Jump to content

Ghost Hunters International


Tolmosoff

Recommended Posts

What do you think about Ghost hunters International.

 

I think its all made up on fear of imagination.

 

Has anyone seen such apparition ?.

If there was ghosts then there is life after death ?. I think its bunk of a time wasting movie.

I was in Isreal and egypt for 23 days and a friend asked if i felt anything spiritual like maybe some ghost that bumped around the Pyramids and in Holy places.

My answer was that history from the past was dead and dry.

Also i mentioned that he was watching too many ghost movies.

 

SOOO !! Have you ever seen a ghost if yes ?? We are then in big trouble when we pass on .:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i agree that it is totally bunk.

 

anyway, if everybody turned into ghosts when they die then the ghost density would be 541 ghosts per square mile (including oceans) so seeing a ghost should be something everybody has experienced on a regular basis yet it is actually a rare event.

 

if we extrapolate this to other organisms (there have been claims of dogs and such) then sightings of ghosts should be even more common and vary from ghost bacteria to ghost veloceraptors.

 

as these never happen i think we can chalk it up to overactive imagination and/or drugs.

 

EDIT: source for ghost density: http://www33.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number+of+people+who+have+ever+lived+on+earth+%2F+surface+area+of+earth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I believe in any of this, but I don't think there's anyone (or at least many people) claiming that everyone that dies becomes a ghost. Pretty sure it's normally a rare event involving unusual circumstances.

Anyways, I agree that that sort of stuff doesn't exist. More interesting to think about why people can be so convinced it does.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Not that I believe in any of this, but I don't think there's anyone (or at least many people) claiming that everyone that dies becomes a ghost. Pretty sure it's normally a rare event involving unusual circumstances.

Anyways, I agree that that sort of stuff doesn't exist. More interesting to think about why people can be so convinced it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think about Ghost hunters International.

 

I think its all made up on fear of imagination.

 

Has anyone seen such apparition ?.

If there was ghosts then there is life after death ?. I think its bunk of a time wasting movie.

I was in Isreal and egypt for 23 days and a friend asked if i felt anything spiritual like maybe some ghost that bumped around the Pyramids and in Holy places.

My answer was that history from the past was dead and dry.

Also i mentioned that he was watching too many ghost movies.

 

SOOO !! Have you ever seen a ghost if yes ?? We are then in big trouble when we pass on .:eek:

 

 

 

Why do you say we are in big trouble if there are ghosts? Trouble? What kind of trouble?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
i agree that it is totally bunk.

 

anyway, if everybody turned into ghosts when they die then the ghost density would be 541 ghosts per square mile (including oceans) so seeing a ghost should be something everybody has experienced on a regular basis yet it is actually a rare event.

 

Is that what you think? That when we die we BECOME ghosts. That sounds a bit strange. I am just curious, what do you think happens when you die?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, personally, i think we just die and other humans either burn or bury our corpse and thats it. no after life no ghosts, nothing.

 

you may have noticed this from the undertones of 'this is bloody ridiculous' in my post. i calculated potential ghost density purely out of curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that what you think? That when we die we BECOME ghosts. That sounds a bit strange. I am just curious, what do you think happens when you die?

 

So the idea of becoming a ghost is strange, but the idea of ghosts generally isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, personally, i think we just die and other humans either burn or bury our corpse and thats it. no after life no ghosts, nothing.

 

you may have noticed this from the undertones of 'this is bloody ridiculous' in my post. i calculated potential ghost density purely out of curiosity.

 

What does it mean to die? What makes something alive? Do you think that we are just a bunch of atoms and that is it?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
So the idea of becoming a ghost is strange, but the idea of ghosts generally isn't?

 

The idea of turning into a ghost would need more explaination. One minute you are not a ghost and then you are, that is what I am saying is strange.

 

In order to get to the heart of the matter regarding ghosts you would have to figure out what is life. Is life just a bunch of atoms or is there more to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it mean to die? What makes something alive? Do you think that we are just a bunch of atoms and that is it?

 

yes, i think we are a bunch of atoms and that is it.

 

to die is for the electrical activity in your brain to stop.

 

there is no more conciousness, no more 'you'. like turning off a computer, except one where it cannot just be switched on again.

 

there may be waysof reviving you before significant decay sets in but atm those are complete fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, i think we are a bunch of atoms and that is it.

 

to die is for the electrical activity in your brain to stop.

 

there is no more conciousness, no more 'you'. like turning off a computer, except one where it cannot just be switched on again.

 

there may be waysof reviving you before significant decay sets in but atm those are complete fiction.

 

 

There are many things that are made of a bunch of atoms and are not alive.

 

If we are 100% atoms then that would make atoms alive, again there are many things that are made of 100% atoms and are not alive. What is it that makes something alive. Look, you are alive, what atom or brain cell do you think makes you alive?

