Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#12675 08/31/05 08:24 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Do we really understand what does the term Life stands for? and if not then do we understand what is meant something by without Life?

.
#12676 08/31/05 08:55 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
1. Compare a tadpole to a piece of granite.
2. Compare a live tadpole to a dead tadpole.

In that exercise lie the answers you seek.

#12677 08/31/05 09:16 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
:-))
Let me try.
1. Compare a tadpole to a piece of granite.
A tadpole is a child of an Amphibian computing machine and granite computes what I dont know.
====================================
2. Compare a live tadpole to a dead tadpole.
REP:Live Tadpole knows a Universe.Dead Tadpole denies any Universe.
===============================
In that exercise lie the answers you seek.

#12678 08/31/05 11:50 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 50
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 50
Biologists - those who study Life and know it best - do not agree on a definition of Life. There are a few characteristics upon which people generally agree:
Homeostasis
Response to environment
Reproduction
Energy utilization
Growth and Development
Some biologists also include in their definition such features as Cells and Metabolism.

That being said, there are plenty of examples of things that are very difficult to define as being alive or not. Viruses and Prions are clear examples; they are non-cellular and they have no metabolism and it's questionable whether they grow and develop, yet it also makes some sense to consider them alive because of their stunning abilities to reproduce and respond to their environments. Epidemiologically, it absolutely makes sense to treat viruses as living entities that can be "killed". Some biologists choose to think of viruses as being alive, others don't.
Or take the example of a chicken egg. Let's say it was laid by a hen that has a rooster around, and that she is feeling broody and she's setting on it. Is it alive? Yes, it's probably easy to say that it's alive, as it will likely develop into a chick. But what if there's no rooster around? An unfertilized egg is a single cell that has a metabolism. If the hen is feeling broody, she will continue to set on it and keep it warm. But is it alive? Or what if the hen is not feeling broody and she simply lays the egg and leaves it in the box. I think it's pretty difficult to call it alive then - but it certainly was once a living cell in the hen's body. When did it cross the line into non-living status? Can it be called "dead"? Despite the apparent silliness of a chicken egg, I think it's actually pretty difficult to come up with a clear answer. In the end, we have to say "it depends". It depends both upon the circumstances and upon how we choose to define Life.
Life turns out to be too varied and complex a phenomenon to admit a simple definition.
Biology is like that - full of subtle distinctions and maddening exceptions and messy circumstances.

#12679 08/31/05 01:28 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I had only considered two of that list to be absolutely essential, Metabolism (energy utilization) and Reproduction, but I see the point on the others. I also see how even these two may not be absolutely essential.

Could it be we just don't know enough yet to give a clear definition? Or is it more that the situation is so inherently fuzzy that such a definition will always elude us.

I would have thought the first was the case. OTOH, sort of continuum would seem to be a 'natural' side-effect of evolution.

#12680 08/31/05 02:54 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Finchbeak: By your definition viruses and prions are not alive. Yet they can be killed.

There have been attempts at defining life and death. But none wholly satisfactory. Religions solve the problem be not even trying.


DA Morgan
#12681 08/31/05 03:43 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Life is an ordered system - in vivo, in vitro, or in silico - that contains information and structure for its function, replication, and evolution in response to its environment. That's all you need.

If it can feel sad, it is intelligent life.

Viruses are packaged information that harnesses more complex systems - a disease of management. That is as primitive as life can be and it still requires better stuff to function. Prions are a thermodynamic disease. They are no more alive than crystallizing salt.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#12682 09/01/05 01:45 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 92
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 92
I'd suggest it's a subjective call. There are definitions that suit situations but no absolute definiton. We could view everything in the universe as evolving, changing... we don't say adapting because it suggests a thinking change, but everything is changing none the less, thinking or non thinking. We draw a loose line where we want (between what's alive and not) for practicality that's all. It's when we draw absolute or definite lines that we end up struggling with the issue. "From a distance there's such harmony" as the song goes, so the recipe is don't look too close or if you have to, know how to step back.
"The mind has chasms, cliffs of fall, sheer steep no man fathomed" from a poem by a priest 100 or more years ago. "they hold them cheap nay who hung there".

#12683 09/01/05 04:22 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
It was a very honest discussion.
Wonderful Biology is contained within its definition of Life.
It is obvious that Life is beyond today's Biology and tomorrow the Biology may itself become a subset of a different Unified field.
But as we are discussing Science we know that there is something which defines Life.
May be it is just a thought.Response is just a successful execution of thought.
Who thinks and who doesnt is a different question.
And whether thought needs Physics is again a very good question to ask.
We do not need God as defined by the fanatics.
Cheers.

#12684 09/02/05 09:38 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I am sure no one has run out of ideas.
At least I have not.
Life is a Thought can be a serious proposition.
1.Thought is the field of action germination.(Which is responsible for the perceived Action or response)
2.Thought has a distribution channel(it is not chaotic.It grows and feeds itself.It moves through the channels of laws learnt by comeing into existence.)
3.Thought reproduces itself.

All the above criterias are sufficient to be consitent with observed constituion of Life therefore THOUGHT is LIFE.
I hope you will take it seriously.(I want to convince myself)


Cheers

#12685 09/02/05 12:52 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk ... I'm not sure how deep your thinking is about thought ... as I can't think of any empirical evidence that supports any of your statements.

