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: one_less who wrote (759)	5/28/2003 2:39:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1112

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. The energy isn't destroyed when the light is out, it just isn't generated anymore. In order for you to see light you need continuous generation of energy, because the light you saw before either gets scattered, absorbed, or just zooms past you at 186,000 or so miles per second. When you turn off the oven the energy isn't destroyed as the oven cools, the heat just spreads to the environment around it. Its pretty much the same thing with light. Tim

To: one_less who wrote (759)	5/28/2003 11:41:02 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1112

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. I'm neither ready to agree or disagree. I'm ready to try to understand, and to examine your thesis. If I understand you right, life is eternal. That it can exist without the need necessarily to "inhabit" something which then becomes living. But in that case, if it can exist outside of anything that is living, it must have some form of existence itself. What is that form of existence? Is it material? Energy? Force? Something completely other than those? If we had the right instruments, could we detect the thing which is life independent of things which liv? How do you deal with Aristotle's question of the prime mover? It is virtually impossible for me, and I think for most people, to conceive something that has always existed, and therefore has no beginning, no time when it came into being. If you accept creationism in any form, then you are saying that life had existence before creation. If you accept the concept of evolution, then you are saying that life had existence before the big bang. Am I correct about these? There are dozens of questions which arise, but before we get into those I want to see whether we are together so far, or whether I am completely misunderstanding your theory.