God:the early answer to a problem?

[lightgigantic]

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')

what is the distinction between a dead thing and an inanimate thing (apart from the apriori knowledge that the dead thing was previously alive)?

Perhaps, if you look at it that way.
That doesn't however negate the fact that it's life though.

why would it be categorized as life?
It is simply a processing tool, and doesn't have any greater significance than any other tool utilized by living beings

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg.. you could have avoided all of that if you just answered the question that was asked of you I didn't ask you to chop a limb off, I don't understand your problem. Enmos managed it and the question wasn't even asked of him. Your turn.

Please..

once again, I don't have anything radical to offer
:shrug:

 

[Enmos]

what is the distinction between a dead thing and an inanimate thing (apart from the apriori knowledge that the dead thing was previously alive)?

The distinction is that a dead object, in contrast with an inanimate object, has all the 'machinery' needed to sustain life.
To clarify the edit:

- inanimate, something that has never been alive and never will be alive. (Edit: perhaps needing the addition 'in it's current form')"

This was done for such 'objects' as oil for instance. Or bones etc.

why would it be categorized as life?
It is simply a processing tool, and doesn't have any greater significance than any other tool utilized by living beings

I admit it is controversial, but artificial life does meet all the criteria.
Processing tool ? I think you misunderstand what I mean with artificial life..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life

 

[SnakeLord]

once again, I don't have anything radical to offer

For the final time, I am not asking for anything radical.

Maybe a further question should be: cowardice or inability?

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what is the distinction between a dead thing and an inanimate thing (apart from the apriori knowledge that the dead thing was previously alive)?
”
The distinction is that a dead object, in contrast with an inanimate object, has all the 'machinery' needed to sustain life.

if the inert machinery cannot be re-invested with life, what is the ultimate distinction?

To clarify the edit:
“
Originally Posted by Enmos(post 39)
- inanimate, something that has never been alive and never will be alive. (Edit: perhaps needing the addition 'in it's current form')"
”
This was done for such 'objects' as oil for instance. Or bones etc.

will a dead body ever be alive again?
(no post dated cheques in the name of sci-fi please )

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
why would it be categorized as life?
It is simply a processing tool, and doesn't have any greater significance than any other tool utilized by living beings
”
I admit it is controversial, but artificial life does meet all the criteria.
Processing tool ? I think you misunderstand what I mean with artificial life..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life

actually it depends on how we understand intelligence

Thus a computer has no point of view on questions of right and wrong.
Whatever choices it seems capable of making are actually pre-deliberated by
a conscious programmer. With superhuman speed a computer blindly follows
the schemata of those deliberations when so commanded by a conscious user.
The user inputs choices that the computer mechanically processes to logical
conclusions. But only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.
-Transcendental Personalism S.Swami

 

[Enmos]

Emnos

if the inert machinery cannot be re-invested with life, what is the ultimate distinction?

You are taking it too far.. i said 'regarding life'.
Do you really want to end up with a "What is real" sort of thread ?

will a dead body ever be alive again?
(no post dated cheques in the name of sci-fi please )

The word 'again' cannot be applied to an inanimate object in this context, that's a difference.
Dead bodies can be resurrected.. it all depends on how you define death.
I don't really see how this is relevant though.

actually it depends on how we understand intelligence

Thus a computer has no point of view on questions of right and wrong.
Whatever choices it seems capable of making are actually pre-deliberated by
a conscious programmer. With superhuman speed a computer blindly follows
the schemata of those deliberations when so commanded by a conscious user.
The user inputs choices that the computer mechanically processes to logical
conclusions. But only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.
-Transcendental Personalism S.Swami

Intelligence is no criteria for life. Do you think a beetle knows right from wrong ?

 

[lightgigantic]

You are taking it too far.. i said 'regarding life'.
Do you really want to end up with a "What is real" sort of thread ?

I thought it was quite straight forward
in what ways does a dead thing behave differently from an inanimate thing?

The word 'again' cannot be applied to an inanimate object in this context, that's a difference.

and it also cannot be applied to dead things either

Dead bodies can be resurrected..
it all depends on how you define death.
I don't really see how this is relevant though.

a dead thing behaves strictly according to physical laws (particularly in regard to decomposition)
while a living thing also has many issues of accordance with physical laws, they are also conscious, which despite theorizing to the contrary, remains unapproachable by current understandings of physical laws

Intelligence is no criteria for life. Do you think a beetle knows right from wrong ?

you don't think it knows the difference between a bad situation and a good one?

 

[Enmos]

I thought it was quite straight forward
in what ways does a dead thing behave differently from an inanimate thing?

In no way. You are missing the point completely though.

and it also cannot be applied to dead things either

a dead thing behaves strictly according to physical laws (particularly in regard to decomposition)
while a living thing also has many issues of accordance with physical laws, they are also conscious, which despite theorizing to the contrary, remains unapproachable by current understandings of physical laws

I know this is childish.. but what about Jesus ? lol
Certain bacteria can be frozen for millennia and come to live when they are warmed up.

you don't think it knows the difference between a bad situation and a good one?

