Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: "What Constitues Life..."

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Tön/">Tön on December 30, 1998 01:42:07 UTC

: : : : We view everything only in the human context, limited. : : : : How do we define life, E.T. and non E.T.? Can we say : : : : that planets, stars, atoms, protons, neutrinos everything : : : : big and small can be viewed as a life form? What constituits : : : : life??

: : : : Tön : : : :

: : : my idea of, "what constitutes life"...

: : : The opposite of entropy. Increasing complexity for : : : the purpose of itself.

: : : tell me what force is it in nature that "responds" : : : to this coding of information? Why does life spring : : : about merely by the presence of the correct arrangement : : : of protien chains?

: : : this question ponders in the minds of many evolutionists...

: : : many respond in stating that this "force of nature" : : : is just another natural law that we have not uncovered...

: : : my rebuttal:

: : : By what presupposition are you supposing a force of : : : nature? Why is it this life giving force is even present : : : in nature? It seems uncanny that such a beautifull : : : and amazing "force" would constitute itself in bringing : : : forth the astounding intricacies of life... aside : : : from chance...

: : : probability comes about only because there is the : : : presence of this "life giving force"... Life would : : : not exist merely on the arrangement of protien chains. : : : Life requires the "decoder" of information as well.

: : : I sometimes question that the "decoder" of life is by : : : far more astounding than the information in presence; albeit : : : the information encoded is indisputably amazing.

: : : I won't bother announcing why or how I believe I am : : : here. I'm sure you have pondered this same question. : : : I pray that you come to the understanding of the : : : one and true God. Its awesome to be a Christian. : : : I'm not ashamed whatsoever. What joy there is in life! :)

: : : Godbless...

: : _____________________

: : Agreed, agreed.

: : The question is directed more to perception and : : understanding of life. We obviously justify : : logic and understanding in the most human way. : : Indeed, it is somewhat limited but not at all : : a false way.

: : The question was on life on other planets. : : Life as we define in earth terms have the : : constraints of a structure, logic...again, : : only as we know it. To me, life means the : : opposite of NO life. I believe that the : : universe itself is a living entity. We are : : not seperated nor isolated from it.

: : To question, is there life on other planets : : seems to me is unquestionable. Since the : : universe is life and therefore planets are living.

: : I view life and the universe as a whole and : : not dualistically. Do you see physical and : : metaphysical as two seperate entities, at best : : as cause and effect? This is a very European : : philosophy and dominates western science and : : religion as we know it.

: : Decoding ?? Why? Trying to make sense of life : : by breaking them apart into convenient categories, : : labels, numbers, and hierarchies that merely : : pacify our curiosity and insecurities.

: : Indeed, life is wonderful. The whole lot of it! : : I'm Taoist...and God is great.

: : Tön

: I would disagree with your view regarding the universe : as a whole is a living entity.

: I would define life a bit more scrupulously. To : state that planets, stars, or the entire universe : is 'alive' would really cause a problem as to how : we now define life...

: I would define life as follows. I believe that any : life form has a 'centeredness' that consciously or : unconsciously strives to keep itself from harm and : to promote itself in reproducing after its kind.

: A rock or substance, to my knowledge, does not : possess this 'centeredness'.

: I think life is how you define it. Some, who are from : the pantheistic world view would state that all of : life is god and god is all of life... I disagree.

: I believe the creator is separated by his creation : and is neither bound by his creation, nor manipulated : by it.

: I think creation and life reveals God's nature, but : I strictly do not believe that god is nature.

: : Decoding ?? Why? Trying to make sense of life : : by breaking them apart into convenient categories, : : labels, numbers, and hierarchies that merely : : pacify our curiosity and insecurities.

: I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood where I was : going with that. I have no problems with observing life : or labeling it ect. My point was the following:

: It seems as though living life needs not only DNA/RNA : as its genetic coding, but also a 'decoder' to : interprete what is coded.

: It is somewhat synonomous with this example.

: Take a cd. a music or software one, doesn't matter. : That cd, by itself is just information. It does : nothing or cannot do anything by itself. However, : put that music cd into something that was designed : to decode it and what happens? Music! Same with software : which is in turn read by hardware.

: DNA genetic coding needs a decoder, period. :) that was : my point.

: I am merely trying to stand outside of life and look : in from a purely objective standpoint.

: My point that I was trying to make was to state that, : life as I see it (from an objective standpoint) : consists of matter that is strictly organized and : follows a pattern of intrinsic design. Not random : unassisted design.

: It seems that you have encompassed all of matter as life. : I respect that, however I have to question why.

: How and why did pure matter or chemistry impose to : convince your mind that it in itself is life?

: Matter has no characteristics that would, upon discovering, : strike one as life. (when in comparing itself in context : with life as we observe it on earth.) Matter is matter. : It is merely the opposite of space. It does not : reproduce, defend its existance, or consume to : stay alive.


Life in the human context, I agree with you.

It could be said at this point that the belief systems of the two parties are different.

One believing in a God who is seperate and neither bound from his creation. One who believes that God is all that abounds us.

Think of the atom. It's discovery...profound. It's scale...endless. It's vastness...infinite.

Thru coding, everything big and small are built from humble and simple beginnings. We are discovering the complexities and frustrations when trying to understand sub-atoms, neutrinos, others and all it's mysteries. Where does the scale end?? You mentioned DNA/RNA. So what goes beyond that?? Inner space??

At what point in the building proccess of everything grand does life, as you defined it, begin or end. Can we say that there is an actually a darwinistic evolution that happens when the building is in process. If so, the processes involved must have some way of evolving, changing, mutating, consuming, transfering, staying alive to become the things they are in the present. Or? Have they always remained that way?

What then is decay?? What then is molecular bonding? What then is element compounding? No one matter stays in a perpetual state of purity forever.

When I define life, it means everything that holds it together and everthing that pulls it apart. Life to me is not a permanent state that remains unchanged but the undeniable processes of time. When God creates, he does never stops to say. Ok! that's a wrap! Hits the reset button. Next project please! Can you truly say that we will be in the unevolved state in the next billion years?

Am I to assume at this point that God will keep us unchanged because he has created us to his very humanoid likeness and wants us to remain that way??

I like the CD analogy :-)...but it's to self the human sense. Since we can only understand and appreciate design in the human context therefore it is only in that context. Design adheres to a specific need. Could we say then that, if everything was designed, then for what purpose? The question arises then, are we then the sole design of this purpose? Is everything around us designed merely to suite our purpose? Or is someone being entertained by the folies if human angst?

I do not believe in the randomness that most people hold. How can something be random if it is a whole. That only happens when things are segmented and studied in isolation. The universe is like a large carpet. If the carpet was broken down to into smaller and smaller parts will lead you to a very tiny string. Can't see much from that. But would you rather accept and see the beautiful image that makes up the carpet as a whole or be left seeing nothing and holding a tiny string in your fingertips. Each thing lives makes up the whole. Some how it manages to do so. The air you breathe to sustain you. The electrical exchanges in synapses in our brain to communicate our ideas. The black holes that appear in the heavens. All happening at the same time, at the same moment to create and sustain a living entity.

In the end, it goes back to one's belief system. You being and Christian and me a Taoist.

I am to the first to admit that I cannot look at this subject objectively ,or better yet, outside the box. It is beyond us to do so. We're all to human.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins