Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

The Paradox of Life

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:19:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

Most people have this one-exists-in-spite-of-the-other mentality. I rather think it's one-exists-because-of-the-other. The question is not, "Which came first?"; for, there is no first without a last.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 12:15:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 10:19:14 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

Most people have this one-exists-in-spite-of-the-other mentality. I rather think it's one-exists-because-of-the-other. The question is not, "Which came first?"; for, there is no first without a last.

That is true but the first and last can also be the very same thing. Eg You are the first and last of you. There will never be another you even though there might be others like you.

We all exist because our parents existed before us and produced us. The same principle applies to them and that cycle is also infinite. There is no beginning to it so logically there cannot be a literal first person in human lineage simply due to the fact that it takes two to create one.
black_88
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 3:25:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

I hope I understood you perfectly, otherwise I will just be making a fool of myself in the following few paragraphs.

Life as defined in biology an biochemistry began from non-living matter. Many scientific articles exist about the subject, and many experiments were conducted to further demonstrate the feasibility of this scenario.

You just have to search Google, or even better Google Scholar, for the key term "origin of life". Here's one such article from Scientific American: https://www.mcb.ucdavis.edu...

So really if you're only talking about life on this planet, it is easy to explain without the need for these egg and chicken problems.

If you're talking about the origins of matter and the universe, however, then it's a completely different question. Scientists haven't come up with such a solid theory about the origin of matter. But I do believe they'll get there, eventually!
"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 5:22:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 3:25:13 PM, black_88 wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

I hope I understood you perfectly, otherwise I will just be making a fool of myself in the following few paragraphs.

Life as defined in biology an biochemistry began from non-living matter. Many scientific articles exist about the subject, and many experiments were conducted to further demonstrate the feasibility of this scenario.

That is speculation and not based on anything observable in reality. Reality teaches us that it takes two humans to create one. There is absolutely no logical reason to adopt any other fictional stories about how humans arose when you understand the reality of the human reproduction process. Stories like that, regardless of whether they are religious or scientific are based on the idea that once upon a time no life at all existed.
If that was really the case then nothing would have been able to create life in the first place. When I refer to life, I am referring to an animating force which makes thing move. ie, Movement itself. You need movement to create movement. You cannot have non living matter suspended in space and expect it to somehow bump into each other and randomly evolve into all the objects we see in the universe and on our planet today. It makes absolutely no sense at all. It is a fairy tale.

You just have to search Google, or even better Google Scholar, for the key term "origin of life". Here's one such article from Scientific American: https://www.mcb.ucdavis.edu...

Many fairy tales, fantasies, false doctrines and science fiction exist and can be found on Google. It is a matter of picking which ones take your fancy and then all you need to do is believe them no matter how illogical they might be.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Biogenesis teaches that life cannot arise from non life. It takes life to create life. Biogenesis makes far more sense to me than abiogenesis. You are free to decide which one you want to believe.

So really if you're only talking about life on this planet, it is easy to explain without the need for these egg and chicken problems.

When I refer to life I am referring to to the whole process of life not just to living objects. I am talking about an animating force which makes things move, grow, change from an immature form to a mature form, breathe, and all the other aspects of life which you can imagine. An object floating around in space that has never taken a breath in its whole existence does not evolve into something which needs to breathe due to some kind adaption to environment over billions of years. If a non breathing non moving object exists in any environment then it will always remain non breathing and non moving no matter how much the environment changes. It might start moving if something that is moving in the first place bumps into it but it will never evolve into something which suddenly needs to breathe or eat something over billions of years.

If you're talking about the origins of matter and the universe, however, then it's a completely different question. Scientists haven't come up with such a solid theory about the origin of matter. But I do believe they'll get there, eventually!

