Religion

WOW..........it is CLEAR that we both do not come from the same school of thought. You are from science fiction, and I am from science...

...lol. Okay, that was just a NERD joke that guys like us chuckle at :goofy:


i will now break down, your 'break down'...........ahem...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

Okay finished? :)

---

Now I will break it down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

1. Rivers and mountains DO NOT adopt to their environemnt, but rely on externalities as you already mentioned yourself E.g. Tectonic plates to govern their formation.

---

You just said that rivers DO NOT adopt to their environment. and then, after the comma, you just reinforced MY example of why they DO! lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

Is this formation formulated or random? This formation is dectated by the direction of the tectonic plates which in turn is affected by other extrenalities such as the magma beneath the earth's crust. So in effect the mountains do no adopt but simply are pushed but extrenalities into shape.

---

Let me tell you about the second law of thermodynamics. it states that the universe is becoming MORE and MORE disorderd as a resulf of entropy. as Entropy INCREASES, the stability of whatever is being measured, DECREASES...

...think of your bedroom. when you clean it up, everything is ORDERED. by doing this, you have 'created' a potential for disorder to occur. your bedroom will spontaneosly become messy (ie. increase in entropy), UNLESS --> you input energy to CREATE or MAINTAIN the order. but with NO outside forces, the room will tend toward DISORDER...whether it be the dust on the walls, or bugs in the corner........

........back to the tectonic plates...they are 'being pushed' because it is leading to Increased Entropy, which takes up 'less' Engergy...

...the laws of physics dictate that any entity will take the form in Lowest possible Energy, and this results in increased entropy (or disoder)


RK takes a DEEP BREATH....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

2. Computers alive?

---

No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

Bacteria alive?

---

Duh! of course!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

If bacteria is alive and computers are dead, what do you clasify as being alive?

---

see the above post and what is in bold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

Obviously both can perform similar tasks.

---

do you know what a bacteria can do? take microbio or cell bio in college...
...cell replication will AMAZE you! the 'machinery' in terms of dna replication alone will leave you wondered!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

3. Computers can reporduce themselves by creating their clones or replicas.

---

hahaha, NOT the same thing..........REALLY....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

4. RK, your concepts of life are flawed.

---

They are NOT my concepts. the above are what decades of research of those in biology have produced...

.... [url]http://www.resa.net/nasa/biology_systematics.htm[/url]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

Read what the SCIENTISTS have to say about this subject matter:

Life is a multi-faceted concept that may refer to

* the ongoing process of which living things are a part
* the period between the conception (the point at which the entity can be considered to be an individualized being) and death of an organism
* the condition of an entity between conception and death
* that which makes a living thing alive.

---

ok....i agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

Defining the concept of life
How can one tell when an entity is a lifeform? It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it (see biosphere), but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence.

---

this doesn't have much to do with what we are talking about...it's just another spin....quite fascinating, to be honest :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life[/url]

---

Can I declare a winner?
:-)

lol shh! yes, please do so :)


EDIT: but before you do, i have ONE more point to make...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RSK

WOW..........it is CLEAR that we both do not come from the same school of thought. You are from science fiction, and I am from science...

...lol. Okay, that was just a NERD joke that guys like us chuckle at :goofy:


i will now break down, your 'break down'...........ahem...






Now I will break it down:



You just said that rivers DO NOT adopt to their environment. and then, after the comma, you just reinforced MY example of why they DO! lol.



Let me tell you about the second law of thermodynamics. it states that the universe is becoming MORE and MORE disorderd as a resulf of entropy. as Entropy INCREASES, the stability of whatever is being measured, DECREASES...

...think of your bedroom. when you clean it up, everything is ORDERED. by doing this, you have 'created' a potential for disorder to occur. your bedroom will spontaneosly become messy (ie. increase in entropy), UNLESS --> you input energy to CREATE or MAINTAIN the order. but with NO outside forces, the room will tend toward DISORDER...whether it be the dust on the walls, or bugs in the corner........

........back to the tectonic plates...they are 'being pushed' because it is leading to Increased Entropy, which takes up 'less' Engergy...

...the laws of physics dictate that any entity will take the form in Lowest possible Energy, and this results in increased entropy (or disoder)


RK takes a DEEP BREATH....



No



Duh! of course!




see the above post and what is in bold



do you know what a bacteria can do? take microbio or cell bio in college...
...cell replication will AMAZE you! the 'machinery' in terms of dna replication alone will leave you wondered!



hahaha, NOT the same thing..........REALLY....



