-=Aliens=-

A statement can be a set symbols expessing a concept, so "_" is a statemnent if "_" is defined as "I don't understand". "A=A" is also a statement because it's built up of symbols and expresses the equality between A and A where A is a variable. A statements can also be evaluated from case to case. You can try putting something in A's place to test it, but you won't be able to prove it true no matter how many different stuff you put in as A, but it "seems" to be consistent: true, thereby the axiom A=A=TRUE.

If I invent a definition of A, then it is not an assumption that A=A.

The symbol '1' we each create our own definitions for. We try to ensure they are the same. We cannot prove that your definition of '1' = my defintion of '1' but we can be sure that my defintion of '1' = my definition of one (If I decide that my definition is fixed and independent of context).

we were refering to A as a variable. If it wasn't we still have a statement, a function with no parameters. A statement is also depending on an agreement, how we interpret the symbols.

if you still disagee with me simon, you agree that A=A is a model, whether it's genetical or learnt? I am not sure myself either but i think DNA preserve knowledge for many of our models, for instance how we percept light and process it to information.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
CiberTHuG, I didn't imply i was unable to support my view, i'm just generally pissed at your immatureness. Your last post was a bit exceptional, so if you agree not to offend, I will respond in this argumention, otherways i take it that you are too immature to discuss decently. If you at any point return to your offensive attitude, you automatically agree that you are unable to respond and therefore loose the argument. Do you accept my offer?

---

Why are you resorting to inflaming CiberTHug. I take your point here, but maybe you could be a bit more careful with how you put it into words. "Immatureness" is guaranteed to het Ciber's backup. Chill out about:)

I must agree with simonm.

Common Sense is a learnt thought!
It's gathered on what knowledge you have learnt.

Life =

There are 4 forms of Life. Archaea, Eukaryota, Bacteria, Virus's.

The four main types of biological entities described above share some unique characteristics that can allow us to distinguish them from non-living things. These characteristics are:

(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.

(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.

(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.

(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.

(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.

(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.


Therefore A doesn't always = A. Take number (4) for example!
I could already have a = b and b=a!
And you coming and telling me a = a why does a = a? I would ask!


SETI. I don't believe SETI is the right way to search for intelligent life!
For starters why would we assume they know the simple 9 to be our simple 9! To them 9 could mean Piss off!

Then we assume they realise that it is a signal from another planet!
I mean they could be sending out messages but we don't know that!
We are also assuming that they understand radio frequency and haven't learnt another way!
Why also do we assume they are smarter than us?

Quote:

---

What about fire? It's self perpetuating.

---

Cyberthug said in respone to the above post by SurfDemon that he could not consider fire to be 'living'.

Why not? OK, I'm not suggesting that fire has any sort of consiousness or anything like that but it does (attempt) to interact with it's environment in such a way that perpetuates itself.

Incidentally, Fire can be considered alive according to the traditional definitions of life, not only according to my definition.

does an apple = an apple?

Fire is not sensitive, therefore it does not conform to all of Mrs. Gren.

Quote:

---

Fire is not sensitive, therefore it does not conform to all of Mrs. Gren.

---

Sensitive? What are you talking about? Sensitive to what?

fire has no senses. It does not avoid certain things because they might be harmful to it. It doesn't sniff around for stuff.

Could you not apply that same argument to Bacteria? Does not bactieria just grow and multiply indefinitely until it meets it's demise.

I think that if fire were considered 'living' it could only be compared to very low-level forms of life and not more complex forms such as animals.

I don't think we differ at all from a rock, we all consist of matter, a form of energy, subatomical particles or whatever. Life is such a meaningless concept outside our way of thinking

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kedaman
I don't think we differ at all from a rock, we all consist of matter, a form of energy, subatomical particles or whatever. Life is such a meaningless concept outside our way of thinking

---

I don't think I differ from all these guys ! :D

Gauss Lenard Hertz Maxwell Hall Ampére Lorentz Faraday [deleted]Kedaman[/deleted] Tesla Oersted Ohm Franklin Galvani Volta Biot Savart Watt Huygens Young Michelson Morley Planck Einstein Compton Balmer Rydberg Bohr De Broglie Davisson Germer Heisenberg

:D :D :D

so you think i am alien?

Quote:

---

Life is such a meaningless concept outside our way of thinking

---

Well then, it's lucky we're not outside of our way of thinking.

Quote:

---

I don't think we differ at all from a rock, we all consist of matter, a form of energy, subatomical particles or whatever.