Hopefully they will eventually become enlightened that the matter in our universe must have always existed and have a constant cycle and stop looking for an origin to that infinite cycle. It is as futile as looking for the origin of the egg (immature form) and knowing it comes from inside a mature form of life which also once was in an immature form.
The universe as we know it is what it is. Humans have no clue if it is in an immature form or in a mature form or something in between or even both at the same time. However, any logical person would be able to comprehend that a cycle which gives "birth" to something immature must have a mature version of that something in the first place. The immature always comes from the mature which was also once immature and also came from the mature. Therefore trying to find a finite beginning to such a cycle is futile. It is far more logical to come to the conclusion and realization that the cycles and the processes have always existed and must be eternal and infinite due to the fact that finding any finite beginning is impossible. It takes life to create life and the cycle is infinite. That fact makes the concept of eternal life, referring to life in general, very understandable and logical.
It is illogical to use linear finite thinking when studying and contemplating infinite cycles. One needs to include the possibility of all things having eternally existed rather than discarding it as nonsense. Infinite matter including living and nonliving of various types is as valid as any other concept.
Matter must have always existed in order to reproduce more matter. You cannot get something from nothing. You cannot get life from anything other than life.
black_88
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 11:29:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 5:22:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/4/2014 3:25:13 PM, black_88 wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

I hope I understood you perfectly, otherwise I will just be making a fool of myself in the following few paragraphs.

Life as defined in biology an biochemistry began from non-living matter. Many scientific articles exist about the subject, and many experiments were conducted to further demonstrate the feasibility of this scenario.

That is speculation and not based on anything observable in reality. Reality teaches us that it takes two humans to create one. There is absolutely no logical reason to adopt any other fictional stories about how humans arose when you understand the reality of the human reproduction process.

If you want to stick to what you can observe with your naked eyes in the course of a single lifetime, then may I suggest you abandon philosophy and stick to, perhaps, cooking.

You just have to search Google, or even better Google Scholar, for the key term "origin of life". Here's one such article from Scientific American: https://www.mcb.ucdavis.edu...

Many fairy tales, fantasies, false doctrines and science fiction exist and can be found on Google. It is a matter of picking which ones take your fancy and then all you need to do is believe them no matter how illogical they might be.

If you honestly can not tell the difference between Brothers Grimm and Scientific American; or if you sincerely do not believe in the scientific method, then there's nothing I can say. Because it is this scientific method that made it possible for you to live beyond 35 years of age, to communicate across the world, to enhance our life in more ways than one can count.

So really if you're only talking about life on this planet, it is easy to explain without the need for these egg and chicken problems.

When I refer to life I am referring to to the whole process of life not just to living objects. I am talking about an animating force which makes things move, grow, change from an immature form to a mature form, breathe, and all the other aspects of life which you can imagine. An object floating around in space that has never taken a breath in its whole existence does not evolve into something which needs to breathe due to some kind adaption to environment over billions of years.

So you basically don't believe in evolution. Same here, I don't *believe* in evolution! I just can not imagine any other way complex life could have arisen. The way I feel towards evolution is similar, perhaps, to the way you feel towards "two humans required to make a new human", it's only natural; I can almost see it happening around me every time I see a living thing.

If you're talking about the origins of matter and the universe, however, then it's a completely different question. Scientists haven't come up with such a solid theory about the origin of matter. But I do believe they'll get there, eventually!

Hopefully they will eventually become enlightened that the matter in our universe must have always existed and have a constant cycle and stop looking for an origin to that infinite cycle. It is as futile as looking for the origin of the egg (immature form) and knowing it comes from inside a mature form of life which also once was in an immature form.
The universe as we know it is what it is. Humans have no clue if it is in an immature form or in a mature form or something in between or even both at the same time. However, any logical person would be able to comprehend that a cycle which gives "birth" to something immature must have a mature version of that something in the first place. The immature always comes from the mature which was also once immature and also came from the mature. Therefore trying to find a finite beginning to such a cycle is futile. It is far more logical to come to the conclusion and realization that the cycles and the processes have always existed and must be eternal and infinite due to the fact that finding any finite beginning is impossible. It takes life to create life and the cycle is infinite. That fact makes the concept of eternal life, referring to life in general, very understandable and logical.
It is illogical to use linear finite thinking when studying and contemplating infinite cycles. One needs to include the possibility of all things having eternally existed rather than discarding it as nonsense. Infinite matter including living and nonliving of various types is as valid as any other concept.
Matter must have always existed in order to reproduce more matter. You cannot get something from nothing. You cannot get life from anything other than life.

