Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (758)	5/28/2003 11:38:44 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1112

Yes. OK. What are your presumptions? My first presumption is that life is neither created nor destroyed. It is eternal. This is very near or in some ways exactly like what we say about energy. When life is breathed into something or departs, where does it go? where has it come from? I proposed a new theory of energy some time back and got lamblasted by a couple of scientist wannabees here on SI. The idea looks something like this. Rather than call light, with it's photon properties etc. energy; I suggested that light is an emmission that can only exist in the presence of energy. The traditional argument against this, of course, is that light itself is a form of energy. However, I argue, light is not energy because the energy is not destroyed when the light is out. Light exists in the presence of energy, but energy itself is an unseen force beneath the light. I have since challenged some physicists with this question of energy, in relation to sound, heat, etc. What are the properties of energy that exist separately from a loud noise, a fire, etc. If the energy changes form from potential energy (a block of wood) to active energy (fire) and something else when the fire has consumed the wood, what is that thing that existed at each state of the process. We have a name for it, energy. So what are its properties? Life could be viewed in a similar way. The cell parts of a leaf are all present and functioning as long as there is life in the leaf. The cell parts may still be there, when the miracle of life has gone. So we call the leaf a living thing while life is in it, when life is gone the leaf is no longer living. We may know that the leaf was diseased or whatever and so we have a reason for it to die, but what left the leaf? Again, we have a name for it, but... I find it interesting that our culture requires a cause of death to be stated on death certificates; where as, many cultures do not. Of course for practical legal purposes this is useful. But, part of our cultural problem with this topic is that we must have a cause and effect scenario for life to be present and to qualify its existence. If my presumptions are correct and you agree, then the eternal aspect of life must be accepted at the foundation of the discussion. If not, we are stuck here. The argument against this is that living things ARE life and life does not exist outside of the physical, temporal experience.