What is life?

[Sonofason]

The point is the greater realization that those things we call life or awareness are not so mysterious or inexplicable as people...even some scientists and philosophers...would make them out to be. Consciousness is explained and life is explained through interaction. Yes, my parents are still interacting in their usual manner. At some point they along with everything else will interact differently, but interaction, because it is so fundamental never ceases...it never "dies". It is only this peculiar way in which we interact now which comes to an eventual end.

And it is this particular peculiar interaction that we have defined as life. The difference exists, it is not a non-existent difference. Life exists.

 

[Runewolf1973]

And it is this particular peculiar interaction that we have defined as life. The difference exists, it is not a non-existent difference. Life exists.

It exists as a label.

 

[Sonofason]

It exists as a label.

We have reasons for labels

 

[Marsh]

I am using the word metaphor as I like to use it. We may not be using it the same way. But I will concede that I am using the word in a different way than most people use it. And I do it only because I can, because I dictate what words mean, and how I use them.

You used the metaphor of the rising and setting Sun, which many Christians have used in the past when discussing the Genesis creation account with me. The Sun doesn't really rise, it doesn't really set, they say, and in a similar manner the creation account should also be seen as a metaphor. Yet, strangely, no metaphor is ever drawn as an example from this portion of Genesis. Why? Because there are no metaphors in the creation account. The author, had he wanted the creation of the world understood as a metaphor would have applied metaphors. "Yes," you say, "there are no metaphors" in the creation account. What are you and others doing then? Are you not simply trying to argue that the first chapter of Genesis does not mean what it says? You understand that it does not fit with science so you are all trying to warp it into something that makes sense to you. I would argue that it says exactly what the author intended it to say. It is a literal description of the earth at the centre of all creation. We are floating in a giant sea supported on pillars. The sky is solid as metal and is like an inverted bowl over our heads, and it holds back the waters above. During the great flood God opened the windows of Heaven and the springs of the great deep, allowing water to drown the earth. This is a Bronze Age myth.

 

[Sonofason]

You used the metaphor of the rising and setting Sun, which many Christians have used in the past when discussing the Genesis creation account with me. The Sun doesn't really rise, it doesn't really set, they say, and in a similar manner the creation account should also be seen as a metaphor. Yet, strangely, no metaphor is ever drawn as an example from this portion of Genesis. Why? Because there are no metaphors in the creation account. The author, had he wanted the creation of the world understood as a metaphor would have applied metaphors. "Yes," you say, "there are no metaphors" in the creation account. What are you and others doing then? Are you not simply trying to argue that the first chapter of Genesis does not mean what it says? You understand that it does not fit with science so you are all trying to warp it into something that makes sense to you. I would argue that it says exactly what the author intended it to say. It is a literal description of the earth at the centre of all creation. We are floating in a giant sea supported on pillars. The sky is solid as metal and is like an inverted bowl over our heads, and it holds back the waters above. During the great flood God opened the windows of Heaven and the springs of the great deep, allowing water to drown the earth. This is a Bronze Age myth.

You also say the sun rises, and you also say the sun sets. We all do. Not just Christians...that's a pathetic lie you're trying to tell about Christians. Don't lose my respect bud.
Of course metaphors are used in the Genesis account of creation. Lie number two.
I am saying that you do not understand Genesis because your mind is shut tight and wrapped around your religion of false science. You have turned science into your own religion, and you've become worse than the Christians you are now trying to degrade. Your bigotry is astounding. Please don't waste my time. I am too intelligent to be wasting my time having this conversation with you.

 

[viole]

I have toyed with the idea that God is all matter and energy, converting himself from one form to another. If that should be the case, I'm okay with that. I do have a weak suspicion that all things are aware to some degree, I suppose depending on the complexity of the substance. But I believe God is much more than that, and that all that exists is his creation.

So, can you measure God in electronvolts? Or kilograms, if you prefer.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Blastcat]

I'm just saying, this life we all have is the same life.

Well, that's really weird. Same life?

It is ancient.

Oh, come on, I'm not THAT old.

There is no new life.

Maybe you've never SEEN a baby.

All life on this planet is very old life, that has been perpetuated through various living bodies throughout all of history.

Yeah, you say that all life is one life and it's old.
Weird.

No person alive knows of a new instance of life. All life comes from previous life, and so far, it has not ceased.

Strange.
Well, thanks for sharing.

 

[Sonofason]

So, can you measure God in electronvolts? Or kilograms, if you prefer.

Ciao

- viole

Nope.

 

[Sonofason]

Well, that's really weird. Same life?




Oh, come on, I'm not THAT old.



Maybe you've never SEEN a baby.



Yeah, you say that all life is one life and it's old.
Weird.



Strange.
Well, thanks for sharing.

You're using the wrong definition for life. You are talking about life forms, not life. You are mistaking a body with the life a body contains. The life a baby has it got from its parents. The sperm and egg of the babies parents never died. The life in each parent merged into one new body which eventually becomes a baby.

 

[viole]

Nope.

So, it is not energy, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Examples of dogs giving their lives for a human family member are common, but you wanted an example of one animal sacrificing itself for another. Did you not think of all the examples of female animals, of numerous species, risking their lives to defend their young?
There was also an experiment at a primate research facility with monkeys. Researchers set up an experiment were by one monkey received food by pressing a bar in its cage, but when it did so the monkey in the cage next to it received a painful shock. Once making the connection between pressing the bar and delivering the shock, the first monkey stopped eating and would go days without pressing the bar so as not to cause its neighbour pain. You wanted an example of self sacrifice in the animal world -- there it is!

