[gilga]

Hi Guille...

Wow do I feel like a dunderhead or what??

I am sorry If My post sounded blasé. My intention was not that. But on rereading it I can understand it sounds like a junior coming on in the hip-hop fashion and trying to gird his loins. No way!

You take it right back to what one considers as evolution. And I think of it as an absorbing topic myself. Why didn’t I think of asking this myself. Well, this shows I’m in the right place. Thanks to you, Guille!

They have found evidence of life in the most unlikeliest of places. Like the type they find in craggy corners where one believed nothing could exist but these cellular organisms do, in the deep caves of the sea. So we go right to the fact that if and when the big bang was just a singularity and nothing more then from where and how did these so-called organisms appear? So there are millions of asteroids moving right left and centre ready to end this world but definitely with some life pattern that millions of years ago started ours.

I do believe in that. If we are caught up and scattered there will be some area, and please not a parallel world, but definitely an area for life to regenerate again. So we come back to your question again, what is life and how do we explain it?

I find Tony Fleming’s report very interesting. The rocks have an internal field but cannot allow any matter to interact with it. So is that QED and we say it’s not living (or is it living because of the perpetual motion of the atoms within…or is there a different answer for that, I’d love to know?) because it has an outer electron shell. Interesting> especially for someone like me who has really no basic knowledge of such things.

I like the way Fleming explains it, even our cells are in perpetual motion but we have that biofield open to interact… and no wonder we so easily become vectors.

So I’m left thinking too, very much like you Rodin…

[harmonygirl]

Originally Posted by Unreal Zelta So, you are saying that if a being (or an object) can make its own decisions without interferences or other manipulations. Then it's alive or conscoius. So it's something to be with the brain? The object must have the qualities of processing encounters and express their emotion sor reactions accodingly to there mind or free will? Mmm, we are onto something here. Let's keep it up! Best ragards Zelta

I think that life has historically been defined in an anthropormorphic sense, but this is wrong. I think there must be some aspect of volition but once again not a sufficient condition. I think the Earth is alive as one being but I can't prove it by independent choices that I have observed the planet make. Same thing with plants. Alive but I can't list independent choices (nor point to brain matter). Maybe I define life as something which affects light....still thinking....

[tony_fleming]

Originally Posted by naropa They have found evidence of life in the most unlikeliest of places. Like the type they find in craggy corners where one believed nothing could exist but these cellular organisms do, in the deep caves of the sea. So we go right to the fact that if and when the big bang was just a singularity and nothing more then from where and how did these so-called organisms appear? So there are millions of asteroids moving right left and centre ready to end this world but definitely with some life pattern that millions of years ago started ours. I do believe in that. If we are caught up and scattered there will be some area, and please not a parallel world, but definitely an area for life to regenerate again. So we come back to your question again, what is life and how do we explain it? I find Tony Fleming’s report very interesting. The rocks have an internal field but cannot allow any matter to interact with it. So is that QED and we say it’s not living (or is it living because of the perpetual motion of the atoms within…or is there a different answer for that, I’d love to know?) because it has an outer electron shell. Interesting> especially for someone like me who has really no basic knowledge of such things. I like the way Fleming explains it, even our cells are in perpetual motion but we have that biofield open to interact… and no wonder we so easily become vectors. So I’m left thinking too, very much like you Rodin…

Naropa, you wonder about where and how life began in the cosmos. How did DNA evolve?

Life on earth is a process involved with weather cycles. As the hot air due to the qeather cycle rose and fell in early earth, the single-celled algae took form. Notice how the DNA is like the spinors as defined in self-field theory (see www.unifiedphysics.com). The double helix of DNA is like two charged particles moving in spinorial motion around one another under gravity. Now in the hot air regions, the DNA structure including its 'spine of hydration' would be 'plastic'; this would happen in the lower atmosphere, while when it was cold as in the upper atmosphere, our 'protoDNA' would be stiffer; just like what happens inside the cell cycle.

I suggest then that DNA grew out of this early weather energy cycle.

