking about life at the bottom of the oceans), for Earth-life anyway. Nuclear energy if you want to look at the source of solar energy.

“
Th emetabolism of the living entity is still seen to diminish in the presence of the sun

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
there are numerous critical mechanisms in a car, but the most critical is the driver, thus it is understood that the source of energy for a car is the person driving it - what you are doing at the moment is talking about gaskets, drive shafts and fuel caps (heart, metabolism etc etc)
”
The energy source isn't the driver. It's the gasoline.

No its not - a perfectly functional car with a full tank could spend a million years in a garage and do nothing (until a person comes around to drive it)

 

[Sarkus]

on the contrary there are many obvious sources of energy perceivable in the universe - eg, sun, fire, light bulbs, motors, etc etc

You asked for the "ultimate" energetic source.

All stars, fires, lights, motors etc are merely links in the chain between the "ultimate" source and the current usage.

If you didn't mean ultimate source - please state what you did mean.

but that aside
kind of curious why it can never be known that we could know about the origin of the universe - the only way you could say that is if you are currently omniscient

Why is it curious? What is curious about it to you?

 

[Kron]

Metabolism is still seen to expire in the presence of all material arrangemnets for its continued existence

No it doesn't. When a person is killed (or dies naturally), it's simply a rearrangement of the body. If all material arrangements are optimized, a person cannot be killed.

The metabolism of the living entity is still seen to diminish in the presence of the sun

Let's look at an equivalent example: A car is still seen to diminish in the presence of fuel.

Here we can see that it's not the absence of fuel that affects the car, it is the deterioration of the car's ability to circulate the fuel. In the same way, humans die because they don't have any way to harness the energy around them.

No its not - a perfectly functional car with a full tank could spend a million years in a garage and do nothing (until a person comes around to drive it)

A perfectly functional car with a person trying his best to start it could spend a million years in a garage and do nothing (until someone puts fuel in the tank)

 

[Sarkus]

No its not - a perfectly functional car with a full tank could spend a million years in a garage and do nothing (until a person comes around to drive it)

False analogy as it already assumes that which you wish to prove. You need to be able to demonstrate the validity of this analogy which you continue to use - which you haven't.

 

[lightgigantic]

False analogy as it already assumes that which you wish to prove. You need to be able to demonstrate the validity of this analogy which you continue to use - which you haven't.

Metabolism only operates in circumstances when it is initiated, much like combustion (metabolism can fail in the presence of functional organs and the supply of required fuels).

Metabolism is not the source of energy just like combustion is not the source of energy - rather they are both the pathways of energy transformation

 

[lightgigantic]

Kron

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Metabolism is still seen to expire in the presence of all material arrangemnets for its continued existence
”
No it doesn't.

Yes it does

When a person is killed (or dies naturally), it's simply a rearrangement of the body. If all material arrangements are optimized, a person cannot be killed.

people die all the time in the midst of perfect material arrangements. When they do die they also possess the identical organic and inorganic compounds they had while they were alive - its not clear what is missing that caused life to depart

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The metabolism of the living entity is still seen to diminish in the presence of the sun
”
Let's look at an equivalent example: A car is still seen to diminish in the presence of fuel.

but the driver doesn't diminish - he could jump in another car - in otherwords because the driver is the animating principle of the car, he has more resources for expression than an idle car that is fully functional

Here we can see that it's not the absence of fuel that affects the car, it is the deterioration of the car's ability to circulate the fuel. In the same way, humans die because they don't have any way to harness the energy around them.

So the body breaks down, just like a car is apt to - it says nothing about the superior animating principle of both the car and the body - if a car is an old rusted wreck the driver can move on to another one - th e car however cannot undertake such enterprises

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
No its not - a perfectly functional car with a full tank could spend a million years in a garage and do nothing (until a person comes around to drive it)
”
A perfectly functional car with a person trying his best to start it could spend a million years in a garage and do nothing (until someone puts fuel in the tank)

they could also go and find the means to fill the tank up too - there i smore chance of a fueless car getting mobilized in a million years than there is of a driverless car getting mobilized in a million years

 

[Kron]

people die all the time in the midst of perfect material arrangements. When they do die they also possess the identical organic and inorganic compounds they had while they were alive - its not clear what is missing that caused life to depart

It actually is. I don't understand why you consider it such a mystery... a doctor can perform an autopsy and find out exactly which system failed.

but the driver doesn't diminish - he could jump in another car - in otherwords because the driver is the animating principle of the car, he has more resources for expression than an idle car that is fully function.

So the body breaks down, just like a car is apt to - it says nothing about the superior animating principle of both the car and the body - if a car is an old rusted wreck the driver can move on to another one - th e car however cannot undertake such enterprises

they could also go and find the means to fill the tank up too - there i smore chance of a fueless car getting mobilized in a million years than there is of a driverless car getting mobilized in a million years

You're making the logical fallacy of overextending the analogy. When you considered the car as a complete system, then it's obvious that the human is a PART of that system. The human needs fuel too; food. A car that is 'fully functional' in your above argument would have a human as a part of it.

You are also assuming that the 'energy' that supposedly 'powers' us is using us like a tool. Saying that a human can hop out of a car that doesn't work because he can't use it is implying that the car is only a tool. In fact, the 'human' is a system on its one that requires fuel.

Also, systems like humans don't have 'drivers' like cars. A human being is a synergistic combination of simple non-sentient parts. His consciousness is derived from non-conscious elements, not a homunculi sitting in his brain.

 

[lightgigantic]

Also, systems like humans don't have 'drivers' like cars. A human being is a synergistic combination of simple non-sentient parts. His consciousness is derived from non-conscious elements, not a homunculi sitting in his brain.

Is this your opinion or do you have evidence for it?

 

[audible]

It actually is. I don't understand why you consider it such a mystery... a doctor can perform an autopsy and find out exactly which system failed.



You're making the logical fallacy of overextending the analogy. When you considered the car as a complete system, then it's obvious that the human is a PART of that system. The human needs fuel too; food. A car that is 'fully functional' in your above argument would have a human as a part of it.

You are also assuming that the 'energy' that supposedly 'powers' us is using us like a tool. Saying that a human can hop out of a car that doesn't work because he can't use it is implying that the car is only a tool. In fact, the 'human' is a system on its one that requires fuel.

Also, systems like humans don't have 'drivers' like cars. A human being is a synergistic combination of simple non-sentient parts. His consciousness is derived from non-conscious elements, not a homunculi sitting in his brain.

kron: you are debating with a moron, dont expect any sense.