Probably the only statement I can think of, about thinking, that would be widely accepted would be that self-awareness is a recursive process.


DA Morgan
#12686 09/03/05 06:45 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
dvk ... I'm not sure how deep your thinking is about thought ... as I can't think of any empirical evidence that supports any of your statements.
REP: These are logical conclusions and as I said the discussion may not belong to the known Physics.Imagine a No-Thought world.We will all be left with reflexes only.There will nothing to be observed or can be observed(Physics is all about observation or at least some concept.. concept is also a thought).The known reflexes can account for the existence of Universe without the thought and can also predict the evolution of Physical Laws..What is a Law today was once not a law at all.It was learnt over a period of time. This supports the followers of Science as it makes the Universe ordinary. There were no laws and all laws came into existence only after Universe went through the various cirumstances in its evolution.There was always a learning thought(concious) and a known Law(reflexive without any awareness).
I think Physics should also discover this fact as they move back in time or go deep into the matter where things actually take birth.
===========================================
Self Awareness - is a recursive process??
What do you understand by Self Awareness?

#12687 09/03/05 06:54 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
If thought is life, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what part of a bacterium is doing its thinking? Does a snail, with very few neurons to rub together, think about life as it munches along? Thinking implies problem-solving abilities, a product of higher order brains. Anyone whose horse has figured out how to open the pasture gate by itself would not doubt that horses think. I doubt that you could teach an E.coli to run a maze in search of food or to avoid antibiotics. Leave off with thinking as a criterion for life, or you will be amazed at what you see, or miss.

#12688 09/03/05 07:17 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
If thought is life, perhaps you could enlighten me as to what part of a bacterium is doing its thinking?
REP: Only the Bacterium Knows.remember photon.
======================
Does a snail, with very few neurons to rub together, think about life as it munches along?
REP:They think about the reality as understood by them( which is different... remember the discussion on awareness evolution..)
===============================
Thinking implies problem-solving abilities, a product of higher order brains.
REP: Probelm solving is related to the understood reality... what they know and what we know is different.Relatively I can say that we have complex reality and therefore complex problems to solve.Dont be surprised if a Monkey hardly cares for the Newtons Law.
==========================
Anyone whose horse has figured out how to open the pasture gate by itself would not doubt that horses think. I doubt that you could teach an E.coli to run a maze in search of food or to avoid antibiotics.
REP: Why will I present my kind of problems to them ... they dont deal with it.
Just as you can deal with the problems of Life inside a Volcano.
=================================
Leave off with thinking as a criterion for life, or you will be amazed at what you see, or miss.
REP: Without thought there is no life.And again what thinks what is a different question.
Who thinks who doesnt is also open to dicussion.

#12689 09/03/05 08:15 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Without life, without higher forms of life, there is no thought. The world of a snail consists of the leaf it is eating and the problem of how to get to the next leaf. If that is your criteria of thinking, you should consider why that idea is considered to be rather out of line with other scientists. When one's ideas slide past the limits of normal we tend to be regarded as strange or schizophrenic, depending on how far and fast we slide. I'd guess you're proobably in line with your cultural norms, seeing as how you speak of bringing the rain god home and such things as that. Science does no homage to gods, no matter how many there are believed to be. Science studies physical phenomena and predicts rain based on scientific principles. All your prayers and entreaties cannot change what will happen, nor change what has happened. The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. Have the wit to read what it says and act accordingly.

#12690 09/03/05 08:42 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Without life, without higher forms of life, there is no thought.
REP: It is a pure assumption.You are sure of it because we can communicate among ourselves and we have reached a common understanding over the idea of thought, we fail to understand the Animals.What I am saying is Animals think like Animals.They may think less but they do.They think before getting into the unknown territory.How deep is the water requires thinking...And why do you expect Nature to give this adavntage only to one species.
Thought has depth and it is related to the understood reality.
Do not confuse its relative distribution to its non existence in some cases.
How deep is our thought when compared to an amoeba which has a totally different world to work in ?
I do not expect biased answers.They have there own set of problems to solve.
======================================
The world of a snail consists of the leaf it is eating and the problem of how to get to the next leaf.
REP: The problem is oversimplified.They have hell lot of decisions to take(when compared to normal digital decision making machine)
=====================================
If that is your criteria of thinking, you should consider why that idea is considered to be rather out of line with other scientists.
REP: What is Science and who is this Sceintist?
=======================================
When one's ideas slide past the limits of normal we tend to be regarded as strange or schizophrenic, depending on how far and fast we slide.
REP: Psycology is known to me.There is a trade off internally... Sometimes it takes little bit of Madness to be genius.
================================
I'd guess you're proobably in line with your cultural norms, seeing as how you speak of bringing the rain god home and such things as that. Science does no homage to gods, no matter how many there are believed to be.
REP: No God I ever discussed here intentionally.In past it was used to discuss the unpredictability of rain and its serious implications for the Indian Economy.
========================================
Science studies physical phenomena and predicts rain based on scientific principles.
REP: Science studies Physical Phenomenoa.??Thats not true.Maths is also a Science.
=========================
All your prayers and entreaties cannot change
what will happen, nor change what has happened.
REP:You sound religious.There are people in my country who will use it say that this is the reason why God and only God exists .We work for him.Dont hesitate to confess.
============================
The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves
on. Have the wit to read what it says and act accordingly.
REP: Things can be overwritten.If not it will be forcibly over written. This is how nature works.
Nothing today can carry on forever.This is called Death.Death of my Thought is the death of my Universe and its events.

