Russell's teapot

[Enmos]

don't they commonly use a dead virus to make a vaccine eg. hep. A?

Semantics ? They use damaged viruses.. is that better ?
The discussion isn't whether or not viruses are alive.
It's at what point matter can be called alive.
I am sure you will agree with me that it's a matter of definition..

 

[lightgigantic]

Semantics ? They use damaged viruses.. is that better ?
The discussion isn't whether or not viruses are alive.
It's at what point matter can be called alive.
I am sure you will agree with me that it's a matter of definition..

I guess paramedics also scrape damaged people out of car crashes too
:shrug:
I guess one way you can determine whether they are still alive is by their capacity to potentially damage themselves again in another car crash sometime in the future ....

 

[Enmos]

I guess paramedics also scrape damaged people out of car crashes too
:shrug:
I guess one way you can determine whether they are still alive is by their capacity to potentially damage themselves again in another car crash sometime in the future ....

Smash up your computer. It will no longer work. Is it alive ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Smash up your computer. It will no longer work. Is it alive ?

it may not work, but it can easily be reconstructed so it does
take a dead person and give them life again, then we can talk business

 

[Enmos]

it may not work, but it can easily be reconstructed so it does
take a dead person and give them life again, then we can talk business

So you define something as life if it, when broken, can easily be reconstructed by humans ?
Are, in that sense, proteins alive ?

 

[Sarkus]

it may not work, but it can easily be reconstructed so it does
take a dead person and give them life again, then we can talk business

You want a more accurate analogy... melt your computer and the components within it - all of them.
Not just waft a flame around them - but actually melt them down - the case included - everything.

Now - reconstruct it please.



If you can - then we can talk.

 

[lightgigantic]

So you define something as life if it, when broken, can easily be reconstructed by humans ?
Are, in that sense, proteins alive ?

my point was the opposite
unlike material objects, life cannot be reconstructed from a dysfunctional state

 

[lightgigantic]

You want a more accurate analogy... melt your computer and the components within it - all of them.
Not just waft a flame around them - but actually melt them down - the case included - everything.

Now - reconstruct it please.



If you can - then we can talk.

given that the raw components for computer construction (ie metal and plastic) were extracted by various heat treating processes, I don't see what your point is

 

[Enmos]

my point was the opposite
unlike material objects, life cannot be reconstructed from a dysfunctional state

Oh duh... I forgot a word.

I meant to say:

"So you define something as life if it, when broken, can not easily be reconstructed by humans ?
Are, in that sense, proteins alive ?"

 

[Sarkus]

given that the raw components for computer construction (ie metal and plastic) were extracted by various heat treating processes, I don't see what your point is

My point is that in the process of melting down the PC, the complex nature of the individual components become lost, and in fact some aspects will be lost permanently - thus making rebuilding the computer an impossibility. The computer will have "died".

Such with death - the complex nature of the human body breaks down to such a point that it is irrecoverable.

Thus the analogy.


So - are you saying you could rebuild the computer from the resulting lump of plastic and alloy that melting down the computer would result in, not to mention the burning of certain plastics that would irrecoverably alter their chemistry? Yes or no?

 

[Myles]

its not clear why you would expect the self as context to change - I mean its not like even two cockroaches that bump into each other in the night get confused who is who


yes
change is an undeniable aspect of the conceived self
the self as context is something a little different


easy
by coming under the influence of a potency greater than themselves - namely illusion

thats because you adopt the (empirically unfounded) theory that life arises out of material complexity



it does however indicate that one cannot change the self as context



Whatever changes take place, it is the offender that is held accountable for their actions, not anyone else.
The same is true of issues of reward also.

I don't know what the hell you are talking about but it seems like you believe we have two selves, one of which is a metaphysical construct. I believe there is only one self and that is the product of time. experience and memory.
It dies when we die because it can only be regarded as an epiphenomen of the brain.

If you have evidence for another self, please put it forward without quoting the B.G. !

 

[Myles]

regardless of the complex issues that can surround the conceived self, the self as context remains the same.
For instance its not as if a person who suddenly develops the absolute conviction that they are Adolph Hitler is prosecuted by a war claims tribunal

No. they are offered medication and some form of psychiatric intervention because it is recognized that their brain is malfunctioning.

 

[lightgigantic]

My point is that in the process of melting down the PC, the complex nature of the individual components become lost, and in fact some aspects will be lost permanently - thus making rebuilding the computer an impossibility. The computer will have "died".

Such with death - the complex nature of the human body breaks down to such a point that it is irrecoverable.

Thus the analogy.


So - are you saying you could rebuild the computer from the resulting lump of plastic and alloy that melting down the computer would result in, not to mention the burning of certain plastics that would irrecoverably alter their chemistry? Yes or no?

my point is that the computer never had life to begin with, since it is completely built from the ground up.

When something dies, it is irrevocable, since the nature of being alive is not a materially reducible formula

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know what the hell you are talking about but it seems like you believe we have two selves, one of which is a metaphysical construct. I believe there is only one self and that is the product of time. experience and memory.
It dies when we die because it can only be regarded as an epiphenomen of the brain.

If you have evidence for another self, please put it forward without quoting the B.G. !

erm ... in that post I didn't quote the Bhagavad gita ... just to accommodate your comfort zone
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Oh duh... I forgot a word.

I meant to say:

"So you define something as life if it, when broken, can not easily be reconstructed by humans ?

one aspect of defining life is that upon dying, it is not within human capacity to re-establish it by material manipulation

Are, in that sense, proteins alive ?"

a dead person also has protein, so I guess not

 

[Myles]

erm ... in that post I didn't quote the Bhagavad gita ... just to accommodate your comfort zone
:shrug:

Well, that explains why you had nothing to say/

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, that explains why you had nothing to say/

thats ok

 

[Myles]

Still no answer !

 

[Enmos]

one aspect of defining life is that upon dying, it is not within human capacity to re-establish it by material manipulation


a dead person also has protein, so I guess not

A dead person is broken. Something has to be broken for the person to die.

Your definition was:

When broken, it can not easily be reconstructed by humans.

Try the computer analogy again, and keep in mind that there are NO spare parts.

 

[spidergoat]

...the nature of being alive is not a materially reducible formula

Not yet.