---

I understand where you're comming from. On a subatomic level, the particles interact in the same way (regardless of whether they're part of a rock or a human being).

But, then again, on our scale, a rock is distinctly different from a human being. The collective behaviour of the sub-atomic particles, whilst not behaving differently at their level, result in an entirely differnt form at our level. Something must be different!

Quote:

---

so you think i am alien?

---

Do you think you're an alien?

depends. In the case Active think he and my likes (Einstein & Co) are similar must mean i am the alien one, and as you can see what i think in this case.

Nothing is different! basically because life is a meaningless concept from a scientific aspect. Most of it because it does not make sense, so life is simply an illusion of a very natural phenomenon, and probably very generally missunderstood.

Quote:

---

Nothing is different! basically because life is a meaningless concept from a scientific aspect. Most of it because it does not make sense, so life is simply an illusion of a very natural phenomenon, and probably very generally missunderstood.

---

I don't think life is a meaningless concept. I believe life is just a particular type of pattern. The life pattern is distinct from all other types of patterns in the following way: 'life' type patterns are self-reinforcing where as all other pattern types are not.

Now you could say that all patterns are meaningless when independant of context and, yes, I would agree. Context is all important to patterns. Especially 'life' type patterns as it is the pattern's interaction with it's environment that enables it to self-perpetuate.

If something happens to exist and preserves, then it is a physical phenomenon called balance, If you increase the magnetic fluid trough a coil it will induce current that tries to preserve the previous magnetic field strength. You can pick any properties essential to life, i can do similar in physics -> there's nothing different!!!!!!

What you are describing is a feedback pattern.

The feedback pattern is a contributing factor in a 'life' pattern.

Infact, 'life' patterns are not in a balanced state. They are chaotic and unstable. It is this 'instability' that gives life patterns the ability to adapt and change with different circumstances.

No you can't have both self-perpetuation and chaos as essentials to life!
But self-perpetuation does imply chaos! Otherways there would be no need to perpetuate :p The Chaos - Balance model is a very oftenly used model in all kinds of science.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here:

Quote:

---

Otherways there would be no need to perpetuate The Chaos

---

Are you saying that chaos needs to be perpetuated? I don't understand how you think I've contradicted myself.

Could you please explain? :o

LOL, place a . between perpetuate and The Chaos.
If something is perpetuating, then it's striving against chaos, to build a pattern, while chaos is the opposite to all patterns.

OK, Now I understand what you're saying.

I think you're confusing randomness with chaos. If there are no patterns then there is only randomness. i.e. randomness is the absense of any pattern.

A pattern could be said to be chaotic if minute changes to the pattern at one point will result in radically different behavior thereof.

NO!!!! Randomness is a totally different concept! Actually to me randomness is an very missunderstood illusion. Chaos is the abscense of pattern while randomness can be described as a undeterminable factor, and such appears only in a subjective reality.

It all depends on what "meanings" or "definitions" you want to attach to the words random and chaotic, does it not?

What you are saying is interesting though:

Quote:

---

...randomness can be described as a undeterminable factor, and such appears only in a subjective reality.

---

You seem to be suggesting here that nothing in the universe is truly random. i.e. They may only appear random due to our subjective perspective.

My definition of a 'random occurence' would be an event that occurs, not as a result of the preceeding set of circumstances, but spontaneously for no reason whatsoever.

If nothing is truly random then, does this mean that everything is pre-determined and therefore no such thing as 'free will'?

- If something get's determined, then it's not random anymore, therefore nothing IS random. Completely ignoring time! Lovely thought! On the other hand everything is random as long as we know nothing. You can't distinguish between TRULY AND NOT TRULY RANDOM!

second, FREE WILL makes no sense either, it's another illusion! On the other hand for a subjective reality, you have FULL CONTROL, you can do anything!

Quote:

---

If something get's determined, then it's not random anymore, therefore nothing IS random.

---

The above is a logically flawed statement as it assumes that everything can be determined.

Most quantum physicists would say that there are things that are un-determinable (and therefore random): Properties of sub-atomic particles.

Firstly, you cannot know two complementary properties of a sub-atomic particle (like position and velocity) at the same time.

Secondly, determining a property of a sub-atomic particle alters the course of it's subsequant behaviour. Hence, the un-disturbed state of the particle is in-determinable and therefore random.

I was always picking two sides at the same time :p An objective reality and a subjective, noticed?

Fire fits vaguely into am few of my afformentioned Life criteria that nobody seems to disagree with!

Numbers 2, 4 and 6!

2) = Takes energy like wind etc. to facilitate in it's growth!
4) = When waters sprayed on a Fire it responds in a physiological way.