 

I noticed that you said that when electrical activity in YOUR brain stops you die. Who is this your? Who is the owner of this brain? There are many things on this planet that do not have brains that are alive, looks like being alive does not require a brain.

 

Do you think that you are a brain? If so, still understand that brains are not life. Adding a brain or electricity to organs such as a brain does not make life.

 

Atoms are not alive. Electricity is not alive. The brain is made of 100% atoms. There has to be something that more to this what is life thing.

 

A computer is never alive even when it is plugged in. A computer is not conscious.

 

Life is something other then atoms and electricity. Think about it, and when you do ask yourself who or what is doing this thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are 100% atoms then that would make atoms alive, again there are many things that are made of 100% atoms and are not alive. What is it that makes something alive. Look, you are alive, what atom or brain cell do you think makes you alive?

 

Water is made of 100% atoms, but it is wet - so the atoms are wet? What atom makes water wet? What atom makes a tree grow? Is there a spirit that makes trees grow? Are there tree ghosts? Maybe that's the place to start - look for plant or bacteria ghosts, maybe that would be the easiest to find.

 

A computer is never alive even when it is plugged in. A computer is not conscious.

 

Very true, but I think you would agree that it is made of only atoms, yet it has many functions that you will not find in atoms.

 

Life is something other then atoms and electricity. Think about it, and when you do ask yourself who or what is doing this thinking.

 

The brain has been mapped to some degree we know that what we consider as "us" can be fundamentally changed with the brain. Tons and tons of verified, scientific information regarding the brain and its impact on ourselves. Of course there will always be more to learn, but if you want to insist that there must be something more than the brain, then you must provide or find evidence, not insist that others must accept that something more must exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water is made of 100% atoms, but it is wet - so the atoms are wet? What atom makes water wet? What atom makes a tree grow? Is there a spirit that makes trees grow? Are there tree ghosts? Maybe that's the place to start - look for plant or bacteria ghosts, maybe that would be the easiest to find..

 

We are on the topic of ghosts, I raised the question of life. I said atoms are not alive and you talk of what atom makes water wet, what atom makes a tree grow, and plant ghosts.

 

Do you agree that atoms, electrons are not alive?

 

 

 

Very true, but I think you would agree that it is made of only atoms, yet it has many functions that you will not find in atoms..

 

A computer is a structure of many atoms, one atom or a million atoms, makes no difference the computer is not alive. All of those functions that a computer can do have to be done by an outside influence. The computer does not think or decide what to do.

 

Do you agree that atoms, electrons are not alive?

 

 

The brain has been mapped to some degree we know that what we consider as "us" can be fundamentally changed with the brain. Tons and tons of verified, scientific information regarding the brain and its impact on ourselves. Of course there will always be more to learn, but if you want to insist that there must be something more than the brain, then you must provide or find evidence, not insist that others must accept that something more must exist.

 

One of the easiest ways to unravel a mystery or start to solve a problem is to throw out what does not fit or apply.

 

Many people believe that life is a form of some sort, like a flesh body, a vegatable structure, some kind of structure made from atoms.

 

Some people believe that life is a brain, or that we are a brain. This too is a thing made of atoms. So the question is..... are atoms, electrons alive?

 

This is a basic stepping stone in moving toward answering the question of what is life.

 

Do you agree that atoms, electrons are not alive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are on the topic of ghosts, I raised the question of life. I said atoms are not alive and you talk of what atom makes water wet, what atom makes a tree grow, and plant ghosts.

 

Do you agree that atoms, electrons are not alive?

 

 

 

 

 

A computer is a structure of many atoms, one atom or a million atoms, makes no difference the computer is not alive. All of those functions that a computer can do have to be done by an outside influence. The computer does not think or decide what to do.

 

Do you agree that atoms, electrons are not alive?

 

 

 

 

One of the easiest ways to unravel a mystery or start to solve a problem is to throw out what does not fit or apply.

 

Many people believe that life is a form of some sort, like a flesh body, a vegatable structure, some kind of structure made from atoms.

 

Some people believe that life is a brain, or that we are a brain. This too is a thing made of atoms. So the question is..... are atoms, electrons alive?

 

This is a basic stepping stone in moving toward answering the question of what is life.

 

Do you agree that atoms, electrons are not alive?

 

Life is an emergent property of atoms and electrons, alone they are not alive but in huge numbers ordered the proper way they can be alive. Order and arrangement is what makes living matter different from non living not some mystical "thing" that makes them alive.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you want to play it this way, fine.

 

There are many things that are made of a bunch of atoms and are not alive.

 

yes this is true seeing as everything is made of atoms.

 

If we are 100% atoms then that would make atoms alive, again there are many things that are made of 100% atoms and are not alive. What is it that makes something alive. Look, you are alive, what atom or brain cell do you think makes you alive?

 

there are things made of atoms that are fluid and there are things that are not fluid. by your logic this means that everything is solid(not-fluid).

