God:the early answer to a problem?
- Thread starter fusion4577
- Start date
god (mind) causes everything and science (observation) explains how he does it.
if they were unconscious they would not do anything because consciousness causes will which is the only reason to do anything.
no need to go to the garden - you can probably find a few things in your house
just get something that is dead and something that is alive and observe them for a week.
Maybe you can submit your observations to new scientist and become famous and rich
Unless you have a totally whacky definition, there's probably no difference
life is a well debated subject. overall, we could say it is to find out why we are here. then some are happy with toreproduce. it is a self discovery thing, like buddah.
once again, it's not like I have to be a mad artist and stick my signature on everything.
I don't find any problems with the standard definitions of the state of death.
Do you?
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
He is asking for your definition of LIFE, not death..
the easiest way to check whether something has life is to check whether it is dead
I mean, that's generally what they do
:shrug:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What nonsense.. you mean a wooden chair has life ?
He asked you to define life because he wanted to see whether you would include artificial life or any other non-organic life in your definition, I think.
I would have thought that a wooden chair would qualify as dead
artificial life is named artificial for very good reasons
it is always in a state of death (or lack of consciousness)
not sure what other non-organic examples you are a alluding too
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
That's my point. In your 'definition' you say that anything that is dead has life :shrug:I would have thought that a wooden chair would qualify as dead
"the easiest way to check whether something has life is to check whether it is dead"
While it is artificial, it is still life is it not ?
I was just leaving room for any unforeseen examples lol
if it passes the test (ie it is seen to be dead) why would it have life?
why would you say that?
In what way does artificial life circumvent the criteria for death?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Hey, you said it not me..
Do you disagree with your own statement ?
As far as I know life is not defined by it's ability to die.
If something meets all the criteria of life, it is life.
Anything that meets the following criteria is considered to be life:
-Homeostasis
-Organization
-Metabolism
-Growth
-Adaptation
-Response to stimuli
-Reproduction
'Artificial' merely means that it has no biological basis.
Emnos
”
so if you sneak up on an unsuspecting chair to determine whether it is dead, and it turns out to be true, what would your conclusion be (compared to, say, sneaking up on a healthy cat)?
”
IOW life has a biological basis, despite whatever is dreamed up in the name of AI, since even AI owes it's existence to a biological necessity (ie the brain of the designer who has to constantly debug and repair it)
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You seem confused..
You asserted that dead things have life, not me. And I never agreed with you on that either.
Regarding life there are three states as far as I'm concerned:
- alive, currently living
- dead, once alive but not anymore
- inanimate, something that has never been alive and never will be alive. (Edit: perhaps needing the addition 'in it's current form')
Perhaps, if you look at it that way.
That doesn't however negate the fact that it's life though.