Animals go by instinct and that is implanted in them. Don't some animals eat their young, does that make it loving ? _______ Conditioning is also a factor.
Some mice were given a shock when they smelled cherry blossoms, their young then were born with an aversion to the smell of cherry blossoms. Also, just saying:
I've noticed even in some race of people there seemed to be an aversion to cats which seems to have a link to former family living where wild cat-families exist.
Animals do Not make conscious moral choices by conscience, whereas humans do. Unlike animals, humans are morally responsible for their actions.
What animal can display the personality of Jesus?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Most times mosquitoes don't make us sick when they bite us. Also, there are groups of mosquitoes that, I think, only feed on humans and so may go extinct if they stop biting us. Also, a lion eating you will not make you sick. It will just make you dead. So, "No one will say, " I am sick...." " (Isaiah 33:24), is not an injunction against mosquitoes, or anything else, not biting us. What this is, is simply another example of a devout Christian taking a single line out of context from an ancient text and attempting to form a new doctrine. It is rather like the Appalachian snake handlers taking a single biblical passage and making it into a cult practice.
I read Isaiah 33. It proclaims many things, including the lame taking part in the pillage, and the blind receiving their fair portion of the pillage (Isaiah 33: 23), but your passage appears to make clear that it applies only to those living in Jerusalem.

Right, most time mosquitoes don't make us sick, however what about the woman from So. America who knew she had the Zika virus and came to New Jersey to give birth ?
That makes her sick child now American and the care of taxpayers.
Isaiah 33 is about God's judgement and hope for righteous people and so is Matthew 25:37
Ancient text (Isaiah 33:24) to 'new doctrine' - What does Revelation 22:2 say about people being healed ?
Please notice in ancient Genesis text is the mention of the ' tree of life ' for mankind.
In Revelation 'new doctrine ' at Revelation 22:2 we see the return of the ' tree of life ' for mankind.
So, the old ancient text tells us the beginning of man's woes, and by the end of Revelation we see the 'new' happy-and-healthy start for mankind - Revelation 21:4-5
No resident will say, " I am sick...." because enemy death will be brought to nothing - 1 Corinthians 15:26- Isaiah 25:8

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There are numerous examples of people turning on the hand that feeds them -- so what is your point?

Animals go by instinct alone, whereas unless damaged, humans come equipped with an inborn conscience.
A person's conscience can become calloused like flesh seared by a hot branding iron ( now unfeeling ),and can ' bite the hand that feeds them ' Romans 2:14-15; 1 Timothy 4:2

 

[Marsh]

Animals go by instinct alone, whereas unless damaged, humans come equipped with an inborn conscience.

This is simply untrue. For all primates learning is a very important part of survival as it is for large numbers of mammals.

 

[Runewolf1973]

We have reasons for labels

Yes, to categorize different forms of interaction, but ultimately that is all they are...different forms of interaction. Those complex interactions we label life and consciousness do not exist independently of the Fundamental Forces.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, to categorize different forms of interaction, but ultimately that is all they are...different forms of interaction. Those complex interactions we label life and consciousness do not exist independently of the Fundamental Forces.

That is of course your opinion. Nothing more.

 

[Marsh]

Animals go by instinct alone, whereas unless damaged, humans come equipped with an inborn conscience.

This is a very old notion, one I am surprised still has currency in some circles. Animal behaviorists are rewriting the book on that one. If you want to be better informed on the subject Frans de Waal, author of Our Inner Ape, might be the book to read. Or go to the following link to hear a 15 minute interview with Dr. de Waal on his newest book.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2688189514

One story from Our Inner Ape was of a chimp who was in the habit of stealing bunches of bananas from a primate research center in Africa. Someone got the idea of storing the fruit in a motor boat tied to a nearby dock (the idea being that chimps are afraid of water, thus the bananas would be safe). Instead the chimp ran onto the dock, jumped into the boat, untied it, pushed off, and floated down the river eating bananas. When the boat drifted to shore she jumped out and ran into the forest.

The point is the theft of the bananas took planning. She knew no one would be able to stop her, and she had to be smart enough to untie the rope securing the boat to the dock. It is something a person might do. If this hasn't convinced you de Waal has many more accounts in the book, some of them just too complex to relate to you here. You will be totally amazed.

 

[Runewolf1973]

That is of course your opinion. Nothing more.

I would argue that those were facts, not mere opinions.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is simply untrue. For all primates learning is a very important part of survival as it is for large numbers of mammals.

At birth animals come equipped with what they need, however, they do Not know about the lay out of the land, so to speak, and they can be trained to know it, etc.
How about the pet chimp that tore up a friends face ? That chimp was a pet for years before his unprovoked attack.
Would you agree that animals do Not have a ' spiritual ' side as people can have?
What animal prays or gives ' thanks to God ' before a meal, etc.

 

[Sonofason]

At birth animals come equipped with what they need, however, they do Not know about the lay out of the land, so to speak, and they can be trained to know it, etc.
How about the pet chimp that tore up a friends face ? That chimp was a pet for years before his unprovoked attack.
Would you agree that animals do Not have a ' spiritual ' side as people can have?
What animal prays or gives ' thanks to God ' before a meal, etc.

I would say I have no way of knowing if animals have a spiritual side as people sometimes have.
And I would say, I do not know if animals have the ability to pray or give thanks to God before a meal.
Suggesting anything beyond that would be quite presumptuous and even dishonest, because no one knows. Since it is simply a belief you have, I would suggest calling it a belief.