They are NOT my concepts. the above are what decades of research of those in biology have produced...

.... [url]http://www.resa.net/nasa/biology_systematics.htm[/url]




ok....i agree



this doesn't have much to do with what we are talking about...it's just another spin....quite fascinating, to be honest :)

---

Okay I see

It's the longest post competition

Well, let me break down your break down of my break down of your break down

Ready???











Now







1. It is clear that my school of thought is scientific and not science fiction because it is reinforced by links to external material written by scientists :)

2. I said rivers and mountains do not ADOPT to their environment but are pushed into shape by externalities. How is that reinforcement of what you were saying??? If i create a box out of cradboard, did the cardboard paper I used just adopt into a box by itself??? :D This is by the way also the response to your post on thermodynamics.

3. So computers are dead and bacterias are alive? Why because one is made out of replicating cells and the other out of parts? Did you know that cell replication is something that can be aritificially created? If we create a computer out of artificially created living cells would that computer now be alive? Why should I read the letters in bold when there are many other reasons and justifications of classifications of life?

4. Why is it that computers being able to clone themselves and bacteria that can clone itself are not considered in the same league? Both are reproducing. In computer's case, not only reporoducing but programming a clone with AI. Once again, If we have a computer made out of nothing but Artifically Created cells that can replicate, would that then satisfy your criteria for the computer being alive??? :)

5. Okay so the concepts are not yours but YOU were the one who said that life has to meet ALL OF THEM, therefore leaving the poor coma patient up for dead :D


























Then End

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shh!

Can I declare a winner?
:-)

---

Please do

But be warned, that you have to give a viable scientific reason for your choice that can be scientifically proven ;)

My Christianity is extremely important to me and I would never think of marrying someone who doesn't share my beliefs.

I think Hugo Pickle would be a good match for you, then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

Defining the concept of life
How can one tell when an entity is a lifeform? It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it (see biosphere), but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life[/url]

---

I COMPLETELY 100% AGREE WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT: Believe it or not, but the above statement reinforces (to some extent) my entire point of what constitutes LIFE, and what doesn't.

Okay, so a quote from the above passage:

"It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it"

And guess what, this 'guidline' DOES exist, check it out here:

[url]http://www.resa.net/nasa/biology_systematics.htm[/url]

Now, let's move on to the NEXT part:

"but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence."

lets tackle the FIRST one: origins of life

Me, You, a Dog, a Plant, a fungus, spider or even a Bacteria, are ALL composed of DNA. And this DNA is made up of FOUR 'bases' (units)

labeled, G, T, A, and C.

the SAME FOUR 'bases' are found in ALL of the above living things...

what makes a plant a plant? what makes a human a human? what makes a fungus a fungus? and so on............?


the answer: Well, fundamentally, the answer is SIMPLE: the 'order' of HOW these four bases are 'arranged' in sequene to make a DNA molecule...



...can you believe that! AMAZING!!!!!!!!

i think i just blew a load in my pants!!!!!!!!!!!!!



what is the FUNCTION of dna? well, it is to make 'proteins'. and it's the type of proteins we have, that make us who we are and how our bodies develop!




okay, are you still with me?


So, scientist (Urey and i forget the other dudes name), hypothesized the 'ORIGIN of LIFE'........

.......according to geological studies, primitive Earth consisted of HARSH CONDITIONS! Thunder and lightening, a reduced enviornment (no oxygen), ammonia and other organic compounds present.........


what the dudes did, was 'emu;ate' early earth in a laboratory. they got a huge flask, and put ammonia, organic substances, and other conditions, and they they zapped electricity to emulate the lightening..........


..........they collected the products in ANOTHER smaller flask, and GUESS WHAT THEY COLLECTED...........???????????????



various amino acids (which make up proteins)...

...a coincidence?

so, back to the origonal question.....of course life couldn't be defined using TODAYS model definition, because a 'group' or 'lump' of amino acids just don't fit into the definition.........


........having said that, it is theorized that this 'soup' of amino acids was the starting point, in which ALL LIFE has arison....through hundreds of millions of years of coagulations, and the creation of membranes, and cells, and more complex entities, to the point where they were like 'LIVING BATTERIES', where they continously 'ticked'.........up to where we are today...........


so, i hope this answers THAT question..........


lets take a closer look at the NEXT: possibility of E.T.

okay, we HAVE to agree, this is a DIFFERENT topic altogether... because it hasn't been PROVEN yet...



and the third (which is where you seem to be an expert in): AI

ok, teach me, i don't know too much about AI. How REAL is it? should i feel threatened? LOL


i see where, FOR YOU, the relation of Intelligence and LIFE draws the fine, yet concrete line of your reasons for thought...

