|
-0+
Feb 22, 2014 12:32:47 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 22, 2014 12:32:47 GMT
One of the key insights of the systems approach has been the realization that the network is a pattern that is common to all life. Wherever we see life, we see networks
Fritjof Capra By this understanding, if we see a network, it contains life. Wouldn't a solar system or galaxy be a network? Even a lifeless barren planet will have a network or symphony of particle and energy interactions. We are saying basically that a soul could exist within any conglomeration of atoms. Gaia would be where it can physically manifest into individual life. If you pay for the ticket... You take the ride.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 22, 2014 21:34:30 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 22, 2014 21:34:30 GMT
One of the key insights of the systems approach has been the realization that the network is a pattern that is common to all life. Wherever we see life, we see networks
Fritjof Capra By this understanding, if we see a network, it contains life. No. That is like saying all dogs are mammals, therefore all mammals are dogs. Contrast the related quote: Wherever we find life we find it associated with an albuminous body, and wherever we find an albuminous body not in process of dissolution, there also without exception we find phenomena of life
Frederick Engels Note how, unlike Engels' observation, Capra's did not go both ways (some networks are formed by purely mechanical means).
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 23, 2014 1:50:36 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 23, 2014 1:50:36 GMT
By this understanding, if we see a network, it contains life. No. That is like saying all dogs are mammals, therefore all mammals are dogs. Contrast the related quote: Wherever we find life we find it associated with an albuminous body, and wherever we find an albuminous body not in process of dissolution, there also without exception we find phenomena of life
Frederick Engels Note how, unlike Engels' observation, Capra's did not go both ways (some networks are formed by purely mechanical means). Would not space be mechanical? Earth is but a by-product of that mechanism. The fact life formed happened to be the long shot and coincidental, as far as the whole scope of things planetary. It would be the proverbial above, to the life below (hence my reference earlier).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 23, 2014 7:22:46 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 23, 2014 7:22:46 GMT
Would not space be mechanical? Possibly. Hence it does not follow that because one planet is alive, that they all are. Another possibility is that, if there ever was a unifying spirit to all that is, it may be that, as Nietzsche famously declared, "God is Dead." Like our hair and nails continue to grow for a while upon our death, it may be that we only live on for now. BTW, "As above, so below" is a dogmatic statement which depends on faith, not reason.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 23, 2014 17:42:57 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 23, 2014 17:42:57 GMT
Would not space be mechanical? BTW, "As above, so below" is a dogmatic statement which depends on faith, not reason. I use both
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 23, 2014 18:16:10 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 23, 2014 18:16:10 GMT
I probably should apologize to Hermes for evolving his phrase though HAHA. Sorry Hermy ol pal, but its what works best!
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 23, 2014 19:41:28 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 23, 2014 19:41:28 GMT
Lets say for a second, that the Japanese mathematicians are correct in that everything that exists is a 3d projection of a 2d surface. Like the hologram on a credit card. If this is a projection of that surface, we are unable to say for sure where and in what way we can exist. Other then the natural laws giving our limitations, we cannot say where it will go from there.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 23, 2014 21:43:18 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 23, 2014 21:43:18 GMT
Lets say for a second, that the Japanese mathematicians are correct in that everything that exists is a 3d projection of a 2d surface. Like the hologram on a credit card. If this is a projection of that surface, we are unable to say for sure where and in what way we can exist. Other then the natural laws giving our limitations, we cannot say where it will go from there. So you are saying any assertion may be correct, even if it is contrary to reason and even if it only "works" for you better than a contrary assertion (which you ought also to allow). That may be true but only to the extent that Russell's teapot may exist.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 23, 2014 23:48:36 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 23, 2014 23:48:36 GMT
Lets say for a second, that the Japanese mathematicians are correct in that everything that exists is a 3d projection of a 2d surface. Like the hologram on a credit card. If this is a projection of that surface, we are unable to say for sure where and in what way we can exist. Other then the natural laws giving our limitations, we cannot say where it will go from there. So you are saying any assertion may be correct, even if it is contrary to reason and even if it only "works" for you better than a contrary assertion (which you ought also to allow). That may be true but only to the extent that Russell's teapot may exist. How is it contrary to reason that a soul acting as an energy could "live" through any object able to transfer such energy? Im not filling my own personal agenda, but that of a long history of religious experiences on Earth. You would be saying, that heaven could ONLY exist in Gaia, when in fact it may not.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 23, 2014 23:51:18 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 23, 2014 23:51:18 GMT
Id like to note: all I defend here is the possibility that a spirit could exist theoretically anywhere.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 0:52:26 GMT
Post by peter2 on Feb 24, 2014 0:52:26 GMT
>How is it contrary to reason that a soul acting as an energy could "live" through any object able to transfer such energy?
