Human beings Living or Non-Living?

Not really. All I meant by Science AND logic is that I'm trying to explain the facts using logic.

In the example you gave 1=0, you're trying to logically derive a conclusion and then comparing it to a fact(you cannot divide by zero). Here there's a flaw.

What I'm doing is I'm deriving a conclusion on facts and then comparing it to logic. Other way round.

It doesn't mean that Life has always existed. It means that the whole concept of living thing is just an illusion.

@shak .. Since all matter in the universe is composed of 100+ elements. All non-living things.

Here are all the possible equations which can make a living thing:

LIVING = NON-LIVING + x
or
LIVING = NON-LIVING - x

But what is 'x' ?

Is 'x', LIVING or NON-LIVING or something ELSE.

So we have three possibilities:

'x' being :
1. LIVING
2. NON-LIVING
3. ELSE

CASE 1: x = LIVING

So ..

LIVING = NON-LIVING + LIVING
This give rise to recursion. This makes this equation "non-answering". Means it is bad/incomplete equation, it can not answer this question.

CASE 2: x = NON-LIVING

LIVING = NON-LIVING + NON-LIVING

This means that LIVING are the combination of the NON-LIVING, so NON-LIVING, are more fundamental than the LIVING.So it can be said that HUMANS are NON-LIVING things.

-----------------------
With the NEGATIVE sign.
-----------------------
CASE 1: x = L

L = NL - L
=> NL = L + L

This means that NL are more evolved species. But L are more evolved, comparing mind, emotions etc. So above equation loses its relevance on practical experience platform.
Thus, Bad equation.

CASE 2: x = NL

L = NL - NL

Bad equation.


CASE with x = ELSE

Q) Can anything ELSE exist?
Lets, assume it to be yes.

CASE 1:

L = NL - x
=> NL = L + x

This if I take from the evolution point of view then, it means that NL are more evolved than L. But again by practical experience it is not so. Thus this is bad equation.

CASE 2 :

L = NL + x

X is making changes in the NL (compound). Thus we L are basically with
the changed form of NL. But still NL.


Hence I think Human beings are scientifically NON-LIVING.

 

u are simply confusing urself lol



blaaah there r millions of ways we can sum that in equations but who cares notty r u going to write a 3000 page thesis on that or sth such??? lol

 

Merely saying that doesn't prove anything..

Show me where I am confused n we shall talk

 

if indeed L = NL+x then 'X' must be significant enough to change NL to L! dont you think? and L cannot be equal to NL since 'X' is the detrmining factor here hence L is only equal to NL if X is not present .. L cannot be equal to or same as NL if X is present ..
and humans exist only becuase X is present .. hence in case of humans L cannot be equal to NL as long as X is present ..

now one can debate when death occurs, X disappears from the expression to leave L=NL ...i.e humans can only then be regarded as non-living things.

^ by the way, i do not believe all this, i am only giving my take on your argument.

 

^Lmao .. Even I don't believe in everything .. Just taking a concordist approach

wait .. lemme think ..

 

If NL and X are two basic entities, which can remain separately (We know NL exist as such, thus X must have property of existing 'alone') then what causes them to mix up? What is the cause of this reaction/change.

Scientifically, there are no two stable things which can react of their own, they need some third party to make that happen, like heat (NL)(Exothermic reactions need another explanation).

Physics says that if two systems are stable and existing as such, then going back to the point where X and NL are two different entities, that is when no L was there, from that point, to the evolution of the first L .. What made the X (one stable system) to Mix up with L (another stable system).

EDIT: Example.
Lets go back to time where Life is 0%. NL and X are leaving happily alone, totally seperated.

Now what made the NL and X to react in the manner as they did. Is it living/Non-Living?
It can't be living coz now we're at at time where Life is 0% remember.

It is just hypothesis to assume that something made the reaction and Living thing came into picture. Hence the equation falls in this case.

 

Ok Notty wins!

Yay! We are non living things

 

I'm a weak atheist and i think that the ability to self replicate, on a molecular scale is what turns inanimate matter into a "living being". That is, when a molecule or a set of molecules are able to self replicate, they "live".