Artificial life can tell a good situation from a bad one as well.

 

[lightgigantic]

In no way. You are missing the point completely though.

what's the point?

Certain bacteria can be frozen for millennia and come to live when they are warmed up.

why do they have to be frozen?
why can't they simply be dead?

Artificial life can tell a good situation from a bad one as well.

not according to the AI system

.... only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.

 

[Enmos]

what's the point?

This heading towards the thread I mentioned. Maybe you should continue there.

why do they have to be frozen?
why can't they simply be dead?

Cos they'd rot ?

not according to the AI system

.... only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.

Such is life.. words make this confusing.
Beetles don't make value judgments either.


This is going nowhere.
Originally this was about the definition of life. And Snake asking you to give yours, or at least one you think is correct.
I think you should give yours and let Snake ask his question.
I'm off to bed now..
Have fun

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Science has proven its own limits. It can take us only so far.
How can science prove the God doesn't exist to me when all I see is God?

Jozen

 

[Nickelodeon]

Perhaps it can prove you are nuts?

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Legally I think not.

Freedom of Religion is so COOL!!!!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Science has proven its own limits. It can take us only so far.

It's only as limited as the technology and thought of people are, as far as we know.

How can science prove the God doesn't exist to me when all I see is God?

Jozen

For a specific 'God' (like the Christian one) that's a piece of cake... and it's mostly logic that can disprove it's existence. For a generic idea of 'God' it can't because there is no falsifiable detail, but (and this is a big but) that absence of falsifiable detail makes the idea no more credible or probable than any other lacking falsifiable detail.

What science can do is understand why all you see is 'God'. It's a human psychological phenomena called anthropomprhization. To put it bluntly, humans superimpose human qualities on non-human things and phenomena (or vice versa). Bugs bunny, father time, mother nature, the grim reaper, etc... you get the point. 'God' is anthropomorphization of reality and here is an article that goes into detail on anthropomorphism:

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl05ab.shtml

 

[Jozen-Bo]

What a fun answer that was.

From the stand point you give I do agree.

From my own perspective, its a little different. Would a God need science to do anything...or could God use Magic??? The rules of reality are not fixed. They are mutating...many of our world"s super top notch Russian Scientist have observed this. We are at a point where the very observation of an experiment affects the results.

What seems more advanced...some beings relying on their much needed equipment to get what they desire or beings who could manifest anything by simply desiring it?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What a fun answer that was.

From the stand point you give I do agree.

Glad you enjoyed it .

From my own perspective, its a little different. Would a God need science to do anything...or could God use Magic???

Did you mean would 'God' need reality do do anything? Science is just a process... look, think, test, validate, repeat. Consequently, what is magic? Is there any evidence such a thing exists? Reality is quite non-magical. It is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.

The rules of reality are not fixed. They are mutating...many of our world"s super top notch Russian Scientist have observed this. We are at a point where the very observation of an experiment affects the results.

I think you might be referring to a wave function collapse. Yes any unit that can accept information from a superposition can result in a collapse; however, there is no fundamental rule of reality that is mutating. The evolution of a wave function is probability.

What seems more advanced...some beings relying on their much needed equipment to get what they desire or beings who could manifest anything by simply desiring it?

It depends on what definition of 'advanced' we're using really. A better question might be which one has demonstrable evidence? Truth is the conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality. Evidence, on the other hand, is a demonstration that a given reality is valid.

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Your logic is strong. Good answers!!!

Have you ever heard of a torsion field???

 

[spidergoat]

Science has proven its own limits. It can take us only so far.
How can science prove the God doesn't exist to me when all I see is God?

Jozen

If you want to call the laws of nature God, and everything in it God, then even an atheist can agree to that definition. However, God more commonly refers to something supernatural.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Your logic is strong. Good answers!!!

Must be the vitamins :thankyou:.

Have you ever heard of a torsion field???

As in the hypothetical non-Riemanian manifold with both bosonic and fermionic coordinates? Nope, never heard of it .

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
what's the point?
”
This heading towards the thread I mentioned. Maybe you should continue there.

not sure why issues of being conscious or dead are inherently related to issues of reality, unless your head has seriously been done in by some philosophical discussion of late

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
why do they have to be frozen?
why can't they simply be dead?
”
Cos they'd rot ?

fancy that

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
not according to the AI system

.... only the user sees those conclusions to be "correct",
"better", "hopeful" or "wrong"; the machine, seeing nothing, makes no
value-judgements.
”
Such is life.. words make this confusing.
Beetles don't make value judgments either.

just try 5 cabbages in a acre of parsley and see how many cabbage moths appreciate the value of cabbage as opposed to parsley