- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,466
- 4,001
- 47
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
I don't follow the reasoning. Aren't all things still something when the circulation stops?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't follow the reasoning. Aren't all things still something when the circulation stops?The swimming pool is not alive because without the circulation, the pool is still a pool.
So, they are all NOT alive according to my definition.
You may not know. But it IS science. Otherwise, I won't say that.
I don't follow the reasoning. Aren't all things still something when the circulation stops?
It's not science. Show me any reputable scientist saying that rocks are alive. Just one. If you can do that, I'll accept your claim that rocks are alive.
So why is a pool with a filtration system different?Yes, except one is alive, the other one is dead.
Something died is not a life anymore.
So why is a pool with a filtration system different?
How do you objectively define need?A pool (a life form or not?) does not need a circulation system.
So, a pool is not a life.
How do you objectively define need?
A pool is supposed to be clear and clean, not stagnant and manky. Much like a mouse is supposed to be scurrying around and eating seeds.
But why are these things objectively true? Why does a mouse "need" to be able to move etc? A mouse body is just a mouse body.
This is why "has liquid pumped through it to move chemicals around for reactions" is insufficient as a definition of life, and a definition of cells, respiration and consumption is not.
How are you objectively defining "purpose" and "natural".As I said, a system is NOT a life if the lost of circulation function caused the system to lose its function.
A natural pool does not need a circulation system.
An artificial pool needs artificial maintenance.
Both are not life system.
How are you objectively defining "purpose" and "natural".
Your definition seems to have far more complexities, caveats and flaws then your initial confidence indicated.
Wait a second. Losing circulation kills animals (using common definitions)... haven't they lost their function then?
Those are not clear examples. Can you explain?Use an example: An independent man is natural. A hospitalized man is purposed.
When a person died, his life functions are lost.
Those are not clear examples. Can you explain?
If the life of a patient is supported by artificial devices in hospital, his life is purposed (this is your term, not mine). In that situation, he does not own his whole life. In other words, he is only partially (in % depends on the situation) alive.
The water in a modern pool does not serve a full life. At the best, it is part of a supported life, provided you need to have something else (like people in the water, people who maintain the pool) all the time to make a complete living system. For example, if you call the pool alive when there are people in the pool, then it dies when people leave the pool.
Judge it by yourself. This attitude becomes more and more critical today.
Again, I don't need your acceptance. It is your business, not mine.
How is it my business?
What? You think rocks are alive?I told you that rock is alive, just like I told you there is God.
I know why, but you do not. You may accept it, or you don't.
Who's business is that? Certainly not mine.
What? You think rocks are alive?
Are you a child? Because animism is found during childhood.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?