We're not even in the same ZIP code... I'm a proponent of the scientific method. Now you do not value that method so highly. Nor do you value empiricism, apparently. You seem to be a champion of the armchair method, which is also used by astrologers and faith healers.

Now, ma'am, the way I advocate leads to progress, a better tomorrow. The way you cherish leads, at best, nowhere, and at worst, to ruin. I beg you to re-consider.
"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 12:43:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 11:29:09 PM, black_88 wrote:
At 11/4/2014 5:22:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/4/2014 3:25:13 PM, black_88 wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

I hope I understood you perfectly, otherwise I will just be making a fool of myself in the following few paragraphs.

Life as defined in biology an biochemistry began from non-living matter. Many scientific articles exist about the subject, and many experiments were conducted to further demonstrate the feasibility of this scenario.

That is speculation and not based on anything observable in reality. Reality teaches us that it takes two humans to create one. There is absolutely no logical reason to adopt any other fictional stories about how humans arose when you understand the reality of the human reproduction process.

If you want to stick to what you can observe with your naked eyes in the course of a single lifetime, then may I suggest you abandon philosophy and stick to, perhaps, cooking.

You just have to search Google, or even better Google Scholar, for the key term "origin of life". Here's one such article from Scientific American: https://www.mcb.ucdavis.edu...

Many fairy tales, fantasies, false doctrines and science fiction exist and can be found on Google. It is a matter of picking which ones take your fancy and then all you need to do is believe them no matter how illogical they might be.

If you honestly can not tell the difference between Brothers Grimm and Scientific American; or if you sincerely do not believe in the scientific method, then there's nothing I can say. Because it is this scientific method that made it possible for you to live beyond 35 years of age, to communicate across the world, to enhance our life in more ways than one can count.

So really if you're only talking about life on this planet, it is easy to explain without the need for these egg and chicken problems.

When I refer to life I am referring to to the whole process of life not just to living objects. I am talking about an animating force which makes things move, grow, change from an immature form to a mature form, breathe, and all the other aspects of life which you can imagine. An object floating around in space that has never taken a breath in its whole existence does not evolve into something which needs to breathe due to some kind adaption to environment over billions of years.

So you basically don't believe in evolution. Same here, I don't *believe* in evolution! I just can not imagine any other way complex life could have arisen. The way I feel towards evolution is similar, perhaps, to the way you feel towards "two humans required to make a new human", it's only natural; I can almost see it happening around me every time I see a living thing.

If you're talking about the origins of matter and the universe, however, then it's a completely different question. Scientists haven't come up with such a solid theory about the origin of matter. But I do believe they'll get there, eventually!

Hopefully they will eventually become enlightened that the matter in our universe must have always existed and have a constant cycle and stop looking for an origin to that infinite cycle. It is as futile as looking for the origin of the egg (immature form) and knowing it comes from inside a mature form of life which also once was in an immature form.
The universe as we know it is what it is. Humans have no clue if it is in an immature form or in a mature form or something in between or even both at the same time. However, any logical person would be able to comprehend that a cycle which gives "birth" to something immature must have a mature version of that something in the first place. The immature always comes from the mature which was also once immature and also came from the mature. Therefore trying to find a finite beginning to such a cycle is futile. It is far more logical to come to the conclusion and realization that the cycles and the processes have always existed and must be eternal and infinite due to the fact that finding any finite beginning is impossible. It takes life to create life and the cycle is infinite. That fact makes the concept of eternal life, referring to life in general, very understandable and logical.
It is illogical to use linear finite thinking when studying and contemplating infinite cycles. One needs to include the possibility of all things having eternally existed rather than discarding it as nonsense. Infinite matter including living and nonliving of various types is as valid as any other concept.
Matter must have always existed in order to reproduce more matter. You cannot get something from nothing. You cannot get life from anything other than life.

We're not even in the same ZIP code... I'm a proponent of the scientific method. Now you do not value that method so highly. Nor do you value empiricism, apparently. You seem to be a champion of the armchair method, which is also used by astrologers and faith healers.

Now, ma'am, the way I advocate leads to progress, a better tomorrow. The way you cherish leads, at best, nowhere, and at worst, to ruin. I beg you to re-consider.