#12691 09/04/05 04:06 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
You said:
"Nothing today can carry on forever.This is called Death.Death of my Thought is the death of my Universe and its events."

What an egocentric idea. In my universe, the universe is eternal. When I die, a single point of light goes out; the rest of the universe will go on without me just as it had before my existence. My universe runs on physical laws, not the whimsy of some insignificant litle puny human being. Now that I see where you are coming from, I take exception to your beliefs. They are not Science. They belong somewhere else.

#12692 09/04/05 07:16 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk:

You have an ego at least a light-year across. How do you fit it into something as small as a SAGG post? Truly a miracle.

You are irrelevant to the entire universe with the sole exception of those pathetic souls such as us with whom you interact. No one gave a damn about you 100 years ago and no one will give a damn about you 100 years from now.

Every element of your being, with the exception of hydrogen was forged in a star. And in the forseeable future you will again become part of a star. This insignificant period of time during which your quarks and electrons are part of a sentient being is less significant than an inclusion is to a diamond.


DA Morgan
#12693 09/05/05 05:09 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
You said:
"Nothing today can carry on forever.This is called Death.Death of my Thought is the death of my Universe and its events."
What an egocentric idea. In my universe, the universe is eternal. When I die, a single point of light goes out; the rest of the universe will go on without me just as it had before my existence.
REP: For physical purposes your Universe dies when you die.The Universe exists beyond our reach.. and what is beyond our reach is just beyond our reach.. it has no physical meaning.
We know that Universe exists in different shape than we know it today. What we know is limited by the speed of light.Here again the actual defintion of my Universe is limited by a Physical Law. What could be possible is inifinte.. and what is happening is the reality for all practical or physical purposes.
Do not confuse what can happen with what is happening. Universe carries on after your death but it doenst help or change your reality in anyway.
==================================
My universe runs on physical laws, not the whimsy of some insignificant litle puny human being.
REP: My Universe runs of Thoughts.Thoughts are my tentacles to grab the reality of Universe.
Reality is not what appears to be ... Reality is what is known and understood to be.
=======================================
Now that I see where you are coming from, I take exception to your beliefs. They are not Science. They belong somewhere else.
REP:I have already said that you may not like to put this concept into your defintion of Mathematized Sceince.If Sceince wants to grab the reality probably it will have to change its defintion... It must learn when to keep quite...
It must know when the Knowledge and the Knower become ONE.

#12694 09/07/05 07:57 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Life, a question?

I find myself being strange when considering your various questions. My view:

Life is motion and no motion equates to death.
The Universe we know is constant motion- living.
The Solar System and all known parts in motion.
Humanity and all lesser organic forms in motion.
Plants with growth paterns in motion.

By my simplistic view life is action.
Inaction is the opposite of life called death.

The prospect that thought equates in some way to life is objectionable to me because it wants to exclude non-reasoned life which we know to be a viable part of our existence. Possibly we over rate our alleged thought processes. There is nothing that we have discovered that was not already functionimg in nature. We have learned to copy nature from acids to plumbing, and more recently to sensors timing.

Question: Why does the Earth with an equatorial diameter of about 7,926.6 miles when devided into a sun of about 2,714,342.4 miles result in 342.43 with a square root of 18.5 when 18,5 miles per second is the mean orbital velocity of the Earth around the sun?

Was this a part of the Solar System design by intellegence or was it a design of numering to provide that strange result?

I would say "That's life"

#12695 09/08/05 05:39 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
jjw04 wrote:
"Life is motion and no motion equates to death."

And no object in the entire universe is without motion so therefore death is impossible. I like it.

Now please tell us you are less than 15 years old.


DA Morgan
#12696 09/08/05 08:51 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Per Morgan: "And no object in the entire universe is without motion so therefore death is impossible. I like it"

Possibly you refer to the corpse in the ground in motion as the Earth rotates. I am impressed that you could make that conclusion from my humble comments. It is of no concern to me but there are millions, possibly billions, of people that beleive life continues after "death". You may be one of those and it's fine with me.
Jim Wood

#12697 09/09/05 12:36 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Hardly. I have no use for people so insecure in their existance they have to fabricate previous lives and future lives ... in any form.

My point was your definition is suitable for a small child ... little else.


DA Morgan
#12698 09/10/05 03:48 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
As Charlie Brown would say GOOD GRIEF
Yea in the scientific world you will get your brains beaten out should you try to suggest something new, but this thread was just to gather ideas. Some are better than others. Some will be dogmatic, and some will be interesting...

My question (I do program) is what would be required to consider a program alive? My favorite book on this question is James Hogan's the Two faces of Janus.


Sparky
#12699 09/10/05 05:52 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
What would be required for a program to be considered alive? Let me rephrase that question as a way of answering it.

What would a program have to be capable of doing such that if someone stopped it from playing you would be willing to convict someone of murder and sentence them to life in prison without the possibility of parole?

Perhaps too harsh a test. How about what would a program have to be capable of doing such that you would be willing to convict someone of a crime with a punishment equal to that of animal cruelty and give them the appropriate prison sentence.