...in terms of 'intelligence', bacteria would be DEAD. they have none. I mean, they don't think! THEY DO RESPOND TO STIMULI!!!!! but they have no nervous system, and they cannot compute things, they are like batteries, but MORE, MUCH MORE......


...this is why i can't make the relation between intelligence and LIFE...



...it's too much of a leap for me...

...do you see my point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RSK

I COMPLETELY 100% AGREE WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT: Believe it or not, but the above statement reinforces (to some extent) my entire point of what constitutes LIFE, and what doesn't.

Okay, so a quote from the above passage:

"It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it"

And guess what, this 'guidline' DOES exist, check it out here:

[url]http://www.resa.net/nasa/biology_systematics.htm[/url]

Now, let's move on to the NEXT part:

"but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence."

lets tackle the FIRST one: origins of life

Me, You, a Dog, a Plant, a fungus, spider or even a Bacteria, are ALL composed of DNA. And this DNA is made up of FOUR 'bases' (units)

labeled, G, T, A, and C.

the SAME FOUR 'bases' are found in ALL of the above living things...

what makes a plant a plant? what makes a human a human? what makes a fungus a fungus? and so on............?


the answer: Well, fundamentally, the answer is SIMPLE: the 'order' of HOW these four bases are 'arranged' in sequene to make a DNA molecule...



...can you believe that! AMAZING!!!!!!!!

i think i just blew a load in my pants!!!!!!!!!!!!!



what is the FUNCTION of dna? well, it is to make 'proteins'. and it's the type of proteins we have, that make us who we are and how our bodies develop!




okay, are you still with me?


So, scientist (Urey and i forget the other dudes name), hypothesized the 'ORIGIN of LIFE'........

.......according to geological studies, primitive Earth consisted of HARSH CONDITIONS! Thunder and lightening, a reduced enviornment (no oxygen), ammonia and other organic compounds present.........


what the dudes did, was 'emu;ate' early earth in a laboratory. they got a huge flask, and put ammonia, organic substances, and other conditions, and they they zapped electricity to emulate the lightening..........


..........they collected the products in ANOTHER smaller flask, and GUESS WHAT THEY COLLECTED...........???????????????



various amino acids (which make up proteins)...

...a coincidence?

so, back to the origonal question.....of course life couldn't be defined using TODAYS model definition, because a 'group' or 'lump' of amino acids just don't fit into the definition.........


........having said that, it is theorized that this 'soup' of amino acids was the starting point, in which ALL LIFE has arison....through hundreds of millions of years of coagulations, and the creation of membranes, and cells, and more complex entities, to the point where they were like 'LIVING BATTERIES', where they continously 'ticked'.........up to where we are today...........


so, i hope this answers THAT question..........


lets take a closer look at the NEXT: possibility of E.T.

okay, we HAVE to agree, this is a DIFFERENT topic altogether... because it hasn't been PROVEN yet...



and the third (which is where you seem to be an expert in): AI

ok, teach me, i don't know too much about AI. How REAL is it? should i feel threatened? LOL


i see where, FOR YOU, the relation of Intelligence and LIFE draws the fine, yet concrete line of your reasons for thought...

...in terms of 'intelligence', bacteria would be DEAD. they have none. I mean, they don't think! THEY DO RESPOND TO STIMULI!!!!! but they have no nervous system, and they cannot compute things, they are like batteries, but MORE, MUCH MORE......


...this is why i can't make the relation between intelligence and LIFE...



...it's too much of a leap for me...

...do you see my point?

---

I see your point, but consider this. Aritificially designed cells have a DNA. We can have an artifically designed heart to pump the blood through artifically designed arterries and we can artifically feed the blood cells to sustain them and make them grow (Or we can program a computer on how to feed these cells to automate the proccess). Now, let's add a computer with Artificial Intelligence as the "Brain" of this entitity, do we now have a life form?

Yes

No

Give reasons to support your answer

Btw, see how sometimes breaking down a sentence takes it out of context???

It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it (see biosphere), but as soon as one considers questions about life's origins on Earth, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life, or the concept of artificial life, it becomes clear that the question is fundamentally difficult and comparable in many respects to the problem of defining intelligence.