Reconsider what? Philosophy is not a scientific method nor it is a religion. It is a way of thinking about life which transcends linear thinking. It thinks outside the box and understands the paradox of an eternally infinite cycle.
There is nothing illogical about life arising from life itself. No speculation or theories or fairy tales or hypothesis or religious dogma needed due to being able to observe it in reality at all times.

It's simply a matter of doing the math.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 1:47:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

Yes. I've been thinking lately that this way we have of separating people into individual units is an artificial construct based overly on our own instincts and subjective experience. For example, if there was a glob of jelly, and you divided it into two globs, how significant really is that space between glob A and glob B? That is, is the separation meaningful, or, was there jelly before and there's jelly now?

Whenever I watch ants or bees, I think of this. There are individual insects, but really the meaningful unit is the hive or swarm. This is the part that separates and reproduces, or survives, or dies. Or with plants, those trees/bushes that come up as separate individuals but really are based on the same rootstock and could therefore be seen as the same unit that has survived for centuries.

Humans can't survive alone. We only exist in groups. Therefore, I wonder if it makes sense to think of a reproductive loop instead of a group that continues to survive. I wonder if this idea of a cognitive unit even, that is separated at the skull and skin from other units is just a vain illusion. We don't create our own separate languages or have our own separate ideas. It is all derived from the group. We are not really separate.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 2:35:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 1:47:47 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

Yes. I've been thinking lately that this way we have of separating people into individual units is an artificial construct based overly on our own instincts and subjective experience. For example, if there was a glob of jelly, and you divided it into two globs, how significant really is that space between glob A and glob B? That is, is the separation meaningful, or, was there jelly before and there's jelly now?

Whenever I watch ants or bees, I think of this. There are individual insects, but really the meaningful unit is the hive or swarm. This is the part that separates and reproduces, or survives, or dies. Or with plants, those trees/bushes that come up as separate individuals but really are based on the same rootstock and could therefore be seen as the same unit that has survived for centuries.

Humans can't survive alone. We only exist in groups. Therefore, I wonder if it makes sense to think of a reproductive loop instead of a group that continues to survive. I wonder if this idea of a cognitive unit even, that is separated at the skull and skin from other units is just a vain illusion. We don't create our own separate languages or have our own separate ideas. It is all derived from the group. We are not really separate.

In one perspective we are all connected and in another we are all individuals. Both perspectives are relevant depending on what aspects of life we are discussing.
black_88
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 2:49:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 12:43:06 AM, Skyangel wrote:

Reconsider what? Philosophy is not a scientific method nor it is a religion. It is a way of thinking about life which transcends linear thinking. It thinks outside the box and understands the paradox of an eternally infinite cycle.
There is nothing illogical about life arising from life itself. No speculation or theories or fairy tales or hypothesis or religious dogma needed due to being able to observe it in reality at all times.

It's simply a matter of doing the math.

I think you mistake philosophy for mysticism. Also, if you only observe "reality" all times, then you should not believe in the possibility of computers, since they are made using quantum theory principles, which are anything but "real", according to what appears to be your definition of reality, i.e: that which we can directly observe.

I beg you to not consider the following an attempt at a straw man argument - it is merely a personal opinion:

I think that you don't like the explanations provided by religion. But you don't have formal education or training in science, or, for some reason, you just don't like and don't understand science. So what you are trying to do is come up with a bunch of statements that should really belong in Aristotle's Metaphysics and explain the world with them. Sorry ma'am, but these notions really did not contribute to our current state of progress, it's science, it's painstaking analytical method, that got us where we are. If you choose not to follow this method or improve upon it, then you are only holding yourself back.
"We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 2:59:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 2:49:19 AM, black_88 wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:43:06 AM, Skyangel wrote:

Reconsider what? Philosophy is not a scientific method nor it is a religion. It is a way of thinking about life which transcends linear thinking. It thinks outside the box and understands the paradox of an eternally infinite cycle.
There is nothing illogical about life arising from life itself. No speculation or theories or fairy tales or hypothesis or religious dogma needed due to being able to observe it in reality at all times.

It's simply a matter of doing the math.