 

phases of matter, like life, is an emergent property.

 

lets take lemons and limes. you recognize these two objects are different yes? well, at the atomic scale they are IDENTICAL they are made from EXACTLY the same compounds. the ratios vary slightly but the difference is negligble. this is another example of an emergent property. same with the varyations among humans and life in general.

 

I noticed that you said that when electrical activity in YOUR brain stops you die. Who is this your? Who is the owner of this brain? There are many things on this planet that do not have brains that are alive, looks like being alive does not require a brain.

 

by your i meant the owner of the brain in question.

 

yes, not everything alive has a brain but we were talking about humans there. for a general statement it would be the halting of various biochemical processes.

 

Do you think that you are a brain? If so, still understand that brains are not life. Adding a brain or electricity to organs such as a brain does not make life.

 

no i do not think i am JUST a brain. i am the brain + body. however, my conciousness resides entirely in the electric patterns present within my brain.

 

it is true that you cannot just throw in a brain and attach some jumper cables to make a conciousness but you'll notice that this isnot how it is done when brains form.

 

Atoms are not alive. Electricity is not alive. The brain is made of 100% atoms. There has to be something that more to this what is life thing.

 

atoms are not a computer, electricity is not a computer. The computer is 100% atoms. There has to be something that more to this is life thing. <see the absurdidty its an EMERGENT property. the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

 

A computer is never alive even when it is plugged in. A computer is not conscious.

 

and your point? and computers may become concious with the introduction of a strong AI. we believe we will be able to simulate and entire human brain within 10 years. it is expected that this will become concious.

 

Life is something other then atoms and electricity. Think about it, and when you do ask yourself who or what is doing this thinking.

 

i have thought about it. my conclusion(based on evidence) is that life is merely a pattern of atoms and electrical activity. disrupt this pattern so it cannot propagate itself through time and it is dead.

 

if you want to prove there is something else then give me some evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life is an emergent property of atoms and electrons, alone they are not alive but in huge numbers ordered the proper way they can be alive. Order and arrangement is what makes living matter different from non living not some mystical "thing" that makes them alive.....

 

What is this huge number exactly? What is the proper order?

 

What is this recipe for gathering atoms and electrons and mixing them together to make life?

 

I am sorry that i am being so sarcastic but you are missing the point.

 

If an atom is not alive and an electron is not alive then no matter how much dead stuff you mix together in whatever combination you will not create life.

 

Look at it mathmatically. Atoms are non-living. Lifeless.

 

Lifeless + Lifeless = Lifeless.

 

Lifeless multiplied by whatever number will still be lifeless.

 

If a lifeless thing becomes alive then life was added to it, not more non-living matter.

 

In this universe there are things that are made of huge numbers of atoms and electrons, yet not alive.

 

There are some very inticate objects in this universe, yet not alive.

 

There are things that were living and then died, did the magic amount of atoms and electrons change? Did the order become disorder. Is that what dying is, some rearrangment or loss or addition of atoms?

 

Really, think about it. If atoms and electrons are not alive, then how would the arrangment or amount change these non-living things into living?

 

Life does not have an atomic stucture.

 

Do you agree with what I have said?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Originally Posted by Eric 5

There are many things that are made of a bunch of atoms and are not alive.

 

 

you want to play it this way, fine.

yes this is true seeing as everything is made of atoms.

 

 

 

Posted by Eric 5

If we are 100% atoms then that would make atoms alive, again there are many things that are made of 100% atoms and are not alive. What is it that makes something alive. Look, you are alive, what atom or brain cell do you think makes you alive?

 

there are things made of atoms that are fluid and there are things that are not fluid. by your logic this means that everything is solid(not-fluid).

 

phases of matter, like life, is an emergent property.

 

lets take lemons and limes. you recognize these two objects are different yes? well, at the atomic scale they are IDENTICAL they are made from EXACTLY the same compounds. the ratios vary slightly but the difference is negligble. this is another example of an emergent property. same with the varyations among humans and life in general.

 

 

Response: The lemons and limes are objects not living things. They are made of matter. You compared matter (fruit) to living things. There is no connection in in your statement of how atoms become alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Eric 5

I noticed that you said that when electrical activity in YOUR brain stops you die. Who is this your? Who is the owner of this brain? There are many things on this planet that do not have brains that are alive, looks like being alive does not require a brain.

 

 

by your i meant the owner of the brain in question.

 

yes, not everything alive has a brain but we were talking about humans there. for a general statement it would be the halting of various biochemical processes.

 

 

Response: The owner of the brain? So there is a brain and an owner of a brain, that sounds like two different things. You make it sound as though there is a something that is not a brain but is something different then a brain. There is a brain and the owner. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Eric 5

Do you think that you are a brain? If so, still understand that brains are not life. Adding a brain or electricity to organs such as a brain does not make life.

 

 

no i do not think i am JUST a brain. i am the brain + body. however, my conciousness resides entirely in the electric patterns present within my brain.

