› ›

If the Sun creates life then...

12346»

Replies

  • b*brazeb*braze Posts: 8,968
    perspective@100 wrote: »
    Actually if you were never open to someone elses "thinking" you should have stopped reading here:

    actually i came in with an open mind to see what you had here (which turned out to be nothing more than your own thoughts and ruminations) but when presented with facts you dismissed them as bullshit because one day you just woke up like this is all bullshit and no one could tell you different.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • .IRS..IRS. Posts: 8,064
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I'll go on naming
    And that's all it ever was or is.... naming. And if it makes your world make more sense, then have at 'er.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • .IRS..IRS. Posts: 8,064
    b*braze wrote: »
    actually i came in with an open mind to see what you had here (which turned out to be nothing more than your own thoughts and ruminations) but when presented with facts you dismissed them as bullshit because one day you just woke up like this is all bullshit and no one could tell you different.

    Oh so you were only interesting in his thoughts if they were in alignment with facts, so you weren't really opened minded, because you were closed minded to anything other than facts?
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Posts: 1,760
    BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
    And that's all it ever was or is.... naming. And if it makes your world make more sense, then have at 'er.

    Things are named for their particular observable characteristics. You have no have no proof of any underlining characteristic that constitutes life existing within energy without mass. We're not supposed to categorize structures created to be so very different because their built on an underlying connection? So a computer program isn't different from another because it's in the same computer right? The code is all the same correct? All code holds the same complexity you say.

    You are the one obsessed with names. Your obsession comes from making up your own definitions based on fantasy characteristics that no one knows to be true. We give things names based on their interactions no matter the underlining effect. Complex interactions can produce complex organisms that reproduce. This is what we call life or more accurately life FORMS. That is all.

    It isn't as philosophical as you pretend. If we find that to be the case in pure energy then I'm with you. The names we use are based on the overlaying complexity that we are aware of and directly interface with as humans no matter how abstract the world is. You wanna live in pure, unstructured energy? You can try. Let us know how it worked out.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • b*brazeb*braze Posts: 8,968
    BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
    Oh so you were only interesting in his thoughts if they were in alignment with facts, so you weren't really opened minded, because you were closed minded to anything other than facts?

    no if you read... i said it was him calling the facts bullshit just because, is what caused me to lose interest

    since when does open mind = ignoring reality

    i can have an open mind to a new idea without totally dismissing what i know is true to be bullshit
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • .IRS..IRS. Posts: 8,064
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    It isn't as philosophical as you pretend.

    Pointing one that all things are energy and that energy is not dead is philosophical.... interesting.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • .IRS..IRS. Posts: 8,064
    b*braze wrote: »
    no if you read... i said it was him calling the facts bullshit just because, is what caused me to lose interest

    since when does open mind = ignoring reality

    That was not the structure of your sentence.

    Open mind would denote open to all sides, not just factual ones, even if they think facts are bullshit.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Posts: 1,760
    BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
    Pointing one that all things are energy and that energy is not dead is philosophical.... interesting.

    Pointing out energy to hold the characteristics for what we refer to as life and going off on a tangent about how energy is life is philosophical.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • .IRS..IRS. Posts: 8,064
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Pointing out energy as a characteristic for what we refer to as life and going off on a tangent about how energy is life is philosophical.

    No, my point was all things are energy and energy is not dead. You my good Sir, went off on tangents.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • FuriousOneFuriousOne Posts: 1,760
    BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
    No, my point was all things are energy and energy is not dead. You my good Sir, went off on tangents.

    Let me ask you this. What constitutes energy. Why should energy be considered life? I can see energy producing life, but why is it alive?
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • .IRS..IRS. Posts: 8,064
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Let me ask you this. What constitutes energy. Why should energy be considered life? I can see energy producing life, but why is it alive?

    It is alive in the sense that it is not dead/non existent, as I said earlier. Should it be considered death?

    What makes up energy? If you know, please tell me.

    Name one thing that isn't a form of energy?
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • b*brazeb*braze Posts: 8,968
    BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
    That was not the structure of your sentence.

