s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Is the burden of life greater than the burden of proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Yes and no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 How do we understand the complexity of life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Is complexity that much of a burden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Not if humans can understand it's complexity. How do we understand the complexity of life? Edited September 30, 2013 by s1eep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Not if humans can understand it's complexity. Which you don't, since you asked how we do, so how can you prove something you don't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) That's the not question I asked... I asked 'how do we understand the complexity of life?' I have my own theories as to how we understand it. I asked the question for discussion purposes, I wanted to know the common opinion. Edited September 30, 2013 by s1eep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 That's the not question I asked... I asked 'how do we understand the complexity of life?' I have my own theories as to how we understand it. I asked the question for discussion purposes, I wanted to know the common opinion. We understand "the complexity of life" through scientific investigation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 We understand "the complexity of life" through scientific investigation... By your logic, "science" is the answer to life's complexities. How do scientists understand life? Do we focus on individual parts? Wouldn't we then be submitting to it's complexity, because it is too complex to answer? How do we understand individual parts of life if the whole of life is too complex for us to understand? Our method(s) works with life, but for what reason is it life-compatible? What allows us to harmonize with this complexity as to subtract from it and focus on individual parts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 By your logic, "science" is the answer to life's complexities. How do scientists understand life? Do we focus on individual parts? Wouldn't we then be submitting to it's complexity, because it is too complex to answer? How do we understand individual parts of life if the whole of life is too complex for us to understand? Our method(s) works with life, but for what reason is it life-compatible? What allows us to harmonize with this complexity as to subtract from it and focus on individual parts? No by my logic science is the tool we use to understand life and the complexity of life. I'm not sure we are communicating well on this, are you talking about the chemistry of life or something else? If it is something else please explain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 No by my logic science is the tool we use to understand life and the complexity of life. I'm not sure we are communicating well on this, are you talking about the chemistry of life or something else? If it is something else please explain... There's nothing else to it other than what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 There's nothing else to it other than what I said. Then your post make no sense in it's current form... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Then your post make no sense in it's current form... The question of life is too complex to answer correctly, humans understand life part by part trying to form an answer, thus we are subtracting from life (i.e. we take light from a being like the Sun, and then go about understanding light; in this scenario, we have subtracted from the Sun to focus on one part of it. We then use the parts we have understood to build models of whole life.) How are humans able to do this? What allows us to simplify life to smaller parts? Edited September 30, 2013 by s1eep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I have my own theories as to how we understand it. I asked the question for discussion purposes, I wanted to know the common opinion. You don't have your own theories (not on a science site where "theory" means a lot more than "something I've thought hard about"). You have your own opinion, and you wanted to hear other opinions first. And now you want to tell people their opinions are wrong and yours are right. Not playing that game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 You don't have your own theories (not on a science site where "theory" means a lot more than "something I've thought hard about"). You have your own opinion, and you wanted to hear other opinions first. And now you want to tell people their opinions are wrong and yours are right. Not playing that game. If you don't want to discuss it you don't have to discuss it, and I wasn't planning on explaining my theories (or opinions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The question of life is too complex to answer correctly, humans understand life part by part trying to form an answer, thus we are subtracting from life (i.e. we take light from a being like the Sun, and then go about understanding light; in this scenario, we have subtracted from the Sun to focus on one part of it. We then use the parts we have understood to build models of whole life.) How are humans able to do this? What allows us to simplify life to smaller parts? Nonsensical word salad... If you don't want to discuss it you don't have to discuss it, and I wasn't planning on explaining my theories (or opinions). You haven't even explained what you mean by "complexity of life" define that and we can talk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 (edited) Nonsensical word salad... You haven't even explained what you mean by "complexity of life" define that and we can talk... The burden of life is greater than the burden of proof, but we haven't worked out the burden of life yet, so the burden of proof is equally equitable. When Phi for All replied "Yes and no", I presume that is what he implied. We use the scientific method to broaden our understanding of life, but we do not comprehend life completely- there is more out there for us to discover. We do not have a theory of everything, yet. How do we simplify life (that which we have found too complex to answer wholly), to smaller parts, as to understand it partially? What allows humans to do this? Why can we understand parts of life and not the whole of life, even though we sustain existence (with the whole of life)? This makes sense, you can find sense in it. I suggest you spend time thinking before you jump to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense. I will not re-write what I mean again, too much wordplay and the message I'm trying to get across will get lost in the differing semantics. Edited September 30, 2013 by s1eep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The burden of life is greater than the burden of proof, but we haven't worked out the burden of life yet, so the burden of proof is equally equitable. When Phi for All replied "Yes and no", I presume that is what he implied. We