 

Please tell me who said that life was "easy" or has a high probability of occuring.

Thats exactly what religious people say. BUT, the next logical step would be to try and explain the "intelligent creator", which isnt simple at all. And no, to say that it "transcends logic" wont be convincing to many people at all.

I can just make up random characters and say OMG, i have a personal relationship with my pet flying elephant. Its sooo awesome! None of us can see, feel, hear, etc it because it is beyond our senses and it transcends human logic!! [blah, blah]

I dont know what "must be something". If life has to form, it is most probable that the most common elements on the universe will form it (barring He, because Helium is satanic/mariah carey). It must be something if we were made of a bunch of Gallium, Uranium, Radon Plutonium, etc. That would be an even lower probability event.

 

1. read the sentence again ... i said 'if' ... = shak was negating that assumption.

2. by religious aspect, i meant the soul .. not the creator ... + religion is something that doesnt need a logic to prove or disprove something.

3. and thats why it is A MYSTERY, cuz as far as i know, till 16th of jan 2007, no one knew what that X is .. or even if it is exists .. and if it doesnt then how come ordinary elements become animated.
x= anything ... not particularly an element ... let not your imagination be narrow.

 

How about x=life?

Miller and Urey conducted an experiment (don't fail me now, class 12 biology) wherein they simulated the primitive conditions of earth - the primordial soup of methane ammonia water and hydrogen. An environment without oxygen in the atmosphere to an extent that it exists today. You know what they found? They found that an electric spark caused the formation of molecular aggregates.

You may or may not want to read about abiogenesis on this page

Protobionts and coacervates are aggregates that have been synthesised. They can inaccurately replicate, but have no life in them.

So what is the step between non-living and living? What separates a living cell from it's constituents? That's a question science and logic have still not been able to answer.

What has been put into each "life-form" from borderline non-living virii to fully conscious and sentient human beings that causes them to reproduce? Do they know about death? How do they reason that at some time they should propagate themselves to generate further life?

You might have heard the statement omnis cellulae a cellulae. It means that cells arise from pre-existing cells only. That is the mystery of life. You can take all the parts of a cell separately and put them into a petridish but a new cell will not arise from the constituents as such.

Why did life decide to evolve? Why are we not single cells floating around in water? How does each cell of an organism contain the exact genetic information as all the others, yet behave differently?

The concept of logic was invented by human beings.

A kangaroo has ears, a tail, 4 limbs, a nose, a brain, 2 eyes. A rabbit has ears, a tail, 4 limbs, a nose, a brain, 2 eyes. Even at the molecular level, both are composed of molecules of C, H, O, N, S, Ca, P, K, Mg, Fe, etc. Hence a rabbit and a kangaroo are actually the same thing, right? Even you are the same as a mixture of the compounds of the aforementioned elements. Hence you are a rabbit.

 

making amino acids out of sparking the premordial soup is just the begining .. there are chapter upon chapters left to be written on origin of life ... and all i see today is the word 'evolution' written on every page ...

and that rabbit/kangaroo example is very interesting indeed, just goes on to show there really is some 'X' .. (X is not to be confused with some 'element' or physical entity as such ... X can be anything, known or un-known)

and why hasnt science been able to answer the question on life? is it just incompetant or the truth is beyond the limited confines of science and logic?

 

I think one of the most fascinating things about life is consciousness, no matter at what level. Just that fact that an organism is pre-destined to want to survive (to an extent) and propagate its own self with or without the knowledge of the so-called bigger picture, there are no words for it. Life is so resilient, maybe it forced itself out of (or into) non-living matter.

 

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa
Not directly related to wht you mentioned but anyway interesting.

 

^ interesting .....

 

I think you have way too much time on your hands. And what is "living" and "non-living" but a label? Does that change anything at all?

(Call me if you need a job)

 

Concept of life has been invented by man
pretty much like concept of God.

 

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me that youre joking.

 

Those questions are aimed at notty_lad regarding everything being non-living. I don't find it very funny.

The second part though, it's logic :

 

OK, good that you ARE joking. Otherwise, that was something that rivalled israeli press briefings or ted haggard's lectures