 

it is true that you cannot just throw in a brain and attach some jumper cables to make a conciousness but you'll notice that this isnot how it is done when brains form.

 

 

Response: The brain and the body are flesh. Flesh is matter. Matter does not refer to itself as I or MY. Matter is not conscious. Matter is not aware of itself.

 

Dead people are a brain + a body. What is the missing ingredient that animates bodies?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Eric 5

Atoms are not alive. Electricity is not alive. The brain is made of 100% atoms. There has to be something that more to this what is life thing.

 

 

 

atoms are not a computer, electricity is not a computer. The computer is 100% atoms. There has to be something that more to this is life thing. <see the absurdidty its an EMERGENT property. the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Eric 5

A computer is never alive even when it is plugged in. A computer is not conscious.

 

 

 

 

 

and your point? and computers may become concious with the introduction of a strong AI. we believe we will be able to simulate and entire human brain within 10 years. it is expected that this will become concious.

 

 

Response: No. Computers are built by life. Computers are programed by life. Computers will never be aware of themselves because they will never be alive.

 

Computers are just a thing made of atoms and electrons. AI is not actual inteligence. Computers will never have self generated emotions. They will not experience fear, happiness, disappointment, etc. Computers will not have desires or curiosity.

 

Computers left to fend for themselves have no urge to survive. Computers are like all other matter, they are non-living things.

 

Even if life creates a computer that can simulate a brain, A BRAIN IS NOT LIFE.

 

A simulation of forms such as brains, eyes, nose, talking robots, all these life created things are just that..matter rearranged by life into different forms that do various things that life created them to do.

 

There is a huge difference between matter and energy in all of it's various forms and that thing that is not matter or electrons, but desires to create survive and be happy.

 

Life made computers to use as a tool. That tool has no idea that it is a computer or that it can die if it does not figure out what it takes to survive.

 

All matter and energy have no fear of dying, and those things never will.

 

Life is not a form or structure.

 

As you read this and think about a response, is that just atoms and electrons thinking and deciding? When you look for data such as pictures, concepts, words, and other things in your head, what is doing the looking?

 

When you try to remember something and scan through your thoughts, you are doing the looking. Chemicals do not look. Electrons do not look.

 

Something is organizing all of this data in your head, filing it away so that it can be retreived. There you are with a head full of data, you put the data there.

 

When you close your eyes and picture something, think about the fact that something created that picture and something is looking at that picture and even making a recording of that action as a memory.

 

As living beings we do far more than mere atoms and electrons are capable of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Eric 5

Life is something other then atoms and electricity. Think about it, and when you do ask yourself who or what is doing this thinking.

 

 

 

i have thought about it. my conclusion(based on evidence) is that life is merely a pattern of atoms and electrical activity. disrupt this pattern so it cannot propagate itself through time and it is dead.

 

if you want to prove there is something else then give me some evidence.

 

 

 

Response: So death is just a disrupted pattern? Patterns of things are not alive. Arrangment of things is not life.

 

This computer screen is a pattern of atoms and electrical activity, the screen is not alive.

 

Are all patterns of atoms and electrical activity life?

 

There is no evidence that atoms become alive just because they are grouped together.

 

Can you think of any other possible idea of what life is that does not include the mixing of non-living particles.

Edited by Eric 5
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, your post has messed up formatting and is hard to read, but it seems like you're pretty much saying the same thing over and over again: a living thing cannot be made up of nonliving parts, because nothing is more than the sum of its parts.

 

This is demonstrably false. In fact, almost the exact opposite is true. Everything there is can be broken down into a handful of homogeneuous elementary particles, yet there is a limitless variety of things and properties of things in the universe, all based on how these fundamental things are arranged and interact on a large scale.

 

So too, is the difference between a living human and a dead human quite physical. First of all, death is not like some switch being turned off. It is a process, not an event, in which the body breaks down beyond a critical point where it can no longer maintain its basic biological functions, most importantly the metabolism of the brain.

 

You also seem to be making a big deal out of the use of pronouns. I refer to myself as "I." So what? I refer to the chair I'm sitting on as "a chair," even though it's made up of the exact same fundamental particles I am, just arranged differently. This pile of stuff possesses no additional special "chairhood force." There are no "chair particles." The fact that iit makes a good place to sit for an upright-walking ape is an emergent property. A human brain, too, has emergent properties, although a human brain is billions of times as complicated as the chair, and so its emergent properties are a good deal more impressive. Specifically, it can think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are 100% atoms then that would make atoms alive

 

Atoms are alive when they are part of living system.

 

I noticed that you said that when electrical activity in YOUR brain stops you die. Who is this your? Who is the owner of this brain? There are many things on this planet that do not have brains that are alive, looks like being alive does not require a brain.

 

Being alive is not the same thing as being conscious.