use the scientific method to broaden our understanding of life, but we do not comprehend life completely-- there is more out there for us to discover. We do not have a theory of everything, yet. How do we simplify life (that which we have found too complex to answer wholly), to smaller parts, as to understand it partially? What allows humans to do this? Why can we understand parts of life and not the whole of life, even though we sustain existence (with the whole of life)? This makes sense, you can find sense in it. I suggest you spend time thinking before you jump to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense. I will not re-write what I mean again, too much wordplay and the message I'm trying to get across will get lost in the differing semantics. Your message sounds like nothing but word play, in fact you suggest this... but we do not comprehend life completely-- Nothing is ever comprehended completely, no one can know everything about anything and everything we do know is subject to some degree of error... Then you say this... We do not have a theory of everything, yet. How do you equate TOE with life? It has to do with cosmology not biochemistry... Then you say this... How do we simplify life (that which we have found too complex to answer wholly), to smaller parts, as to understand it partially? What allows humans to do this?The methodology of science allows us to do that... Why can we understand parts of life and not the whole of life, even though we sustain existence (with the whole of life)?I am not so sure we do not understand the whole of life, your assertions are suggestive but convey little real meaning with out defined parameters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 The methodology of science allows us to do that... The methodology of science is the procedure, and not the reason we can do it, the answer would be something to do with life and humans, not humans and human behavior. I fear already that no matter what I say and how simple it is you will respond lazily, depressingly, egotistically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The burden of life is greater than the burden of proof, but we haven't worked out the burden of life yet, so the burden of proof is equally equitable. Do you see the contradiction here? How do you know one is greater if you don't understand either of them? When Phi for All replied "Yes and no", I presume that is what he implied. I was purposely responding vaguely to a purposely vague question. We use the scientific method to broaden our understanding of life, but we do not comprehend life completely- there is more out there for us to discover. We do not have a theory of everything, yet. How do we simplify life (that which we have found too complex to answer wholly), to smaller parts, as to understand it partially? What allows humans to do this? Why can we understand parts of life and not the whole of life, even though we sustain existence (with the whole of life)? We're very good with patterns, whether looking at the whole or at its parts. Focusing on the parts helps with "how" and "what". If this is confusing to you, it's because you're trying to make science solve the "why" and that's more philosophy's purview. I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't be able to sustain our existence without understanding "the whole of life". All the other species are doing it. This makes sense, you can find sense in it. I suggest you spend time thinking before you jump to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense. I will not re-write what I mean again, too much wordplay and the message I'm trying to get across will get lost in the differing semantics. I don't think the conclusions were about made about the concept. What doesn't make sense is the way you're asking these questions. It's like some kind of passive/aggressive philosopher is asking vague questions and expecting precise answers. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The methodology of science is the procedure, and not the reason we can do it, the answer would be something to do with life and humans, not humans and human behavior. I fear already that no matter what I say and how simple it is you will respond lazily, depressingly, egotistically. Insults do not further this discussion, i am being as honest as i can with you, your questions are too imprecise to make sense of them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 Do you see the contradiction here? How do you know one is greater if you don't understand either of them? I was purposely responding vaguely to a purposely vague question. We're very good with patterns, whether looking at the whole or at its parts. Focusing on the parts helps with "how" and "what". If this is confusing to you, it's because you're trying to make science solve the "why" and that's more philosophy's purview. I'm not sure why you think we shouldn't be able to sustain our existence without understanding "the whole of life". All the other species are doing it. I don't think the conclusions were about made about the concept. What doesn't make sense is the way you're asking these questions. It's like some kind of passive/aggressive philosopher is asking vague questions and expecting precise answers. Sorry. The fact we sustain existence is part of the burden of life, and because we are able to exist in this complexity, we must understand it somehow. That is, we understand it already, or we are understanding it, because we co-exist with the rest of life that serves as the missing piece we cannot comprehend. Our genius is aligned to life- we are already life-compatible 'pre-scientific observation'. What makes human genius life-compatible? What makes scientific observation life-compatible? Not it's method, that is procedure, but "what part of life allows this procedure"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The fact we sustain existence is part of the burden of life, and because we are able to exist in this complexity, we must understand it somehow. That is, we understand it already, or we are understanding it, because we co-exist with the rest of life that serves as the missing piece we cannot comprehend. Our genius is aligned to life- we are already life-compatible 'pre-scientific observation'. What makes human genius life-compatible? What makes scientific observation life-compatible? Not it's method, that is procedure, but "what part of life allows this procedure"? You need to find some one smarter than me to understand this stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted September 30, 2013 Author Share Posted September 30, 2013 You need to find some one smarter than me to understand this stuff... Thanks for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1eep Posted October 1, 2013 Author Share Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) Is it correct that scientists have found the question of life is too complex to answer? Or that science has not answered this question yet? Edited October 1, 2013 by s1eep -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now