Above is all one sentence. please note the ones in bold. Please note all the OR's. It becomes very clear, that it is not possible to just list definitions of what life is based on the first two lines of the above sentence without listing definitions for the rest of the sentence. In other words, the definitions you provided are limited in scope and BY THE WAY life DOES NOT have to meet ALL Of those definitions to be considered as life (It is nowhere specified on that link you provided)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

Okay I see

It's the longest post competition

Well, let me break down your break down of my break down of your break down

Ready???

---

i'm gonna break down your breakdown, of the breakdown in which you broke down, my initial breakdown....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

1. It is clear that my school of thought is scientific and not science fiction because it is reinforced by links to external material written by scientists :)

---

Did you know some of the wackiest people in history are also scientists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

2. I said rivers and mountains do not ADOPT to their environment by are pushed into shape but externalities. How is that reinforcement of what you were saying??? If i create a box out of cradboard, did the cardboard paper I used just adopt into a box by itself??? :D This is by the way also the response to your post on thermodynamics.

---

WHAT? When something is pushed into shape by externalities, GUESS WHAT...

...it ADAPTS!!! lol. I don't understand why you can't see this!

let me use YOUR example.

Of course the cardboard did not adapt by itself! YOU adapted the cardboard box (by Force)...

...that's not to say the carboard box did not adapt! It still did, but NOT by itself. It was YOU that helped it adapt for whatever reason...

...but again, you are using crazy examples that will only confuse you MORE.

Here is another example: (I hope you read this)

Imagine a garden. And in this garden, there is a popluation of BUGS. A small percentage of Bugs are resistent to 'BUG KILLER', and MOST are NOT...

...the Gardener sprays this 'BUG KILLER' in the Garden...(and therefore, changes the environment)...

what do you think happens???

the Bugs without resistence DIE, and the Bugs WITH resistence survive, and reproduce MORE offspring, and therefore EVOLVE!

these Bugs, have essentially ADAPTED to their enviornment...


LET ME GIVE YOU A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE (not to say the above isn't, because bugs adapt to new chemicals EVERYDAY, and it is becoming a serious enviornmental problem)


AIDS VIRUS: well, it is obvious how deadly this virus is. did you know that aids patienst must take DIFFERENT medications throughout there life to control to virus? GUESS WHY! it's because the Virus evolves in the human body, and takes NEW FORMS, and NEW drugs must be developed to combat these new forms...just as in the example above...

It is a VERY fundamental concept of how nature adapts to it's enviornment, the two are VERY MUCH related...

...i'm not saying this just to say, look, i know more than you, i'm saying it, to open your eyes, and look at something from, perhaps, a different view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

3. So computers are dead and bacterias are alive? Why because one is made out of replicating cells and the other out of parts? Did you know that cell replication is something that can be aritificially created? If we create a computer out of artificially created living cells would that computer now be alive? Why should I read the letters in bold when there are many other reasons and justifications of classifications of life?

---

Well, all I can say, is take a Biology class, just the basics to learn how complex life is. Havn't you heard the difference between a human brain and a computer? I've heard it a million times. I'm tired of circling around to the same argument...it's leading nowhere.

Do me a favor, read a Basic Biology text book. Do it, just so you can argue 'better' against the Biological view of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

4. Why is it that computers being able to clone themselves and bacteria that can clone itself are not considered in the same league? Both are reproducing. In computer's case, not only reporoducing but programming a clone with AI. Once again, If we have a computer made out of nothing but Artifically Created cells that can replicate, would that then satisfy your criteria for the computer being alive??? :)

---

No, can the computer evolve? Have you seen I robot? That's what happens when computers evolve. I'll believe it when I see it, or read some respected paper published on it. To this day, I've seen neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

5. Okay so the concepts are not yours but YOU were the one who said that life has to meet ALL OF THEM, therefore leaving the poor coma patient up for dead :D

---

HAHA, no, I NEVER said life has to meet all of them either, that's the Biologists again...it's all them.

I don't take ANY credit for there superb work, I'm just the messenger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mishanya

I see your point, but consider this. Aritificially designed cells have a DNA. We can have an artifically designed heart to pump the blood through artifically designed arterries and we can artifically feed the blood cells to sustain them and make them grow (Or we can program a computer on how to feed these cells to automate the proccess). Now, let's add a computer with Artificial Intelligence as the "Brain" of this entitity, do we now have a life form?

Yes

No

Give reasons to support your answer

---

WOW, this is a very interesting post. But your words are skewed...