 

The "you" or "I" of consciousness refers to a self-referential information construct resulting from the information processing activity performed by our brains.

 

A computer is never alive even when it is plugged in. A computer is not conscious.

 

Just because computers are not conscious now does not mean they can't be in the future.

 

Life is something other then atoms and electricity.

 

No, living systems are entirely physical.

 

Consciousness is metaphysical, but not supernatural. We are self-referential information constructs which live inside a model of the outside world constructed by our brains.

 

Even if life creates a computer that can simulate a brain, A BRAIN IS NOT LIFE.

 

If a human brain were properly simulated inside a computer it would produce the same sort of self-referential information construct that our brains produce. In that regard such a computer would be capable of consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric, your post has messed up formatting and is hard to read, but it seems like you're pretty much saying the same thing over and over again: a living thing cannot be made up of nonliving parts, because nothing is more than the sum of its parts..

 

 

Just to be clear, I am saying that LIFE is not made of atoms. I am saying atoms are not alive.

 

Yes, living things do have a form that is made of atoms. My question is, what is life. If it is just a group of atoms then, then specifically, What type of atoms and in what arrangement? In what quantity?

 

If life is made of a specific quantity of certain atoms in an exact quantity, then that would be covered by chemistry. So what is the chemistry of life, if it is 100% atoms?

 

Here is a logical way to look at this question of life:

 

1. Is an atom, electron, proton, neutron, or any other atomic particle alive? Yes/No

 

I say no.

 

If you say yes, please give the science behind it.

 

 

2. I say if one atomic particle is not alive then two are not alive, three are not alive and so on. Grouping atomic particles together does not make them spontaneously come alive.

 

If you disagree please give some sort of science that refutes my statement.

 

 

 

 

 

This is demonstrably false. In fact, almost the exact opposite is true. Everything there is can be broken down into a handful of homogeneous elementary particles, yet there is a limitless variety of things and properties of things in the universe, all based on how these fundamental things are arranged and interact on a large scale.

 

So too, is the difference between a living human and a dead human quite physical. First of all, death is not like some switch being turned off. It is a process, not an event, in which the body breaks down beyond a critical point where it can no longer maintain its basic biological functions, most importantly the metabolism of the brain...

 

 

So life is a properly functioning brain? The brain is life, the brain gives life. If someone had a quarter of their brain missing, would they be a quarter less alive then someone with a fully intact brain?

 

Is the whole brain life or a certain part? You see, the brain is an organ, an organ that has a different shape and function of the other organs, but it is a thing that is made of atoms and nothing else.

 

 

The brain is another part of the nervous system which receives and sends electrical impulses to the body. It is like a switchboard for relaying electrical impulses. A brain is a tool that is part of a life form that enhances the survival of that form. There are many living things that do not have a brain, those with a brain are able to do more in the physical universe.

 

 

 

You also seem to be making a big deal out of the use of pronouns. I refer to myself as "I." So what? I refer to the chair I'm sitting on as "a chair," even though it's made up of the exact same fundamental particles I am, just arranged differently. .

 

 

Let me be clear here. You say that you and the chair are made of the exact same fundamental particles, and the ONLY difference is the arrangement of these particles.

 

Is it possible for man to give the exact atomic structure of the chair you are sitting on? I say yes.

 

Is it possible for man to give the exact atomic structure of life? I say no.

 

I say life is not an atomic structure. I say that it is possible for man to give the exact atomic structure of a human body or any of its parts. I say that a human body has the same atomic structure whether it is dead or alive.

 

You say that you and the chair have the same exact fundamental particles only the arrangement of these particles is different. Yet you are alive and the chair isn’t. If life is purely atomic what is the scientific answer that shows how one atomic structure is alive and one atomic structure is not alive?

 

Are you suggesting that a living man experienced a change in atomic structure and so no longer was alive?

 

That object known as a chair would be alive if the arrangement of the atoms were changed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

This pile of stuff possesses no additional special "chairhood force." There are no "chair particles." The fact that iit makes a good place to sit for an upright-walking ape is an emergent property. A human brain, too, has emergent properties, although a human brain is billions of times as complicated as the chair, and so its emergent properties are a good deal more impressive. Specifically, it can think.

 

You say that you and the chair have the exact same fundamental particles. You say that the only difference between you (a living thing) and a chair (a non living thing) is the arrangement of the atoms.

 

You say that a chair does not posses an additional special “chair hood” force. Ok I agree.

 

You say that there are no “chair particles”. Ok, I agree.

 

So if you (the living thing) is made of the same particles as a non living thing (the chair) and only the arrangement is different. So what action, force, energy, or whatever you want to call it is added to this arrangement or comes about from this arrangement that turns a group of non living atoms into living atoms?

 

You must have some access to the exact science behind this change.

 

The chemical composition of a chair is X. The chemical composition of a living person is Y.

 

X is non living. Y is alive. What is the physics, chemistry, action, energy, that causes that change?