    Open mind would denote open to all sides, not just factual ones, even if they think facts are bullshit.

    how so? i said...
    actually i came in with an open mind to see what you had here but when presented with facts you dismissed them as bullshit because one day you just woke up like this is all bullshit and no one could tell you different.

    like i said... what he believed didnt make or break my opinion on it. it was when he said facts were bullshit just because he said so.

    i was fine with him sayin "i think blahzay skippy..." but when he crossed over to "this is what i think and all that other shit is bullshit because i said so even tho you have all this stuff backing up what you and i have nothing but my own thoughts to back me up and no one could tell me different".
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Posts: 6,261
    I'm surprised this thread got so many replies. The sun is NOT a living thing, because it does not show all the signs of a living thing. The sun does not reproduce, and as far as we see, does not seem to want to reproduce with other things. So no, it is not a living thing. The sun helps create life, but so does water and a whole bunch of other stuff. Water isn't a living thing, and neither is oxygen.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • kingblaze84kingblaze84 Posts: 6,261
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    Energy is just that. Life takes a combination of energy formed into matter creating structures that are able to reproduce, adapt and pass inheritance. That is the definition of life. You just want to give everything and anything that definition.

    The definition of being alive is particular. If you want to give a name to the fact that everything is created from a substructure of energy, then be my guess. I guess a house is an orange now.

    Good post, you pretty much shut this thread down along with Fiat Money.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • .IRS..IRS. Posts: 8,064
    b*braze wrote: »
    how so? i said...



    like i said... what he believed didnt make or break my opinion on it. it was when he said facts were bullshit just because he said so.

    i was fine with him sayin "i think blahzay skippy..." but when he crossed over to "this is what i think and all that other shit is bullshit because i said so even tho you have all this stuff backing up what you and i have nothing but my own thoughts to back me up and no one could tell me different".
    Actually this was your response:
    b*braze wrote: »
    actually i came in with an open mind to see what you had here (which turned out to be nothing more than your own thoughts and ruminations) but when presented with facts you dismissed them as bullshit because one day you just woke up like this is all bullshit and no one could tell you different.
    You came in to find out what he had, which turned out to be nothing more than his own thoughts.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,671
    perspective@100 wrote: »
    Energy is singular, as I refer to it in being resposible for life itself. You can deny it all you want, but like I said every thing has energy. People keep saying I have "tested nothing" , but science has tested everything for me. Every living organism has energy...
    The underlined is true, I've never stated otherwise. What I have stated is that although energy composes living organisms, that does not mean energy or everything with energy is also a living organism.

    perspective@100 wrote: »
    ...If anyone is making inferences about what is known it is YOU!...
    The chemical/nuclear processes of the sun, its atomic makeup, mass, gravity, magnetic field, etc, are all known; you are saying that these known inanimate components of the Sun are alive. This means you are making false inferences about that which is known.
    perspective@100 wrote: »
    They just learn from the discovery just like me and you.
    Making up things about that which is already known is not "discovery". "Discovery" would be observing and/or proving something previously unknown.
    perspective@100 wrote: »
    The rules of Biology concerning life are rules that govern you and your thought process, not mine. Thats why you "Know" about as much as you can read, and not observe for yourself. Even if you do observe something and it makes sense to you, you will let these rules of Biology override any original thoughts you began to have about nature. Its such an excellent brain washing technique. You have been a pawn from the start.
    Ignorance of a subject is not the same as innovation. Just because someone knows how a process works doesn't mean they have been "brainwashed". Anyone can come up with an illogical unsubstantiated theory such as yourself and claim it means they are "thinking outside of the box"; this doesn't make their theory any more logical or substantiated.

    perspective@100 wrote: »
    life is not restricted to biology
    This was amusing.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • fiat_moneyfiat_money Posts: 16,671
    UPTOWN (CONNEXX) wrote: »
    but the sun will "live" much longer than you and i, so how do you know it wont reproduce?? who cares what scientists "think" will happen when the sun "burns out"
    Might as well have said:
    "but the sun will 'live' much longer than you and i, so how do you know it wont sprout arms and legs and start having sex with the planets?? who cares what scientists 'think' will happen when the sun 'burns out'"

    Such an argument holds the same weight.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • perspective@100perspective@100 Posts: 962
    fiat_money wrote: »
    The underlined is true, I've never stated otherwise. What I have stated is that although energy composes living organisms, that does not mean energy or everything with energy is also a living organism.