...let me explain...

what you wrote in paranthesis is very blurry to me. what does that MEAN?

To program a computer to automate the processes?

to program is a very vague verb

the word, computer, of course brings up a new dimension or angle

and of course, the MOST controversial word of them all, is proccesses; what TYPE of 'processes' do you speak of?

Oh, God. We are soooo busted w/derailing this thread...

Mish, since noone else wants to bite: what is ADOPT (in your AI context). I've never heard this term. You seem to be using it differently from "adapt". Is it the computer science equivalent?

RK, the researcher you mean on origin of life is Leslie Orgel (nice fellow).

lol...........

..........yeah, i was also wondering about this adopt/adapt flip flopping business....

and indi, i was actually refering to the Urey-Miller experiement, check it out:
[url]http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html[/url]



here is something from the above link that might interest MISH

Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.




by the way, where did MISH go? may be he is writing a BOOK to argue his case, and he will post it here in about a week..... :horror:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RSK

i'm gonna break down your breakdown, of the breakdown in which you broke down, my initial breakdown....











Did you know some of the wackiest people in history are also scientists?



WHAT? When something is pushed into shape by externalities, GUESS WHAT...

...it ADAPTS!!! lol. I don't understand why you can't see this!

let me use YOUR example.

Of course the cardboard did not adapt by itself! YOU adapted the cardboard box (by Force)...

...that's not to say the carboard box did not adapt! It still did, but NOT by itself. It was YOU that helped it adapt for whatever reason...

...but again, you are using crazy examples that will only confuse you MORE.

Here is another example: (I hope you read this)

Imagine a garden. And in this garden, there is a popluation of BUGS. A small percentage of Bugs are resistent to 'BUG KILLER', and MOST are NOT...

...the Gardener sprays this 'BUG KILLER' in the Garden...(and therefore, changes the environment)...

what do you think happens???

the Bugs without resistence DIE, and the Bugs WITH resistence survive, and reproduce MORE offspring, and therefore EVOLVE!

these Bugs, have essentially ADAPTED to their enviornment...


LET ME GIVE YOU A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE (not to say the above isn't, because bugs adapt to new chemicals EVERYDAY, and it is becoming a serious enviornmental problem)


AIDS VIRUS: well, it is obvious how deadly this virus is. did you know that aids patienst must take DIFFERENT medications throughout there life to control to virus? GUESS WHY! it's because the Virus evolves in the human body, and takes NEW FORMS, and NEW drugs must be developed to combat these new forms...just as in the example above...

It is a VERY fundamental concept of how nature adapts to it's enviornment, the two are VERY MUCH related...

...i'm not saying this just to say, look, i know more than you, i'm saying it, to open your eyes, and look at something from, perhaps, a different view.




Well, all I can say, is take a Biology class, just the basics to learn how complex life is. Havn't you heard the difference between a human brain and a computer? I've heard it a million times. I'm tired of circling around to the same argument...it's leading nowhere.

Do me a favor, read a Basic Biology text book. Do it, just so you can argue 'better' against the Biological view of life.



No, can the computer evolve? Have you seen I robot? That's what happens when computers evolve. I'll believe it when I see it, or read some respected paper published on it. To this day, I've seen neither.



HAHA, no, I NEVER said life has to meet all of them either, that's the Biologists again...it's all them.

I don't take ANY credit for there superb work, I'm just the messenger.

---

1. Yes I know

2. Obviously our adaptation symantecs are different. I was arguing for adaptation based on the entety being able to modify it's behaviour via a calculating or a thinking proccess to adapt to a new environemnt (Something that mountains and rivers obviously can not do). Not adapting based on outside circumstances. Well, that makes us both right :) (P.s. Sorry for misspelling adapt hehe)

3. The differences between a computer and a brain are ASTRONOMICAL, I know. Even the cluster of thousdands of computers is not enough to replicate the simplest of brain functions. We are not arguing however how closely a computer can match a human brain, we are arguing how many proccess should a computer be able to do to be able to be classified as a lifeform.

4. Computer's thinking proccesses can evolve yes.

5. This is what you said:

using the biological perspective, a LIVING ENTITY must satisfy the above requirements...........ALL OF THEM.

Sure, maybe the examples above satisfy one or two, maybe three by a stretch, but does it satisfy ALL of them?


I had a look through the entire site that you linked and I din't find the above lines anywhere... It was you who killed the coma patient, admit it!!! :D