Debate Disturbingly lifelike animate inanimate objects

Very well spoken if I might add!
Wow how far this conversation has gone! I'd say that this thread has the best chance for a category titled "should be locked"... That is how far we have gone off topic... If I could add a poll in this thread I would add one that would say "A. should be locked, or B. should be deleated..." and start a debate about it in the same thread (it would follow along the lines of this thread...)

Cussing is not necessary and should be reffrained from. This is a debate forum if you said that in a real debate you would be removed from it... That is all.

 

While it couldn't biologically be classed as life, it is true that by the nature of existence, objects seem to work together to achieve a common goal, which is similar to several things about life, and it could be philosophically be considered life, and seeing as nobody has any significant knowledge on sentience, dismissing anything immediately as insentient is pointless.

 

Ok, first of all how can the suu be alive??? I know that your argument is rocks on pluto that are alive or supposedly inanimate objects like THE SUN can be alive because they evolved to exist without cells but even if evolution were true it involves cells and DNA to happen! How could a cell evolve into an inanimate object?? It cannot because a cell is a cell it has organelles and a system that it lives through while a rock is in no way shape or form alive or related to a cell. And the thought that a rock or other supposed to be inanimate object can create itself is idotic because it would be spontanuous generation which it not possible... You say that we are not thinking outside of the box and were not but were thinking inside what is LOGICAL the thought that a living organism can evolve into something we consider inanimate is illogical... Your argument is has more holes that swiss cheese and you have dug yourself into a deep hole and your getting deeper... Your way out? DROP IT... That is all I will say for now...

 

I think he's just expressing it wrong, and he's talking about non-cellular life.
Mainly about how inanimate things seem to work together to become animate.

 

The organelles are not inanimate and if you are talking about atoms that has no jurisdiction within this matter atoms make up everything. The organelles within a cell are alive they function within the cell and even if they are not considered alive what inanimate things are made up the same way that cells are? Like I said, living organisms cannot evolve to not need cells because how can something evolve from needing cells to not needing cells when it had cells to begin with?(that is speaking hypothetically of course since evolution is not true.)

 

There is absolutely no explanation of how gravity is formed or how it functions. We only know the effects to a reasonable extent. So this guy was right, there is no proof that it exists, we just know theres a force that has an affect on us, and from what we know about it (which is of minute detail) we call it gravity.

And how can you be 100% correct about your statement, when something can not be 100% predicted? You suggest there is always a flaw of error, but not with you?

My take on this is, and i hate to repeat myself but, you are a ****ing moron. You have completely destroyed this debate with your lunacy, flawed and malformed information and absence of basic grammar skills.

In philosophical debates one must remove practicalities. In this case, theoretically possible means the same as possible, so saying that it would be inpractical to predict someones actions does not make it impossible! Absolutely anything is possible.

 

Very true, however, there is no reason to insult anyone I do not care if they said that the sun is black, the earth if flat, and that humans are not alive! There is no excuse to insulting ANYONE!! Try to refrain from doing so in the future...

 

This is just my opinion but...

this thread should have been locked way back here.

 

Well that is what we have been saying the entire time yet no moderator has done so...

 

If you knew the position and type of every atom in the universe at the beginning of time, you could predict the future forever on.

Your movements and thoughts can be predicted, because your thoughts are in fact impacted and cause an impact on the physical world, as discovered by relatively unknown division of research referred to "noetic science".

In the view of materialism, the entire world is what it is: physical, no metaphysical aspects to life whatsoever. Should this be true, and the fact that we already know the laws of physics have predetermined everything, what is life? Nothing more than a robot.

Also, when lacking a metaphysical organ of some kind, what defines a multi-cellular organism as one entity, and not billions?

Off topic, has anyone else noticed that "living things" have either one cell or billions? No in-between?

 

For your first part, it is impossible. As far as I know you can not know the speed and place of a particle at the same time only one or the other according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Well not that exactly, but if you are really curious read the wiki, or buy a book on it. On to your second point, there are many in-betweens. Tape worms, hydras, anything with a gastrovascular cavity really. Those all have many more than one cell, but do not have billions or even millions. Just thought I would say that.

 

Living things have cells.

End thread.

There needs to be an archive where we can put threads like this just for people to look through and laugh at. This guy is a troll without even trying.

 

I realize it is impossible, but it's a hypothetical situation to advance my point.

 

I did not know if you were serious or not. Also did you see my second point? Any comment?

 

My second point wasn't an argument, I just realized it, but now it appears I was wrong.

And to the guy who said "end thread" after clarifying that living things have cells, that was ****-move. How arrogant can you get? There's no need to be jackass about this, it's a conversation with intelligent people involved, not four year olds.

 

What should be the end of the thread.

Question: Are stars alive?

Answer: No.


To be defined as 'alive' something must exhibit all of these characteristics:

• Living things are made of cells.
• Living things obtain and use energy.
• Living things grow and develop.
• Living things reproduce.
• Living things respond to their environment.
• Living things adapt to their environment.

Stars can't defined as organisms because they just don't fit the classification, they are not alive.

Sorry if people have stated this before, to many comments to look through. I would be very surprised if no one has stated this, because if I understand the topic properly this is the definitive indisputable and actually quite obvious answer.

 

Correcting Turkey bag

Name one organism not mainly composed of cells, its not a suggestion it's a fact, life is composed mainly of cells.

Stars don't fit any catagories of life, and to be defined as alive, something must fit all catagories. There is no argument here, stars are not alive. They may appear alive, they may have an image of Dr Phils face on the surface, they may have been spotted taking shits for all i care, but they do not fit the definition of being alive.