Originally Posted By: Orac
You do like to avoid answering anything don't you TT is there some fear you have?

I always answer every question. Some just don't like waiting for it or get frustrated with the answer I give to derive more information regarding the question. wink

Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
1.) So if reality is a story what does it mean to be alive?

To me I take a very different definition to what many in biological sciences would take that is the ability to excercise choice or free will so I exclude many simple thing that biology would consider alive. Someone like Bill G would see this as heresy because that isn't what standard science says. My response is we know classical physics is wrong so why do we cling to these classical science notions of what life is, no science is damaged by simply refining.

When we look at say NASA and how it tries to define life

We get a messy definition where you are trying to split hairs over crystals, virus, proteins, RNA etc.

To me none of that is important the question to me is can the item to be classified make a choice which it self controls.

I think control is something the ego loves to attach itself to. One can make choices within the context of awareness and comprehensive understanding of ones relationship with the reality in which one exists. Within the constructs of relative boundaries there are possible outcomes and probable outcomes.
Life to me is the activity generated by consciousness. From the dream world to the relative, all activity is projection of mind (not speaking of the physical brain).
Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
2.) Who defines the state of being alive GOD or a process?

Defined as I do above the process of choice defines alive and the question of GOD existing or not is mute.
Don't you mean moot? God as a subjective reality is simply included within the process of choice. To give the activity of choice and how it exists or how it is created is inclusive of a force that has such a name as "God" attached. Philosophically it is much more than an idea held within the relative boundaries of the ego as it creates a definition within the boundaries of personal belief, the choices derived from belief and the boundaries projected upon such a name as they are assimilated thru the limited ideas of personal identity.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
3.) Is the reality defined for you or does GOD or something/someone make the reality?

Making choices defines reality which is in exact alignment with what QM as a science says and belief in GOD is one of those choices.

Yet it seems the idea of God and personal choice as science explains it, are separate and mutually exclusive. Mostly the argument is rallied around the superstition that is religion, which has no hard evidence but is simply evident as "belief", which science doesn't take very seriously.
Ironically spiritual science doesn't give belief much weight either, since it isn't stable (being that it is easily influenced by fear and other emotions) and constantly evolves or changes.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
4.) What is the purpose of the reality and it's cosplay.

Probably the most difficult question but I pretty much reject all the standard religion answers like good vs evil as trash. I can't see the logic of how torturing people thru some sort of trial somehow selects the good ones and it doesn't fit with a god who knows all and is merciful. I think the Romans tried all that stuff in there colosseum and we view them as barbaric.

So if I exclude GOD as a choice I must look to the more mundane science answers. The most likely driver will be the usual suspect "Energy" and it's partner in crime will be QM. The difficult part taking this approach is ultimately deciding if we simply have an initiated start point and then choice and chance takes over or does the drive persist. To me it is entirely possible and likely it is a mixture of the two. Again it's not a very standard biological science version but nor is it in direct conflict with the standard ideas.

Purpose is relative. The simple mechanics of energy is that if it is a source or has a source, whatever manufactures it or whatever it is, it has an effect upon whatever it touches. So one may ask why does an apple fall to the ground when detached from the tree, then someone like Newton can come up with an idea regarding gravity.
Within the relative there are natural laws. Outside relative laws there are other laws of nature to govern the mechanics of other types of realities.
Why is simply a question. Answers are derived from the approach, and what kind of baggage the mind making the inquiry carries to create or derive reason.

In the approach spiritual sciences takes, one simply empties the baggage to allow communion at a different level than the physical approach using only the eyes which sometimes are inefficient, or the sense of smell, which is often linked to subconscious memory and stress, or any of the other senses which can be unreliable due to conditioning.
Then the process is one of expansion upon first impression, to spend enough time with whatever subjective point of interest is focused upon to gather information to stabilize the probable understanding. Being that the philosophical approach can extend itself thru lifetimes, there is no one idea that is pasted upon any object of study, being that (like the infinite possible fractions of understanding between 0 and 1) any approach in any moment can carry a different outcome. There is no such thing as a single moment in time or one single approach to anything that is the same approach. There is a saying: "you can never step into a river at the same place at any time", being that the river is constantly moving and changing.

Originally Posted By: Orac

Given your thought processes I will give you a bonus question which you may be able to work thru.

Bonus Question: Identify reasons a relational operator might not work with specific number choices.
Start point hint: Mathematical operators +,-,*,/ result in different sorts of answers than relational operators. Extend the thought to input and outputs.

I think I might have already explained that in the description of the river.
If one expects that their start and stop points are exactly the same, there is no room to see any variance or to expand upon a single idea. You would be locked within the confines of belief, which is actually the idea around the analogy of the "Heavy Stone". Consciousness is infinite in potential, yet the ego would define itself within the parameters of its personal reality and the senses as they have been conditioned or trained to operate.
Science as you defined it being a blunt instrument is fixed within the boundaries of what can be studied and measured by instruments derived from a particular understanding of reality and the relationship of mind to the beliefs of that reality. Like putting blinders on a horse it can only see where it is pointed or designed to be pointed. It (science) will ignore what it cannot see, or that which does not fit within the field of vision.

When discussing relationship (as in the relational operator) any individual having a personal relationship that can't be squeezed into the boundaries of specific choices and probable outcomes (especially those not experienced or understood) will not be able to function as expected. Such a person would be a wild card when producing expected outcomes.

That would be one way I would answer the question by my way of understanding of it. Give me a day or so and I might give you a completely different answer. blush
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!