In short ... we are not yet at a point where such a determination can be made. Neither those of us that bang code, nor any society, can look that far into the future.


DA Morgan
#12700 09/11/05 08:24 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"My question (I do program) is what would be required to consider a program alive? My favorite book on this question is James Hogan's the Two faces of Janus."

Look up the term "Turing Test." You can find this in an essay called "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" by Alan Turing (among my heros). You can find this on the web, but there is a book worth reading that contains this essay among other provacative ideas - entitled, "The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence."

A few other books you might find interesting,
sf:
"When Harley was One" (Gerald)
"Code of the Lifemaker" (also by hogan!)
"The Adolescence of P1" (Ryan)
"A Fire Upon the Deep" (Vinge)
"The Complete Bolo" (Laumer)

(if you like "the complete bolo," you might try Saberhagen's Beserker Saga ... not because it has anything to do with the subject - I consider it religious propaganda - but because it's a different view of "intelligent" robots ... also it predates ideas in star-trek)

Nonfiction ... sorta:
"Goedel, Escher, Bach" (Hofstadter)
"How the Mind Works" (Pinker)'
(And also the earlier work "The Society of Mind" by Marvin Minsky)

The sf stuff is pretty fun and gives a few ideas, but the other stuff is good too, if you can muddle through it. It's a bit hard to follow, but the book edited by Boden ("philosophy of AI") is well worth the effort and it presents completely opposite views on the subject.

#12701 09/12/05 02:38 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Falliable ... we got the question the first time. Repeating it doesn't change a thing. You need to separate fiction from fantasy.

The definition of "when is it alive" is one that must be applied by people. And it will be defined when it is a crime to kill one.

So far kill -9 is not a criminal act. At least not in most situations. ;-)


DA Morgan
#12702 09/12/05 03:09 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"The definition of "when is it alive" is one that must be applied by people. And it will be defined when it is a crime to kill one."


The legal definition doesn't necessarily equate to the ethical or scientific definition. I suspect the term "alive" is too ambiguous to yield a response to the question, but it's probably about as specific as is warranted given the hypothetical nature of the subject.

#12703 09/12/05 08:59 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The legal definition doesn't necessarily equate to the ethical or scientific definition.
REP:The defintion of life has evolved over a period of time.What yesterday was without life is today known to be alive.This iterative process of self correction does not make the topic hypothetical or redundant. The question still remains relevant and necessary because so much depends on it.The answer is known but it is subjective.
The desired objective reality is still debated.
However I am sure that there is an objective answer which can be accepted by all... The discreet calibaration of cause and effect produces false reality in some cases.From killing an Ant to a Human being there is a sudden crystallization of its implication.
How many ants can be killed before it becomes equivalent to a murder?
The nature of crime and its punishment as defined by Law is assumed to be consitent with the Laws of Nature.I am not criticizing the system which has performed so well but yes there is tremendous scope for improvement.
With so much of information around I think it should be possible to create the complete picture of commonly understood reality.
Running away from the debate will only encourage those who do not believe in Science.
==============================================

#12704 10/03/05 05:03 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Defending my Notion of Black Hole Communication:- Things communicate when common understanding is reached. This logic comes from Mathematics.Maths doesnt allow its own violation in objects created by its own rules.. There is always a way to commincate with any Natural body.Which means anything can be probed over a period of time.. Experiment and The Truth seekers are independent .... Experiment always gives the true picture and Truth Seekers use democracy or autocracy or logic(self) to reach a defintion or reality... And not everyone will agree that pigs fly... tomorrow the pigs may indeed fly after enough engineering (when dinos can fly why cant pigs?????)
Infinite possibilities are closely bounded by discovered laws.There are very few laws which actually change over a short period. The planck constant may also have evolved as an experssion of dimensional evolution.But once you enter a chosen Universe it becomes very diffuclt to vary it.Got it. Dont worry about infinite possibilities.Everything is not allowed to be realized beyond thought!!!
Thats religiously satisfying.

#12705 10/07/05 12:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
The particles that fuse together to make DNA are only doing this because they are following the rules of science. Snails, cells and Humans are all made of DNA. DNA is made of particles. A single particle and a single molecule of DNA is not seen to be conscious or living. yet a whole, structured group of them, i.e a human, is considered to be living. Then, shouldn't that imply that all the descisions that humans make and actions they perform are ultimately still these particles following rules?

P.S.
Amaranth Rose, I'm sorry. I tried to rate you as 4 but I accidentaly gave you the lowest rating. Can someone please tell me how to change ratings you have already given.

#12706 10/07/05 04:03 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
G
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
G
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally poste.d by dkv:
Do we really understand what does the term Life stands for?
Yes. Life is a magazine.
http://www.life.com/Life/

And remember. Term Life is less than Whole Life.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Term+Life+vs.+Whole+Life

#12707 10/08/05 02:28 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Rob:
To answer your question I will paraphrase the Rubhayat with apologies to Omar Khayyam:

The rating button clicks, and having clicked, moves on;
All our pleas and entreaties cannot call it back again,
Nor all our tears wash out a click of it.

Once you click, it's history. Sorry, can't help you there.

wink

"Amaranth"

#12708 10/11/05 04:38 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Why do we have the will to live?

Because during evolution, anyone who didn't- died.