Materialistic science, assuming that reality is limited to matter, deduces that it is irrational to consider that intelligence could be separate from material objects.
It might seem a circular argument but it is supported by some.
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 3:09:46 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 24, 2014 3:09:46 GMT
>How is it contrary to reason that a soul acting as an energy could "live" through any object able to transfer such energy? Materialistic science, assuming that reality is limited to matter, deduces that it is irrational to consider that intelligence could be separate from material objects. It might seem a circular argument but it is supported by some. Hence the debate HAHA. I don't think one will discover the other, but both will be needed to find the truth. I think this belief is what will be needed, as faith can only carry you so far. If you have true belief, you will have the motivation needed to see your next step.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 7:47:22 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2014 7:47:22 GMT
So you are saying any assertion may be correct, even if it is contrary to reason and even if it only "works" for you better than a contrary assertion (which you ought also to allow). That may be true but only to the extent that Russell's teapot may exist. How is it contrary to reason that a soul acting as an energy could "live" through any object able to transfer such energy? Im not filling my own personal agenda, but that of a long history of religious experiences on Earth. You would be saying, that heaven could ONLY exist in Gaia, when in fact it may not. Please read your post to which I was responding — Then re-read my reply: You had argued that something was possible. I pointed out that merely allowing that something may be possible is worthless as one would also need to agree that a contrary assertion was also possible. I did not say anything specific was contrary to reason — Nor was I arguing against the possibility of SOME other planets being "alive" in the sense of Gaia (I had previously argued against the assertion that ALL planets necessarily had a unifying spirit, as some seemed to be in a state of passive decay, indicating a lack of self-sustenance indicative of life). As for your specific thesis, I would want some consistent definition of the terms used and valid evidence of the phenomena proposed, beyond assertions from a checkered history of wishful thinking and superstition ( Nullius in verba).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 8:10:02 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2014 8:10:02 GMT
|
|
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 13:33:34 GMT
Post by sammy on Feb 24, 2014 13:33:34 GMT
A interesting video, but again im not talking about life on planets other than the spiritual one.
I have used the history of paranormal and parapsychology events to say a spirit has been known to inhabit items. I used my brain, to figure out the limit to which that might reach. They thought Galileo was crazy, but he was right. The problem is it cant be seen same as God, and so the eternal debate ensues.
Everyone is a skeptic until it happens to you.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 15:48:18 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2014 15:48:18 GMT
A interesting video, but again im not talking about life on planets other than the spiritual one. As for your specific thesis, I would want some consistent definition of the terms used and valid evidence of the phenomena proposed, beyond assertions from a checkered history of wishful thinking and superstition ( Nullius in verba).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 15:51:51 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2014 15:51:51 GMT
I have used the history of paranormal and parapsychology events to say a spirit has been known to inhabit items.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 16:01:08 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2014 16:01:08 GMT
I used my brain, to figure out the limit to which that might reach. Which part of your brain? Did you allow for bias and wishful thinking? Did you conduct anything other than thought experiments (aka, "An experiment that does not exist at all").
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 16:03:46 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2014 16:03:46 GMT
They thought Galileo was crazy, but he was right. The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown
Carl Sagan
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
-0+
Feb 24, 2014 16:13:25 GMT
Post by Tamrin on Feb 24, 2014 16:13:25 GMT
The problem is it cant be seen same as God, and so the eternal debate ensues. Hitchens' razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens'_razor), debate over.
|
|