    I'm not limiting my distiction of life to "living organisms" as organisms are defined distinctly in Biology. I never said energy was what we consider an organism at all. I would be more inclined to say it would be easier to describe energy on a spiritual level, but I'm not a religious person. If you consider how energy works, the abundance of it, the various forms of energy , it's ability to create organic life, and its power to destroy it. Energy is much more than most can fathom.
    fiat_money wrote: »
    The chemical/nuclear processes of the sun, its atomic makeup, mass, gravity, magnetic field, etc, are all known; you are saying that these known inanimate components of the Sun are alive. This means you are making false inferences about that which is known.

    They are only false because your definition of "alive" is limited to biological organisms. They are all alive with energy.

    To break it down even further read on: (what I think)

    Energy is the basic building block of all things. Matter could not exist without energy. Time itself is a direct result of energy creating matter. If there were no matter to decay there would be no way to measure time. Nothing would exist. For anything to exist you must have energy. Therefore energy is alive because without it nothing would exist. Energy has created Life and it sustains it. Without it you have nothing.
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Making up things about that which is already known is not "discovery". "Discovery" would be observing and/or proving something previously unknown.

    So they have discovered something about life? Please feel free to enlighten the rest of us on what that is. All they have "proved" is by limiting the variables associated with a certain term "Life", it can be classified however they see fit with whatever requirements they choose it to have.


    fiat_money wrote: »
    Ignorance of a subject is not the same as innovation. Just because someone knows how a process works doesn't mean they have been "brainwashed".

    The "brainwash" comes from believing there is only one process to get the desired answer. Also, to believe this process is far superior to any other closes the mind to ideas from other processes. If the governing body is one "superior" process, all other processes may as well be void.

    *{this is an edit} Off Topic

    *After going over my previous statement I realized my math teachers used to hate me in elementary as I would do my homework and get the answers from simpler easier equations. Teachers always wanted equations done their way which may have been long and tedious, but I refused because I could always find what they called a short cut. They never taught the short cuts but I could always find them. Getting solutions with less work has always made sense to me its more efficient and allows more time for other things. If we are getting the same answers what difference does it make, I often said.
    fiat_money wrote: »
    Anyone can come up with an illogical unsubstantiated theory such as yourself and claim it means they are "thinking outside of the box"; this doesn't make their theory any more logical or substantiated.

    You mean hypothesis?^
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • jackthemackjackthemack Posts: 11,498
    Is he saying that the sun is a sentient being?
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • a.manna.mann Posts: 13,308
    perspective@100 wrote: »
    Haha, really Ktulu? Really? Your just satisfied with knowing everything about the puddle and nothing about the pothole.

    ether............
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • a.manna.mann Posts: 13,308
    jackthemack wrote: »
    Is he saying that the sun is a sentient being?

    not sentient, but alive,

    whether it's "aware" could be well beyond our will of comprehension

    otherwise good ass thread and debate

    Deciding on who I’m gone argue for or against
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
  • urmybitchurmybitch Posts: 284
    This thread is just an example of a philosophical question being answered with scientific evidence. The question he is asking is, What is Life? A question that has been asked for thousands of years. The whole purpose of science is to give better definition of life so if your answer to this philosophical question is based on accurate and up to date science than you are most likely giving a correct response but since science is continually evolving then the answer is constantly being updated. It's an open ended question that was meant to spark a philosophical debate but since, in the 21st century, philosophy has been overtaken by science to answer these philosophical questions this question is met in a different manner. Thus the argument of who is right and who is wrong can be debated for another thousand years and the answer will continue to evolve into a more refined and accurate answer.
    Flag • Wack Feelings Nosign Cosign Ether GOAT LOL •
Sign In or Register to comment.