Can it happen in other energy cycles given enough time? Of course!! This is what we see under the sea near the thermal vents. Notice that this vent occurs at a material discontinuity, just like life at the earth's surface. This is where any photon density discontinuity is greatest. So we need both a thermal cycle AND a media interface. It is interesting that the Bible says we were formed from the slime of the earth indicating life on earth may have come from an air-water interface, a very plastic interface.

So we should be excited about the chances of life wherever there is water-air or water-soil in the solar system such as Mars or Europa.

Cheers Tony

[zeroca]

Consciousness can’t be defined as life. It can be defined as one attribute, peculiar to some forms of life. Love is only one form of energy, another is hatred: they both can be defined also as peculiar attributes of life. I would define life as existence generally: i.e. any kind of existence within 3D space and time can be defined as life. And we can list several stages of life: inorganic, organic, in form of wave etc. Who can say that sunshine isn’t alive? That it brings life to everything despite its being dead?
I think death is one alteration of life, and any living creature, be it on any stage of existence, experiences change, but death is the stage of final alteration of this creature, but its consisting elements can be used for constructing of a new creature, so these elements remain alive but not on the previous stage - as consisting elements of former creature, which altered to death. As for a whole universe, it experiences modification of its consisting parts.

[mkirkpatrick]

Absolute all of absolutely all is alive?There is no dead thing anywhere in this
universe,or any other come to that.Our concepts of what we think is life,are
in truth very primitive!We have hardly a nodding aquaintance with the reality
of life,or in defining what we think it is?The simple and most basic answer to
the question,what is life?Is that all of manfested creation is alive,and always
has been,and always will be,period?



kind regards michael.

[chazzysaw]

How small is life? How simple can it be? Is it a one cell germ, or maybe the molecules that hold it together, are alive. Oh I know , it's the atoms that make the molecules that holds the germs together, that's living. I can't exclude the string (string theory) that forms the atoms that make the molecules...well you get the rest. It all seems to be a building block to something greater. Is everything living? Does everything have life? No, everything does not live.

[Mohan.C]

Guille,
Okay if you say that conciousness does not imply livng. What else?
I think conciousness as aware of the sorrounding or which changes with the sorroundings A rock can be alive... it changes. So it has got to do with time. Anything in the space time sructure or I mean anything which is determined by time by which we are determined is living and is concious.

[harmonygirl]

Originally Posted by chazzysaw How small is life? How simple can it be? Is it a one cell germ, or maybe the molecules that hold it together, are alive. Oh I know , it's the atoms that make the molecules that holds the germs together, that's living. I can't exclude the string (string theory) that forms the atoms that make the molecules...well you get the rest. It all seems to be a building block to something greater. Is everything living? Does everything have life? No, everything does not live.

Why not? What is your criteria?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Guille, Okay if you say that conciousness does not imply livng. What else? I think conciousness as aware of the sorrounding or which changes with the sorroundings A rock can be alive... it changes. So it has got to do with time. Anything in the space time sructure or I mean anything which is determined by time by which we are determined is living and is concious.

Consciousness does impply living. But living doesn't impply consciousness, that was what I said (I think?). And yes, life-time are totally connected: life impplies evolution, and evolution impplies time.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Absolute all of absolutely all is alive? There is no dead thing anywhere in this universe, or any other come to that. Our concepts of what we think is life, are in truth very primitive! We have hardly a nodding aquaintance with the reality of life, or in defining what we think it is? The simple and most basic answer to the question, what is life? Is that all of manfested creation is alive, and always has been, and always will be, period? kind regards michael.

Sorry Michael, but, epistemologically, you can only know this as a religion, belief or intuition, etc., or as I like to call it - a private language. The public language dictates proof and you, nor anyone else, has any - yet! I wish there were. Life would be much simpler. I'm looking for proofs here, also, but am willing to admit I have none, and know of none - yet! Until you can join or show the connection between quantum energy and vital life human energy, it must remain the grand angelic mystery. Like it or not DeCartes' mind/body problem is still alive and well, no matter what your conter-pronouncements may be. Intuition doesn't make science true, it only adds to the conceptual process... That's not to say it can't, I don't yet know... I only know we don't yet know... Can this be proven? No! So far, the story is, the differences between my creative analytic insanity, and your creative intuitive insanity - two private languages - quite a choice, ain't it?

regards