#12709 10/12/05 02:39 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Rob asks:
"Why do we have the will to live?"

Those that didn't ... left no ancestors.


DA Morgan
#12710 10/12/05 11:24 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
yeah, that's what I meant

#12711 10/13/05 05:45 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
"Why do we have the will to live?"
Those that didn't ... left no ancestors.

REP: Interesting ... those who didnt left no ancestors... Morgan dont tell me that you are saying Electrons or Protons exist because they have Will to Live?Going by this I think everyone has a Will .. a Will to Live .. Rest left no ancestors..for us to verify ... There is something special about it.

#12712 10/14/05 12:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk asks:
"... dont tell me that you are saying Electrons or Protons exist because they have Will to Live?"

Lets try this in English. And very slowly. Using very small words.

Rob asked: "Why do WE have the will to live?"

I answered his question.

Where, precisely, in the word "we" did you find reason to interpret "we" as subatomic particles?

Inquiring minds want to know.


DA Morgan
#12713 10/14/05 12:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
I wasn't asking, I was answering and stating the question. (not that it really matters)

Yeah, dvk, where did you see the link between humans and subatomic particles, is this a notion from a theory? If so, please expand on it.

#12714 10/15/05 06:07 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Morgan ,
Your statement was logically extendable.
Read the Statement.
Whatever which exists wanted to Exist.Rest all are no more."MY-GOD" particles never wanted to exist in so many numbers.

#12715 10/15/05 05:08 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk: Have you considered counselling?


DA Morgan
#12716 10/17/05 04:43 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Once I had...
He said your are responding correctly.It is natural.

#12717 10/17/05 04:56 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
dkv: With all the opportunities this board affords for making corrections to posts before they go up, I should think you could at least make yourself understood in plain English. Your last statement:
"Once I had...
He said your are responding correctly.It is natural."
makes absolutely no sense at all. "Once I had..." has no preceding referent, and neither do "He" and "your" in the second statement. Who or what is "He" and whose "your" are you referencing?

As moderator I must suggest that you be clearer in your posts on Science-a-go-go or I will begin deleting them for the nonsense they are. Not only are you way off the topic of Science, you are descending into "nonsense" and I prefer you to curb your behavior. Keep Science-a-go-go for the discussion of Science; don't turn it into "Philosophy-a-go-go" or "Nonsense-a-go-go", please.

#12718 10/17/05 05:16 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Is it creating such a mess ? I never new that (oops knew)...I have already apologized for it many times.And when I speak thru heart I hardly care for for my audience ... thats very arrogant of me but thats how I am.
=====================================
As moderator I must suggest that you be clearer in your posts on Science-a-go-go or I will begin deleting them for the nonsense they are.
REP Go ahead and delete me(or my posts) I hardly care.. someone said I was entertaining the crowd... at least let me do that.
======================
Not only are you way off the topic of Science, you are descending into "nonsense" and I prefer you to curb your behavior.
REP What Non-Sense... ?Take my topics to any Knowledgeable person and I assure you that I will answer as many times as he wants(provided he asks) which be sensible to him. You see it all depends on the Gray Matter...or White Matter (just in case ... i look biased.)
=======================================
Keep Science-a-go-go for the discussion of Science; don't turn it into "Philosophy-a-go-go" or "Nonsense-a-go-go", please.
REP:Lets have a vote. Lets see what the crowd says.This is no hacking .. it is serious and to the point (with emotions occasionally for a good taste)

#12719 10/18/05 02:54 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dkv:

The point of communication is to communicate. That requires using a common language with clearly defined terms, grammar, verbiage, spelling, and lucid thoughts.

It is also pretty much what we expect from children over the age of 2.


DA Morgan
#12720 10/18/05 04:08 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Morgan ,
You always make the discussion spicy...
I love spicy food.
Carry on.

Occasionally I also expect you to ask something more sensible and useful.That will introduce us to your serious part as well.

#12721 11/25/05 07:29 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA Morgan
Member
Member # 5


dkv: Have you considered counselling?
--------------------
DA Morgan


dkv
Member
Reply:

Once I had...
He said your are responding correctly.It is natural.

My interpretation:

dky, "Once I had" tried counseling.
"He siad", the counselor, dkv, "your responding correctly. It is natural" -your response.

It is very possible that there is no interest in understanding what some members are saying. It may also provide a ready means for ridicule, but that does not mean it is gibberish.
jjw

#12722 11/29/05 06:47 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
very much true.
So what is Life ?
I hope you have got your answer by now.
And if you know this fact .. then how can you utilize this information to make your life a better one..?(if it is not already)

#12723 12/19/05 08:33 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Everything is inter-related. If everything in the universe contributes to life or the life cycle. And life moves forward in complexity, and if your brain is the most complicated piece of life in the Universe. And thought is the product of your brain. Than thought must be the meaning of life. Hense life is thought.