I think you mistake philosophy for mysticism. Also, if you only observe "reality" all times, then you should not believe in the possibility of computers, since they are made using quantum theory principles, which are anything but "real", according to what appears to be your definition of reality, i.e: that which we can directly observe.

I beg you to not consider the following an attempt at a straw man argument - it is merely a personal opinion:

I think that you don't like the explanations provided by religion. But you don't have formal education or training in science, or, for some reason, you just don't like and don't understand science. So what you are trying to do is come up with a bunch of statements that should really belong in Aristotle's Metaphysics and explain the world with them. Sorry ma'am, but these notions really did not contribute to our current state of progress, it's science, it's painstaking analytical method, that got us where we are. If you choose not to follow this method or improve upon it, then you are only holding yourself back.

People who are stuck in the rut of thinking which makes them believe that once upon a time life did not exist, are living in a fantasy which has been handed down from our superstitious ancestors for many generations.
Linear thinking has many people in bondage to chasing their own tales.

There is science which is practical and then there is science fiction. Some mistake the fiction for facts.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 6:51:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

Scientifically, life(forms) arised from nonliving chemicals coming together in the beginning of Earth. So technically life did have a beginning. Perhaps you are referring to the universe, and not just life itself?
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 6:57:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 5:22:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/4/2014 3:25:13 PM, black_88 wrote:
At 11/3/2014 5:00:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Ancient philosophers, referred to the chicken and egg paradox which also evoked the questions of how life and the universe in general began.

To better understand the metaphorical meaning of the chicken and egg paradox, the question could be reformulated as: "Which came first, X that can't come without Y, or Y that can't come without X?"

The question keeps twisting around itself in an eternal loop since you cannot have one form of life without its predecessor
which also needs a predecessor, etc, etc, etc . The loop continues infinitely.

This makes the question regarding "which came first"a futile question when discussing a perpetual cycle.

Life in general is a self perpetuating cycle which keeps reproducing life after its own kind. Life comes before life and life also comes after life through the reproductive process of life. That makes life the first and also the last of life itself.
It makes life the only begotten offspring ( or son) of life.

It also makes life eternal in reference to the cycle since the cycle is infinite.
At the same time life is also finite when discussing individual life forms since they have a beginning and an apparent end when they die.

The new begins in the old. Life begins within life itself.

Life in general as a cycle must logically be eternal.
Life as an individual life form is obviously temporary.

I hope I understood you perfectly, otherwise I will just be making a fool of myself in the following few paragraphs.

Life as defined in biology an biochemistry began from non-living matter. Many scientific articles exist about the subject, and many experiments were conducted to further demonstrate the feasibility of this scenario.

That is speculation and not based on anything observable in reality. Reality teaches us that it takes two humans to create one. There is absolutely no logical reason to adopt any other fictional stories about how humans arose when you understand the reality of the human reproduction process. Stories like that, regardless of whether they are religious or scientific are based on the idea that once upon a time no life at all existed.
If that was really the case then nothing would have been able to create life in the first place. When I refer to life, I am referring to an animating force which makes thing move. ie, Movement itself. You need movement to create movement. You cannot have non living matter suspended in space and expect it to somehow bump into each other and randomly evolve into all the objects we see in the universe and on our planet today. It makes absolutely no sense at all. It is a fairy tale.

You need a science lesson, because that basically is what happened (or at least is theorized to have happened.) You can't just dismiss something as a fairy tale without without any sufficient argumentation against it. You think as if you are in the middle ages. If something goes against your immediate intuition is just dismiss it all together.

You just have to search Google, or even better Google Scholar, for the key term "origin of life". Here's one such article from Scientific American: https://www.mcb.ucdavis.edu...

Many fairy tales, fantasies, false doctrines and science fiction exist and can be found on Google. It is a matter of picking which ones take your fancy and then all you need to do is believe them no matter how illogical they might be.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Biogenesis teaches that life cannot arise from non life. It takes life to create life. Biogenesis makes far more sense to me than abiogenesis. You are free to decide which one you want to believe.

So really if you're only talking about life on this planet, it is easy to explain without the need for these egg and chicken problems.