 

One group of chemicals, non living. Another group of chemicals, living. Science explains this in what way?

 

I hope that I have made my question clear. I am not here to challenge you or try and prove you wrong.

 

My question is based on pure science and uses pure science to examine the factors involved in this subject of life. Do you agree?

 

Up to this point in our discussion I would have to agree with your view point based on opinion and not science, you have your point of view and I have mine. Is there any way we can resolve this question. I am more interested in knowing more about life and what science has to say, than just arguing with you.

 

If anybody can give evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that life is made of a specific group of atoms please share it.

 

You see, all I am doing in this discussion is raising a REASONABLE doubt.

 

From the science that I have come in contact with I have not been given any evidence that a group of atoms become alive when arranged in a specific order. If anybody knows of such evidence then please share it.

 

If you say that the existance of living things is proof that atoms can become alive, that that same reasoning would prove the existance of God. The existance of something does not explain how it got that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are atoms not alive? If you could see your own and everything elses atomic interactions, how would you differentiate?

 

We see our skin and our heart and organs because that's what our eyes and brain do. You think what you are viewing is really a fair reflection of reality?

Edited by GutZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

Atoms are alive when they are part of living system..

 

Which came first? The atom or the living system?

 

Alright, excuse me for being specific, but this is a science form, which part of the atom is alive? Do all of the parts of an atom come together in a specific form and become alive? Look, atoms are either alive or not. A finger that is part of a living system will die when other living things interact with it, such as gangrene.

 

Atoms do make the structure of a living form. But they also make the structure of non living and previously living forms.

 

You see the system already has to BE ALIVE before the atoms are added to or become a part of that system.

 

According to what you said atoms arealive when they are part of a living system, what gave this system its kick start? The addition of atoms? Do you add atoms to a non living system and then that system and the atoms become alive? A living system is 100% atoms? If so how did the atoms in the first living system become alive?

 

This gets at the basic question of how did life start. If it is necessary to have a living system for the atoms to be a part of, and if all life is made of atoms, then was there always life and living things, or did an atom, electron, proton, etc become alive so as to make a living system.

 

You see, in order for your above statement to be true, living things had to exist forever, or an atomic particle became alive. There is this huge jump from non living to living. If atoms are alive then they could start their own living systems. If atoms are not alive then they can only become alive after they become a part of a living system. That is a nice thing to mentally chew on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[

Being alive is not the same thing as being conscious. ..

 

I agree, consciousness is a function of advanced life forms.

 

All living things are aware of their environment. More advanced life forms have more advanced awareness. All living things are aware to some degree.

 

 

[

The "you" or "I" of consciousness refers to a self-referential information construct resulting from the information processing activity performed by our brains...

 

In plain English this means what?

 

I am not saying “you” or ”I” of consciousness. Consciousness is a description of a level of awareness of a living thing. Not all things that are aware have brains. There is your body, your organs, your thoughts and such. These things are possessed by or made by something that has the concept of not being these things but being a part of these things. This idea of “I” refers to the awareness of something that it is a distinct thing that is different from other things. This “I” has the concept that it is an individual separate thing from other things.

 

What is your take on the idea that man is made of a body, mind and spirit?

 

 

 

[

Just because computers are not conscious now does not mean they can't be in the future..

 

 

Consciousness is a function of LIVING THINGS. Consciousness does not come before life. Non living things do not become conscious and then become alive. Computers would have to be alive before then are conscious.

 

 

 

[

No, living systems are entirely physical...

 

So is all matter. If a living system were entirely physical then it would be matter. There would be no difference at the sub-atomic level between the living and the non living. This is not the case, so what is that thing that separates those things that are alive and those things that are not?

 

 

[

Consciousness is metaphysical, but not supernatural. We are self-referential information constructs which live inside a model of the outside world constructed by our brains.

 

Sounds like you have been exposed to the theory of Biocentrism. Is that what you are getting at here?

 

 

 

[

If a human brain were properly simulated inside a computer it would produce the same sort of self-referential information construct that our brains produce. In that regard such a computer would be capable of consciousness.

 

First of all, the actions of this computer are for the benefit of who? Would it be aware that it is doing all of this stuff a brain could do? A living person made a computer to act according to how man thinks a brain works. Man will say the computer is acting like a brain, the computer will not have any idea that it is acting like a brain. Man makes a machine to do a specific function and that machine then does that function. The computer would just be programmed to act like a brain. Just like it is programmed to do other things that do not make it aware, or conscious.

 

 

Again, only living things are aware of their surroundings, living things have a need to be aware of their surroundings because they want to continue to live and want to avoid non survival elements in their environment. All living things are aware of where the survival things are and will move toward these survival thing or do survival actions in order to live. All living things will move away from or perform action to avoid non survival things, The key point here is that LIVING things are aware or conscious.