~Justine~
#12724 12/21/05 09:29 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Justine I must say you have made an interesting observation.
"life is a thought."
Somewhere while discussing I had expressed similar views.I had said "Thought appears to carry properties of Life"
Lets put it a proper framework.
All the techonological and scientific developments can be related to the desire of finding some answers which are just not relevant to Majority of the inhabitants !! (Which include Planets , Stars, Electrons etc.)
Assume that the Question "What is Universe?" or "What laws govern our actions?" is asked only by Humans.Rest all simply know what to do.They do not doubt their "knowledge".Infact they dont even care for the term Knowledge.
From the assumption it follows that we are the only objects capable to doubting the validity of our own actions.We posses the incredible power of bringing the extra Objects of Information into Existence by putting a doubt on AS-IS situation.Aeroplane , Buildings etc can not be found at place where some idiots like us do not exist.:-))
That was one part.
Now let us first handle death.
What is death ?
Death is the irrecoverable loss of Information State from the Universe.Once something dies it can not be recreated in its completeness.Suppose if we try to recover Einstein from his brain then proabably when he will become alive with some loss of knowledge.(How much is a good question)Probably he will have to relearn his own theory.And this his understandin could be different .. probably far superior than most of us.

Now let us ask what is Life?
Answer I have already given you.Try to construct the opposite of Death.

Now one should understand the reasons why DNA carries only limited information from the Evolutionary history.DNA does not carry the entire information from past.It looses some by reconfiguring itself by coming in contact with the Meduim which holds itself.


Thus we bring Something Extra.

#12725 12/21/05 03:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Particles are to Thought as Yin is to Yang as Science is to Philosophy.


~Justine~
#12726 12/21/05 04:28 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
If Death is irrevocalble loss of some information and Life is the opposite of Death then Life is the eternal gain of some information.
Life is "learning" contained and manipulated by particles and thought.


~Justine~
#12727 12/22/05 07:19 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Life is a treasure.Longer you hold greater are your returns.

#12728 01/16/06 04:45 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
So have you understood what is life?

#12729 01/16/06 06:19 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Justine:
If Death is irrevocalble loss of some information and Life is the opposite of Death then Life is the eternal gain of some information.
Actually, I would have thought that entropy dictates that life in general becomes increasingly inefficient as our finite (as opposed to eternal) lives progress.

#12730 01/16/06 09:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Rusty wrote:
"I would have thought that entropy dictates that life in general becomes increasingly inefficient"

Entropy does NO SUCH THING!

Where did you get this idea?

Entropy ALWAYS relates to the entire system ... not just some human defined subset of the system. Arguments to the contrary are promulgated by the nutiest of the theological fringe but have nothing to do with science.

Living systems by definition interact with systems external to themselves. Thus your belief system has no foundation and with it goes the conclusion you have drawn.


DA Morgan
#12731 01/17/06 12:53 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Rusty wrote:
"I would have thought that entropy dictates that life in general becomes increasingly inefficient"

Entropy does NO SUCH THING!

Entropy ALWAYS relates to the entire system ... not just some human defined subset of the system. Arguments to the contrary are promulgated by the nutiest of the theological fringe but have nothing to do with science.
And in the Origins forum, too!

In light of the forum that I posted in, DA, my comment was only ever intended to be tongue-in-cheek. But since you are determined to be "serious" about absolutely everything, I would have thought that humans, being a part of an entire system affected by entropy, not humans in isolation as you assumed, are not immune to entropy's effects.

#12732 01/17/06 04:37 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
You cowards you hadnt had the guts to discuss it with me logically so you deleted my m-theory.

Fine I take this **** from you.
But I rpomise you that my words shall be realized the day you try to do this to me.

And I am the originator of Life and Universe.
Life doenst exist independently.
It exists in a hierarchy and I am the owner.

Its not a threat but a consequence.

#12733 01/17/06 04:47 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Calm down, dkv, it's in the "not-quite-science" section.

What does the "M" in m-theory stand for again?

#12734 01/17/06 03:45 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Life is a continuum of awarness embodied by finite physical beings who contribute to learning and forgetting as a whole and are entirely interdependent upon each other for their individual feelings of suffering or happiness. Life is held together by particle points of unknown origin.

What do you guys think? Am I on the right track here as far as what we can observe life as?


~Justine~
#12735 01/17/06 11:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Rusty ... M stands for Membrane.

But take a careful look at what dvk wrote:

And I am the originator of Life and Universe.
Life doenst exist independently.
It exists in a hierarchy and I am the owner."

He appears to be psychotic. My referals to see a psychiatrist were not just to insult him. He truly seems to be in need of medical intervention.


DA Morgan
#12736 01/18/06 12:51 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Thanks, DA, but I have to apologise for being a tad disingenuous when I asked my rhetorical M question. The nature of dkv?s m-theory thread led me to believe that he may be referring to some other known meaning of M; such as mysterious or, less kindly, magic and missing.

Or maybe I'm just being a p-brane!

What say you (in the appropriate forum, of course), dkv?

Anyway, we digress... on with: ?Life ? A question??

#12737 01/19/06 03:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
DKV: Do you mean the reason we have reality is simply as a framework for us as individual souls to communicate and learn from each other?


~Justine~
#12738 01/19/06 06:46 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
If he does, he is just another idiot trying, but failing miserably to justify existence.

DID YOU HEAR THAT DKV?! I SAID; QUACK QUACK QUACK!

#12739 01/19/06 07:50 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
As you note above Rob and Blacknad ... Justine does not necessarily find coherent communications from dvk either.

He really does seem to genuinely need help. I hope he seeks it.


DA Morgan
#12740 01/19/06 09:10 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Life has been explained.It is existence of non-linearity.Had there been a fully communicable knowledge ,there would have been no need of you and me.

