Lately (in the last minute or so) I've been thinking about what it means to be living. A sponge is totally different from a soda can. But why? I don't know. It's like this magical thing. You know? Like beyond normal shit. Or something. Like there must be a god because how else would shit live? ...did that make sense?

this is coming from a weak atheist who is high

how does the existence of life equal the existence of god?

the line between life and inanimate matter is found simply in the complexity of possible inputs and outputs of a system.

the simplest of systems have 1 input and 1 output that is completely equivalent... a rock is a rock is a rock is a rock.

a slightly more complex system has 2 inputs, and 2 different outputs. for example, a light switch is either flipped on or off, and either emits light or does not.

higher complexity is found in analog systems capable of responding to a set range of inputs via corresponding outputs. a thermostat, for example. if it's real cold, the heat is on full force, if it's only slightly cold the heat is on low.

there are many degrees of complexity, but the highest form and the spark of self-awareness is found in transcendent systems. that is, systems designed to re-design themselves -- to overcome their very nature by altering their input/output architecture. e.g., dna

but you are on to something... if we are conscious beings, why is it so absurd to think that the universe too may be conscious? after all, our sentience is an inseparable part of existential reality.

[This message has been edited by Eil (edited 08-10-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by GlitterPunk112358:

Lately (in the last minute or so) I've been thinking about what it means to be living. A sponge is totally different from a soda can. But why?

True. Living things such as sponges want to go on living. They go on, making copies of themselves before they themselves die. If they are clever enough, they make other living things work for themselves and work out strategies which will help them going on living.

Inanimate things just go to... well, shit.

If consciousness is a product of nature, then nature must have a will to survive, therefore nature has a consciousness (God) and we are part of it.

It's a matter of defining consciousness. In the cat in the box experiment people over looked the cat being a conscious observer. We are composed of chemicals just as a sponge is, the difference is that we perform mechanical processes. God is a higher level of consciousness (infinitely high, by definition) so where do we draw the line at what is the lowest level.

One other thing that annoys me: why do people if they aren't sure of what they have posted, fear flaming or criticism write something like "I was high whilst writting this" or "I have only just woken up"? I have done it once or twice myself but not any more.

That's retorical by the way.

Define life. Is bacteria alive? Is a virus alive? Is a computer alive? Would a sentient computer be alive?

What we call life is just a process... sure, conciousness is wierd, but so would computers be if you didn't know how they worked. That doesn't make them magical. Arthur C. Clarke said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", well I say that any sufficiently advanced biology is indistinguishable from magic.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

If consciousness is a product of nature, then nature must have a will to survive, therefore nature has a consciousness (God) and we are part of it.

hmmm, the way you worded that argument strikes me as sort of like a retreat of your spiritual sense into a shell of psychological dogma, if that makes sense to you...

it resembles what a fundamentalist might say to rationalize evidence that conflicts with their delusional worldview. allow me to paraphrase.

we are conscious.

we are a part of nature.

a part of nature is conscious.

therefore, nature is conscious,

furthermore, we are a part of consciousness (god).

it seems to me that even if the initial premises are correct, the last conclusion is not only erroneous, but opposite to the first.

i would say that

we are conscious beings.

we are also unconscious beings at times.

we are also partly conscious beings at times.

we are a part of nature.

therefore nature is conscios, unconscious, and partly conscious.

no conclusions can be made about the existence or non-existence of god from these conclusions.

quote:Originally posted by Eil:



we are conscious.

we are a part of nature.

a part of nature is conscious.

therefore, nature is conscious,

furthermore, we are a part of consciousness (god).

It sort of makes sense up until the (god), which appears thrown in as a pleasant afterthought, with absolutely no relevance to the first 4 lines of this pleasant, haiku-like prose.





[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 08-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

True. Living things such as sponges want to go on living. They go on, making copies of themselves before they themselves die. If they are clever enough, they make other living things work for themselves and work out strategies which will help them going on living.

Inanimate things just go to... well, shit.



That is way interesting. You might could even suggest loosely that the ability to replicate is the "mark" of intelligence. They will say: You can't confuse ability with intention to define it as intelligence- but why not? Humans who make a "free will" choice not to breed, replicate, multiply are still considered intelligent beings.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

It sort of makes sense up until the (god), which appears thrown in as a pleasant afterthought, with absolutely no relevance to the first 4 lines of this pleasant, haiku-like prose.



exactly, that was my point.

-

quote:Originally posted by icantthinkofaname:

I

One other thing that annoys me: why do people if they aren't sure of what they have posted, fear flaming or criticism write something like "I was high whilst writting this" or "I have only just woken up"? I have done it once or twice myself but not any more.



People are insecure beings, thats why.

quote:Originally posted by AngrySquirrel:

People are insecure beings, thats why.



Well i knew that

I'm sort of skeptical of the "God is a collective consiousness that we are all connected to" idea. Yes, there are some examples of groupthink that seem to be explained nicely by that worldview, but i dunno, there just not a lot of philosophical evidence to me. (Yes, i know that sounds odd coming from a christian)

As far as the starter post, i don't think life is really enough to prove God's existance. I think it's fair to say that sponges don't believe in God. There's a philosophical question for you: Does God exist if nothing believes in it?

Since i believe in God, but i also acknowledge that life existed before humans, AND since i assume that humans are the first species to believe in God, i'm going to say that life isn't enough to prove the existance of God.

I also have some issues with Eli's first post. First of all, a Rock is not a Rock, is not a Rock. Go ask a geologist. Not only are there assloads of different types of rocks, they don't come in the same shape/size either.

I'm not sure where you're getting the input/output idea, but i consider a light to be a binary device (1 or 0, on or off). When you get into analog devices, you have to be careful, because "analog" is a very vaugue word. A thermostat can be digital or analog. You can have more than on set of 0/1's and represent any amount of precision.

Indeed, if you look at computer software, a program can be written to examine itself and even fix itself if a condition exists that is acknowledged as an Error state. So at what point does software become "alive"? If you write a program that can repair itself, or even improve itself, would it accelerate it's growth to the point that it surpasses it's creator's inteligence? Will we one day surpass our creator's intelligence?

That's a lot of stuff to consider, and i assure you that i am sober,

theBishop

i agree, a light switch is a binary system. it has a 1 input to 1 corresponding output architecture. i was trying to be as explicit as possible by describing the two possible states of i/o: on and off. i guess i should have been mindful of actually using the word 'states'. thanks, my bad.

as far as the rhetorical rock is concerned, it is an intuitive example of a simple object with no obvious inherent systemic design. obviously there are a variety of rocks, and they play a part in the geological systems of planet formation (among other things), but for the purpose of staying on topic, let's take it from a 'what is sentience?' perspective. a rock is usually differentiated in our minds from the familiar systems we term 'alive' (unless the mind in question is severely warped or abnormally enlightened). well, what is it that we know about rocks that would make it so?

rocks don't eat, and they don't poop. that's a big one.

they don't move when you hit them.

they don't look at you when you talk to them...

etc, etc...

it has no obvious systemic design. a rock IS a rock, IS a rock, IS a rock.

a brick, on the other hand, has a better chance of revealing its design. if you stand it unbalanced on a corner, it will always fall onto a flat side (well, almost always - it can be expected to). it is a simple binary system, if you place a brick on top of it (input), it will support it (output).

with greater complexity comes greater opportunity for varied interaction, which i believe to be the simple mystery behind consciousness.