 

A computer has no need or desire to CONTINUE to live. Computers do not avoid death.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
How are atoms not alive? If you could see your own and everything elses atomic interactions, how would you differentiate?

 

We see our skin and our heart and organs because that's what our eyes and brain do. You think what you are viewing is really a fair reflection of reality?

 

 

Great! So you say atoms are alive. Does that include all atoms?

 

Since this is a science forum and not an opinion forum, could you please post the science that confirms that atoms are living things.

 

I do not think you actually thought about the implications of what you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If life is made of a specific quantity of certain atoms in an exact quantity, then that would be covered by chemistry. So what is the chemistry of life, if it is 100% atoms?

Biochemistry.

 

2. I say if one atomic particle is not alive then two are not alive, three are not alive and so on. Grouping atomic particles together does not make them spontaneously come alive.

One person isn't a crowd. Two people aren't a crowd. Three people aren't a crowd. So how can 3,000 people spontaneously become a crowd?

 

The fact that one atom isn't alive doesn't mean 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 can't be. Just like with crowds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am getting here is that particle interaction is different than particles which interact with each other for long enough periods to allow other interactions to happen and then again allow other types of interactions to exist and so on.

 

 

 

We define being alive as arbitrary limit of interactions?

 

By the definition of what is consider alive, I think it's wrong to say atoms are alive, but to separate atomic arrangements as being different from biological arrangements is even worse.

 

Just because our body is designed for the reconstruction of matter and reorganizing it so that we as an organism continue to function doesn't give it some special status.

 

An atom requires specific elements for it to remain in it's current configuration. Is an atom of hydrogen different from independent component of bind force quarks, and electrons?

 

The only difference is that chemical compounds can't exist without the structure being in place. Without chemical bonds and arrangement biological matter can not be created.

 

Without atoms without chemicals there is no biology. Your only argument is the way alive is being defined, and I am not going to have a semantics debate with you.

 

You don't have to tell me where I am I know, and besides definitions all you have is opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Eric 5

If life is made of a specific quantity of certain atoms in an exact quantity, then that would be covered by chemistry. So what is the chemistry of life, if it is 100% atoms?

 

 

Biochemistry..

 

If you think that life is 100% atoms, then what are the specifics? What type of atoms? In what arrangement?

 

Again what is the chemistry? Your answer of Biochemistry means nothing when it comes to giving an exact scientific answer to what the atomic structure of life is. If you think that life is 100% atomic, where is the science?

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

2. I say if one atomic particle is not alive then two are not alive, three are not alive and so on. Grouping atomic particles together does not make them spontaneously come alive.

 

 

 

 

One person isn't a crowd. Two people aren't a crowd. Three people aren't a crowd. So how can 3,000 people spontaneously become a crowd?

 

The fact that one atom isn't alive doesn't mean 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 can't be. Just like with crowds.

 

We are discussing life not what a group of people are called. Does your crowd example actually make sense to you as proof that a group of atoms became alive? You need to answer the question of how a group of atoms become alive, not what constitutes a crowd. We are not discussing crowds.

 

Just to help you out here look at this. You seem to think that a group of atoms become alive just as a group of people become a crowd. What kind of nonsense is this? Does your logic proves that atoms spontaneously come alive because a group of whales is called a pod, a group of lions is called a pride, a group of crows is called a murder. Wow your logic and proof is stunning! It all makes sense now. Atoms become alive because a group of people are called a crowd.

 

 

Next helpful hint for you. We are discussing life and atoms. In your crowd example, the crowd is made of living people. You take one living person and add another living person and another and soon you will have a group of living people. Your example starts with life already. No evidence that a non living atom becomes alive.

 

Where is your science? Where is the logic? Where is the proof?

 

The fact that one atom isn't alive doesn't mean 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 can't be. Just like with crowds.

 

 

Prove it! What science backs you up? Is that the magic number to make atoms alive? Please just stick to science and think about what you are saying before you post your answers. I will agree with you that it is a fact that one atom is not alive. Where are the facts that say more than one atom will become alive?

 

Lets just make this simple. You think that atoms can become alive. I disagree. Just blow me out of the water and provide the science that backs you up. You surely are not just making stuff up just to try and prove your point, right? You base all of your answers and conclusions on pure science, Right?

 

So just give the science that you are operating off of that brought you to the conclusion that atoms can become alive when grouped together.

 

Just give the type of atoms that are involved. Then we can work forward from there as to the number and arrangement. See how simple this is.

 

 

I am just following the rules of the forum by asking for some science to back up your point. Why not use this forum as an opportunity to re-examine your data regarding this atoms become alive viewpoint and just use my questioning to help you shake loose some false data and firm up your knowledge of scientific data regarding this subject.

 

You see, both of us can not be right. One of us needs a bit of science to clear things up and get on the right path. If I am wrong then science will bear that out and I will have a better understanding of this topic. The same goes for you.