DKV,

Can your explain this? Line by line.

Blacknad.

#12741 01/19/06 09:15 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Justine asked -
'Life is a continuum of awarness embodied by finite physical beings who contribute to learning and forgetting as a whole and are entirely interdependent upon each other for their individual feelings of suffering or happiness. Life is held together by particle points of unknown origin.

What do you guys think? Am I on the right track here as far as what we can observe life as?'

REP: No.


Regards,

Blacknad.

#12742 01/20/06 06:36 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
"REP: No"

Very helpful. Thanks. You've really cleared things up for me.


~Justine~
#12743 01/26/06 11:01 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Basically the whole thing is wrong

#12744 01/26/06 07:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
Life is a continuum of awareness.

What I mean by that is that people, animals, everything that is aware, lives and then dies. Not all at the same time. So there is always something alive. There is a continuum of awareness. My grandmother was alive and I spent time with her. Now she's dead but I learned from her experiences because she taught me things. Someday I will die. Yet my siblings and child or children will live for a while yet. This is what observable life as a whole is; things living and dying. I don't mean something was always alive...I mean since life originated on earth it has continued to live in one shape or another.

During life we learn some things and forget some things. Process of evolution. Some things are remembered and continue to live other things die and are forgoton in extinction. Or another way to look at it is our history books. Some things were remembered, some things were distorted or forgotton. Cuture and Language go through processes of evolution in a sense.

We are interdependent upon each other for suffering and happiness. In life we have families and friends...depending on how we treat one another we suffer or are happy. We vote for our President. If our President decides to go to war we cause suffering to the Iraqi people and American families who loose their son's. We are interdependent upon each other.

Upon scrutiny into matter. When divided down to it's elementary parts they are quarks which are particle points. Everything tangible is made of these quarks so when I say they hold life. I mean everything that is alive or was alive was made essentially of particle points.

That's an expansion of what I originally said. If it's completely wrong please expand on what's wrong and give me another explaination of what observable reality is.


~Justine~
#12745 01/26/06 11:25 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Justine,

You are not doing anything other than stating the obvious. What significance is there in the following?

- "This is what observable life as a whole is; things living and dying." - not that this is actually a definitive statement of what observable life is.

- "I mean since life originated on earth it has continued to live in one shape or another."

- "Some things were remembered, some things were distorted or forgotton."

- "We are interdependent upon each other."

- "I mean everything that is alive or was alive was made essentially of particle points (quarks)."

I think you forgot leptons.

You can continue making statements like this but they don't seem to really tell us anything. You could say, 'we consume matter and some of it becomes a part of us and we pooh the rest out', or 'we have sex and sometimes babies are made'.

What are you trying to get at?

Blacknad.

#12746 01/26/06 11:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I am afraid most of what Justine is "saying" is coming from new-age books. I am trying to get her to close them and have an opinion of her own.

Justine wrote:
"Life is a continuum of awareness."

No it isn't Justine. This is another repackaging. Another misuse of the English language. There is no biologist that would accept this definition.

Life is not essential to the functioning of the universe. If this planet were a glowing cinder tomorrow ... the moon wouldn't move a millimeter from its present orbit. Again I challenge ... put down the new-age nonsense and use your own brain. What have you read from someone with an actual science degree from a real college or university? What research did you do in college? What periodicals or publications have you read with peer reviewed authors? What web sites with links containing content do you visit? Can you take those inputs and formulate an opinion of your own?


DA Morgan
#12747 01/27/06 12:10 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Don't want to sound like someone who argues and disagrees for the hell of it but "life is not essential to the functioning of the universe" has not been proven.

#12748 01/27/06 12:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
In fact, life is a product of the functioning of the universe. So if there were no life it would mean that something had gone seriously wrong with the laws of physics.

#12749 01/27/06 01:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Actually Rob it has been. We have solid evidence that the universe existed long before life. And solid evidence our solar system existed long before there was life. When there was nothing except hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium, there were, by definition, no lifeforms.

Again I can't agree Rob. While life may be a natural product of the universe. The destruction of all life would not be its end.

I too am a natural consequence of the laws of physics. But I think we can all safely agree that some day I won't be here and you'll be in one heck of a lot of trouble if the laws of physics cease to exist.


DA Morgan
#12750 01/27/06 04:50 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 191
I'm leaving...Sorry.

Not that there's anything wrong with you. You have your comfort zone in communicating and I have mine. Mine's different than yours. I hope we all find truth one day.

Just wanted to say goodbye.


~Justine~
#12751 01/27/06 06:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
"The destruction of all life would not be its end."

Without getting into my theory that atoms are living organisms, I will disprove you...

I agree that if all living things were to be destrooyed the universe would not end. You said the functioning of the universe so I assumed you were implying that it operated like a sytem. If the universe does have a function, and sentient animals in planets transfer data about the universe through electro-magnetic waves to complete some kind of function then I will argue that life is essential to the 'functioning' of the universe. But if you meant functioning as in just doing what it does for no real purpose, just planets spinning about etc the obviously the destruction of all life wouldn't interfere with that.

#12752 01/28/06 02:13 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Apparently we are in agreement with the exception that you've thrown out something Justinesque in your first sentence. Meaning you redefined a word to mean something new.

Atoms are not by any definition of life alive.