When I refer to life I am referring to to the whole process of life not just to living objects. I am talking about an animating force which makes things move, grow, change from an immature form to a mature form, breathe, and all the other aspects of life which you can imagine. An object floating around in space that has never taken a breath in its whole existence does not evolve into something which needs to breathe due to some kind adaption to environment over billions of years. If a non breathing non moving object exists in any environment then it will always remain non breathing and non moving no matter how much the environment changes. It might start moving if something that is moving in the first place bumps into it but it will never evolve into something which suddenly needs to breathe or eat something over billions of years.


If you're talking about the origins of matter and the universe, however, then it's a completely different question. Scientists haven't come up with such a solid theory about the origin of matter. But I do believe they'll get there, eventually!

Hopefully they will eventually become enlightened that the matter in our universe must have always existed and have a constant cycle and stop looking for an origin to that infinite cycle. It is as futile as looking for the origin of the egg (immature form) and knowing it comes from inside a mature form of life which also once was in an immature form.

If there existed an infinite amount of time before now, then now never would have arrived since it is impossible to transcend an infinite amount of time to a certain point.

<-------------------------- X
Infinity Now

Since there is no beginning to infinity, and a beginning is necessary for there to be a point in time after the beginning, then it is implausible that matter always existed.

The universe as we know it is what it is. Humans have no clue if it is in an immature form or in a mature form or something in between or even both at the same time. However, any logical person would be able to comprehend that a cycle which gives "birth" to something immature must have a mature version of that something in the first place. The immature always comes from the mature which was also once immature and also came from the mature. Therefore trying to find a finite beginning to such a cycle is futile. It is far more logical to come to the conclusion and realization that the cycles and the processes have always existed and must be eternal and infinite due to the fact that finding any finite beginning is impossible. It takes life to create life and the cycle is infinite. That fact makes the concept of eternal life, referring to life in general, very understandable and logical.
It is illogical to use linear finite thinking when studying and contemplating infinite cycles. One needs to include the possibility of all things having eternally existed rather than discarding it as nonsense. Infinite matter including living and nonliving of various types is as valid as any other concept.
Matter must have always existed in order to reproduce more matter. You cannot get something from nothing. You cannot get life from anything other than life.
Nolite Timere
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 10:43:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 6:57:54 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/4/2014 5:22:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Life as defined in biology an biochemistry began from non-living matter. Many scientific articles exist about the subject, and many experiments were conducted to further demonstrate the feasibility of this scenario.

That is speculation and not based on anything observable in reality. Reality teaches us that it takes two humans to create one. There is absolutely no logical reason to adopt any other fictional stories about how humans arose when you understand the reality of the human reproduction process. Stories like that, regardless of whether they are religious or scientific are based on the idea that once upon a time no life at all existed.
If that was really the case then nothing would have been able to create life in the first place. When I refer to life, I am referring to an animating force which makes thing move. ie, Movement itself. You need movement to create movement. You cannot have non living matter suspended in space and expect it to somehow bump into each other and randomly evolve into all the objects we see in the universe and on our planet today. It makes absolutely no sense at all. It is a fairy tale.

You need a science lesson, because that basically is what happened (or at least is theorized to have happened.) You can't just dismiss something as a fairy tale without without any sufficient argumentation against it. You think as if you are in the middle ages. If something goes against your immediate intuition is just dismiss it all together.

Theorize
synonyms:speculate, conjecture, hypothesize, take as a hypothesis, postulate, form/formulate a theory, propose, posit, surmise, suppose, guess;

I could theorize fairies exist too since when I was a child I put a tooth in a glass and in the morning it was gone and there was money in the glass with sparkling glittery stuff all over it. That is evidence that fairies must have been there even if I did not see them. That happened every single time I put a tooth in a glass. The experiment never failed.
Why then did I eventually end up coming to the conclusion that fairies did not exist when all the evidence pointed to their existence?
Do you think facing the truth made me grow up a bit?
Life is filled with circumstantial evidence and humans tend to draw wrong conclusions using it. I am not the one thinking as if I am in the middle ages. I understand that not all evidence points to what it appears to point to and that fact needs to be taken into consideration in scientific fields. The fact is that illusions exist in the universe and not everything is what it appears to be.