6) = It grows!

Kedaman It seemed to me that you were stating randomness to be an illusion that is apparent only when there is an unknown factor. Determining this 'unknown' factor will make the randomness 'disapear'. i.e. randomness (or apparent randomness) is a symtom of ignorance or subjective reality rather than something that exists in the absolute sense.

The 'unknown' factor in quantum mechanics is not knowable. Not because we don't have the intelligence or technology to know it but because it is fundamentally unknowable. Therefore random in an objective reality (not just the subjective reality that we live in).

Beacon I think you will find that fire conforms with all the definitions of life (not just 2, 4 and 6). For example it also excreets (the waste product is smoke and ash).

Quantum mechanics is fundamentally incompatible with my vision of reality. Basically because it clearly states that there is no objective reality. That implies nothing is knowable! I have to take into account both Objective and Subjective Reality, and they both contradicts each other, no science can co-operate with that :D

It might not be totally incompatable.

Quantum Mechanics asserts that the state of a sub-atomic particle is not defined until it is 'measured'. Until that time, all possible states coexist in parellel (or at least they are equally probable).

Your vision of reality holds that there are many planes of reality that coexist (one of them being objective and the rest being subjective).

What I am suggesting is this: Perhaps none of the parellel planes are 'objective' or 'subjective' to begin with. One of them becomes objective when the others become 'Subjective'.

Therefore, 'Objective' reality is undefined until he 'Subjective' realities have been defined. 'Objective' reality is defined by the many 'subjective' realities around it. :confused:

My vision is a one line, obviously one way reality link, or a set of links where each is on a plane above the other:
Objective Reality -> Subjective Reality
for a link between two realities, and for several realities:
Root Reality -> Reality1 -> Reality2 -> Reality3.
Where each parent reality is objective the the descending subjective.
Quantum Mechanics works at a subatomic level but doesn't explain, it process no but imaginary information, It doesn't co-operate with the fact that "I think - therefore i exist". You can't be more less confused with any scientific view however my philosophy explains.

Quote:

---

Quantum Mechanics works at a subatomic level but doesn't explain, it process no but imaginary information, It doesn't co-operate with the fact that "I think - therefore i exist". You can't be more less confused with any scientific view however my philosophy explains.

---

I am rivited (I am honest!) but I just can't quite make sense of this last statement (grammatically speaking).

I appreciate that it must be difficult for you to express yourself (especially with such difficult concepts) due to English not being your first language but could you please attempt to rephrase it?

:confused:

if you meant the last line, then i was obviosly editing what i said and forgot to look trough it, well i'll totally rephrase it now.
No science does explain reality, while my philosophy does.

Science doesn't explain the nature of reality but can have implications that effect they way we see reality.

If you say that Quantum mechanics is totally incompatable with your "view" of reality, then do you not believe in quantum mechanics?

Quantum mechanics does (seem) to suggest that (if only on a subatomic level) that there is such a thing as randomness in an objective reality. If you do not accept this then surely you must be rejecting the whole notion of quantum mechanics?

I do not believe at all. Quantum mechanics has always been totally inacceptable to me, but as a model, as all scientific models they are as you say useful. I don't think randomness is derived from any objective reality, and consists only due to the one way link to a subjective reality. I can reject the whole subjective reality complex, if i want but then i'm constructing a new paradox, that I would be totally all-knowing, that i would be a God, and as I can see, that is not the case, we live in a dreamworld.

Let me summarise what I think you believe:

1) Objective reality exists on a distinct plane of existance and nothing that happens within it is random and therefore the course of events is predetermined.

2) Each of us exist on a 'subjective' plane of existance that arises from ignorance of how things truly are. The more ignorant we are, the more random our world is. By becomming more disassociated from the 'objective' plane we introduce randomness and free-will but these are essentially illusions.

Am I on the right tracks?

1 Is correct, Very obviously there is no need for a random factor, doesn't make sense either.

2 is almost correct.
I am only saying my own existence to have a root in a objective plane, so i can consider myself totally alone in my dream, but there is no implication. What is incorrect is that we the degree of ignorance. We know exactly nothing in our subjective reality, everything is random and the models for observation is there only to create illusions. The models for observations are our perspective of a subjective reality that doesn't co-exist with us. By leveling up you realize, and escape, "wake up" from the reality, by leveling down you "fall asleep" and construct a dream environment. Free will is illusionary at any reality plane, but is functional when you level up or down, you either create a new environment or become totally omniscent/omnipotent.