 

I have not seen any science that provides evidence that non-living atoms become alive. And so far after communicating with some on this forum who disagree with my statement that atoms do not become alive, I have still not been shown any science that provides evidence to show that I am mistaken. I am asking for your help, I would like to get this question resolved, can you provide any science that would help out here?

 

You have the idea that atoms can become alive, how did you come to this conclusion? What science are you operating from?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
What I am getting here is that particle interaction is different than particles which interact with each other for long enough periods to allow other interactions to happen and then again allow other types of interactions to exist and so on..

 

So if atoms interact long enough with each other they may become alive? Is that what you are alluding to?

 

 

 

We define being alive as arbitrary limit of interactions? ..

 

Who is this WE? The definition that you provided for life is not in agreement with any standard dictionary, scientific or otherwise.

 

 

By the definition of what is consider alive, I think it's wrong to say atoms are alive, but to separate atomic arrangements as being different from biological arrangements is even worse

 

Look you give an incorrect definition of life and then from there build your case that life can be made of 100% atoms. You may be building a case that supports your definition of life, but that definition is incorrect so you are going in the wrong direction.

 

Look, even you say that it is wrong to say atoms are alive. Arrangements of atoms is just that, arrangment of atoms. If you have data that gives the recipe for making life or changes the non-living into the living, please share this data.

 

 

 

Just because our body is designed for the reconstruction of matter and reorganizing it so that we as an organism continue to function doesn't give it some special status..

 

 

A living organism does have a special status, it is alive. Somehow this form that is made of atoms is alive. There are many forms made from atoms that are not alive. So there is a huge difference.

 

 

 

Living organisms strive to continue to survive. Do all atomic structures strive to survive? No.

 

Do all atomic structures reconstruct matter and reorganize it so that it can continue to function? No.

 

 

Some atomic structures have this ability and some don't, What is this thing that is present that gives some forms the ability to change things in it's environment in the direction of continued survival?

 

You have to agree that not all forms have the ability or desire to reconstruct and reorganize matter in it's favor.

 

What is this force that is present that gives life, desire, urge to survive?

 

 

 

An atom requires specific elements for it to remain in it's current configuration. Is an atom of hydrogen different from independent component of bind force quarks, and electrons? ..

 

 

No. But that atom is also not alive. What is required to have a non-living atom make the jump from non-living to living? That is the question.

 

The only difference is that chemical compounds can't exist without the structure being in place. Without chemical bonds and arrangement biological matter can not be created.

 

 

Alright. But it is still matter. Lets get one thing straight here.

 

Do you agree that there are forms of matter that are not alive, and there are forms of matter that are alive?

 

 

We can both agree on what matter is made from. This is not in question. What happens, what is added, what is the difference between the living and the non-living? This is what I am looking to resolve.

 

Is it all dependent on the quantity of atoms? If so, then what is that quantity and what process takes place to make a group of atoms alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without atoms without chemicals there is no biology. Your only argument is the way alive is being defined, and I am not going to have a semantics debate with you.

 

You don't have to tell me where I am I know, and besides definitions all you have is opinion.

 

No, my argument is that atoms are not alive according to any standard definition. My definition of alive is the same as those definitions of alive that biology is using. I am in agreement with biology when it comes to the definition of alive. There is no science that claims that atoms are alive.

 

To tell you the truth, I do not recall giving a definition of life or alive on this forum. So what do you mean by "definitions all you have is opinion"

 

What definitions?

 

 

Here is the thing, I will agree with you that it may seem that life is made of 100% atoms. With the current education regarding life, we are lacking much.

 

There are too many doubts and contradictions. It seems that those involved in finding the answers to life want to have it both ways. One hand science says that atoms are not alive, science says you cannot get something from nothing. Science demands exactness and specifics.

 

When it comes to the subject of life science wants us to believe that atoms become alive, yet they do not show how this happens. If science wants to make a claim then show the science behind it.

 

Yet on the other hand science says you cannot get something from nothing, yet it wants us to believe that a non-living thing becomes alive magically. There is no scientific explanation of this process, yet science says that this is the way life came about. From non-living to living just like that. throw the "right" chemicals around in the "right" quantity and poof! You got life.

 

Fine, So what are these "right" chemicals and what is this "right" quantity.

 

Do you see where I am coming from? Science has not used science to back up the claim that atoms become alive. We just need to believe them because they say so. Well, I do not believe in science, science is an exact empirical field of study that can prove it's claims through testing, observation, or mathematical equations. So where is any of this when it comes to life?

 

Do you know? Or are you happy just to just believe what you are told and not question anything?

 

Those who are happy to just go with the flow when it comes to science are missing the point. The fun, excitement, drive behind science is to question everything and be skeptical until proven otherwise. Science is a journey and exploration, what good is it to go exploring by following in someone else’s foot steps or just explore where you are told. Think for yourself if you can be so bold.

 

Do you have any established science that proves empirically that life is just a group of atoms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.