In observable reality humans reproduce humans and there is no logical reason to believe humans arose any other way than through the very natural process of human reproduction. We continue to learn more about that process as the years go by.

If you're talking about the origins of matter and the universe, however, then it's a completely different question. Scientists haven't come up with such a solid theory about the origin of matter. But I do believe they'll get there, eventually!

Hopefully they will eventually become enlightened that the matter in our universe must have always existed and have a constant cycle and stop looking for an origin to that infinite cycle. It is as futile as looking for the origin of the egg (immature form) and knowing it comes from inside a mature form of life which also once was in an immature form.

If there existed an infinite amount of time before now, then now never would have arrived since it is impossible to transcend an infinite amount of time to a certain point.

No its not. What's impossible about it?

If you have an infinite amount of finite objects does not mean you cannot pick one up and study it. If you have an infinite amount of numbers you can still take any number in the infinite series and study it. Having an infinite amount of "X" does not result in one "X" not existing. It makes no difference if you are studying material objects or abstract things like time. When a CYCLE is infinite it does not stop the finite things in the cycle from coming and going or living and dying and going through the process continually.

<-------------------------- X
Infinity Now

The time you refer to as "now" or "X" is merely a tiny part of infinity no different to a drop in an infinite ocean. The present or the "now" does not transcend infinity. The present is a part of infinity.
You have drawn it as a line in which now or "X" is the end of infinity and it is not. "Now" is merely a tiny point in the midst of infinity since infinity takes not only the past into account but also the future.
Your diagram should look like this >>>
<<<<<-----------------------X------------------------------>>>>>>>
Infinity....now.... Infinity Infinity is made up of an infinite amount of "X" moments which humans who are alive at any time perceive as "now" in their own awareness and perception of time.

"Now" is always coming and going at the same time so does it really exist at all or is is just an illusion created by the finite human mind?

Since there is no beginning to infinity, and a beginning is necessary for there to be a point in time after the beginning, then it is implausible that matter always existed.

Since there cannot be a beginning of anything at all without something coming before the beginning, you need to explain what happened to create a beginning of anything. You cannot just have nothing and then suddenly you have a beginning of something.
The fact is that space exists in human perception and things are moving around in space. There is no known beginning or end to space. It cannot be observed or measured as anything which has boundaries. Therefore logically one must conclude it has no boundaries.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<------------------------------>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those arrows on both ends go on forever. Time as we understand it exists within infinity itself. Infinity is made up of an infinite amount of time and space. Finite minds which attempt to find a beginning of the universe and create all kinds of theories based on circumstantial evidence are searching in vain and creating science fiction from their best guesses. It is no different to thinking money in a glass with glitter all over it is evidence of being placed there by fairies or by some fairy fart or burp. However call the fart or burp something that sounds a scientific and impressive, and makes the creator of the theory look like some genius, the gullible will believe and also parrot the theory to try to make themselves look smart.

In the end any beginning of the universe is based on guesswork. Now the beginning of any life form is a different story We can observe how new plants begin from the seeds or root stock which come from the mature plants. We can observe how life begins in many species through the reproductive cycles. We know for a fact that it takes life to produce life. No theories necessary. It is a simple logical realistic and observable fact in every generation. Therefore to believe life in general once did not exist is foolish. There is no logical reason to believe it. It makes far more sense that life in general must have always existed.

Life is a cycle which tends to repeat itself. Because it is repetitive it is impossible to find any beginning to the cycle itself. To suggest there was a beginning to a moving cycle implies there was a time when the cycle was not moving at all. In that case the cycle would not have existed since in order to be a cycle it needs to have movement to change from something immature to something mature in the first place and we all know that something immature cannot come into existence unless something mature produced it in the first place.
MettaWorldPeace
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 11:59:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't know if this adds to the discussion, but I believe I have solved the chicken and egg problem. It must be the chicken that came first. The first creature to lay an egg was a chicken, so until the egg was destined to be laid there were no chickens. There had to be chickens to lay eggs if there were to be chickens hatched from eggs. The question could then become when was the first egg layer a chicken, from its birth or when it laid the first egg?
I awakened to another dream.