Don't corrupt the language ... either find the right word or create one.


DA Morgan
#12753 01/28/06 05:09 AM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
DA:
"Actually Rob it has been. We have solid evidence that the universe existed long before life. And solid evidence our solar system existed long before there was life. When there was nothing except hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium, there were, by definition, no lifeforms."

May we assume you mean "before there was life" on the earth. Our solar system was a relitaive new commer to this Galaxy. It couls have contained many life forms.
jjw

#12754 01/28/06 09:45 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
My words were very carefully chosen.

Note my reference to hydrogen, helium, and a trace of lithium. These are the only elements that were created by the big bang and the only elements that would have been available for the formation of the first generation of stars and planet-sized bodies.

No carbon ... no life.

The first possible lifeforms could not have formed until those first-generation stars supernovaed releasing carbon and metals into the interstellar media.

Thus life, by definition, requires a time in the universe prior to its formation during which no life existed. Proving life is unessential for a functioning universe.

The argument could alternatively be stated this way. Smallpox is a consequence of natural processes but the universe does not require smallpox for its existence. Feel free to substitute Dodo birds, extinct dinosaurs, or at the rate we are going, Homo homo sapiens.


DA Morgan
#12755 01/29/06 06:51 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
No carbon ... no life.
REP: Think Again. Carbon carries a form of Life to which we are able to relate to. ...
That's as close as you've come to being on topic. The rest is off the wall. Try harder.

Amaranth

#12756 01/29/06 08:27 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Ok...So you say carbon is the necessary ingredient in making Life.Otherwise it is not life.
But it is not the sufficient criteria..
So the question remains unanswered.
Moreover it appears that we are rejecting the idea of Non-Carbon Life for emotional reasons.
So that when we can bring a Robot alive and we could proudly declare that we created Life.
Look more closely we are trying to match our understood behaviour of Life.
Behaviour is our prime requirement and not the make up of skeleton.

So the question is what all things possibly carry Life like behavioural attributes...
Am I correct?

#12757 01/29/06 08:30 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Not rejecting non-carbon life. Not rejecting god or the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny either. Just stating that the fact is that there is not a shred of evidence that they exist. There is no known carbon based life and there is no known chemistry that would support the existence of non-carbon based lifeforms.

When a non-carbon based lifeform is identified then science will adjust just as science adjusted when neutron stars and blackholes were discovered.

And no you are NOT correct.


DA Morgan
#12758 01/30/06 05:53 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
And most every person in your situation could benefit from seeing a competent, licensed, medical professional.

Your statements are seemingly the product of an irrational mind. Seek help.


DA Morgan
#12759 01/31/06 09:37 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dkv:

Your irrational comments are not worth wasting forum space.

#12760 02/01/06 05:03 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Well option is yours.

#12761 02/01/06 06:29 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk:

Please seek professional help. This isn't just one person telling you this. It is multiple people in multiple threads.

Your commentary is irrational. Your thoughts that seemingly make sense to you do not to others.

There was a time when I thought you were just a wacko but I do truly and sincerely believe you don't undertand the situation. You really should at least explore the possibility that others are trying to help you and ask your family physician to recommend a competent psychotherapist: Preferably one with an MD.


DA Morgan
#12762 02/03/06 05:08 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Reread what you have written.

Reread that which multiple people have pointed out to you is irrational. Much, more accurately most of what you've written in the last 30-60 days makes no rational sense. It is just words strung together: Gramatically correct but without content ... without substance ... without a coherent thought.

Again it is not just me. A lot of other people have made the same comment. I had my next door neighbor, a psychiatrist, read what you've posted. He too thinks you need to seek professional help.

Please do so. But before you do, even if you do not understand why, print from your computer some of what you have posted here that is immediately followed by others saying it is irrational. I am sure you can be helped.


DA Morgan
#12763 02/03/06 05:21 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
"Rest understand the subtleties."

Is not a sentence.

"This is a good proof of love which goes beyond the Heart Beat."

Neither is this.

Can you tell that they are not sentences?


DA Morgan
#12764 02/03/06 10:40 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
Sentence - Are there any doubts on the theory I gave ?
[content deleted]
Could you at least try to follow the discussion instead of derailing it with your ramblings?

#12765 02/03/06 10:44 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
Thats unfair .
Most of the time it is you.
Rest understand the subtleties.

This is a good proof of love which goes beyond the Heart Beat.
No, we don't understand. We are busy ignoring your drivel.

#12766 02/03/06 10:48 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
Thats what I am asking my dear friend.
Where is the irrationality?
Give me solid points ..
You've been given more than enough hints that you should understand by now what is meant by "irrational" regarding your posts. Please refrain from posting if you cannot keep from derailing the discussion and taking it into the realms of the metaphysical.

#12767 03/16/06 07:17 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
NO I am not.
You are scrapping the sentences without giving any good reasoning.
Nothing more to say.

#12768 03/16/06 07:30 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk wrote:
"Nothing more to say."

Please please just this once don't make a liar of yourself.


DA Morgan
#12769 03/21/06 05:53 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:

Universe is beautiful has no personal issues with its inhabitants.It just happens because something is missing from our daily diet of logic.
Your daily diet of logic seems to consist of empty calories. Please play elsewhere if you cannot stick to science and science related subjects.

Amaranth, Moderator

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5