Page 15 of 20 [ 292 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 20  Next

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,816
Location: Reading, England

01 Jun 2015, 8:53 am

Oldavid wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
This has already been explained to you. Death always changes empirical, measurable things that are simply too complex to change back. There is no need to appeal to a supernatural life force.
Nothing has "already been explained" and I never appealed to a supernatural "life force".
Quote:
Death always changes empirical, measurable things that are simply too complex to change back.
So, what things and how did they get there in the first place?

I suggest you re-read the end of page 2 and the beginning of page 3.

If you die of dehydration, your salt balances are all going to be out of wack and your cells are being destroyed. You can't then bring those cells back to life, not even by adding water - you'd need to repair damaged organelles, you'd need to repair other cells which these depend on to keep them alive (those that keep the heart beating, lungs pumping, red blood cells...). With death, all the body's functions shut off, you've got to restart all those functions to get things going again.

How do interrelated complex structures evolve? I would imagine they initially gave an advantage, but weren't vital for survival. Over time, so many new processes were built on top of them that they eventually did become vital. For example, the heart. A pump-based system of circulation allowed species to get bigger than relying on diffusion alone would do. Once the pump enabled us to grow bigger, we relied on it to stay alive.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

01 Jun 2015, 9:08 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
This has already been explained to you. Death always changes empirical, measurable things that are simply too complex to change back. There is no need to appeal to a supernatural life force.
Nothing has "already been explained" and I never appealed to a supernatural "life force".
Quote:
Death always changes empirical, measurable things that are simply too complex to change back.
So, what things and how did they get there in the first place?

I suggest you re-read the end of page 2 and the beginning of page 3.

If you die of dehydration, your salt balances are all going to be out of wack and your cells are being destroyed. You can't then bring those cells back to life, not even by adding water - you'd need to repair damaged organelles, you'd need to repair other cells which these depend on to keep them alive (those that keep the heart beating, lungs pumping, red blood cells...). With death, all the body's functions shut off, you've got to restart all those functions to get things going again.

How do interrelated complex structures evolve? I would imagine they initially gave an advantage, but weren't vital for survival. Over time, so many new processes were built on top of them that they eventually did become vital. For example, the heart. A pump-based system of circulation allowed species to get bigger than relying on diffusion alone would do. Once the pump enabled us to grow bigger, we relied on it to stay alive.
Fanciful speculations; very attractive to anyone not constrained by observations of reality.

You can imagine anything you like but that doesn't make it either possible or probable.

Don't die of dehydration... die of heart failure... still kaput without any loss of essential atoms.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,816
Location: Reading, England

01 Jun 2015, 9:15 am

The brain requires a constant supply of oxygen. If the heart stops beating, it is deprived of that. Reactions that require oxygen cannot happen. That causes a huge chemical change.

Unlike you, my speculation is based on observation, it does not contradict the established evidence, and it is made with a knowledge of basic biology.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,508
Location: x

01 Jun 2015, 9:21 am

Oldavid wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
This has already been explained to you. Death always changes empirical, measurable things that are simply too complex to change back. There is no need to appeal to a supernatural life force.
Nothing has "already been explained" and I never appealed to a supernatural "life force".
Quote:
Death always changes empirical, measurable things that are simply too complex to change back.
So, what things and how did they get there in the first place?

I suggest you re-read the end of page 2 and the beginning of page 3.

If you die of dehydration, your salt balances are all going to be out of wack and your cells are being destroyed. You can't then bring those cells back to life, not even by adding water - you'd need to repair damaged organelles, you'd need to repair other cells which these depend on to keep them alive (those that keep the heart beating, lungs pumping, red blood cells...). With death, all the body's functions shut off, you've got to restart all those functions to get things going again.

How do interrelated complex structures evolve? I would imagine they initially gave an advantage, but weren't vital for survival. Over time, so many new processes were built on top of them that they eventually did become vital. For example, the heart. A pump-based system of circulation allowed species to get bigger than relying on diffusion alone would do. Once the pump enabled us to grow bigger, we relied on it to stay alive.
Fanciful speculations; very attractive to anyone not constrained by observations of reality.

You can imagine anything you like but that doesn't make it either possible or probable.

Don't die of dehydration... die of heart failure... still kaput without any loss of essential atoms.


Oxygen. How exactly does oxygen travel the body after heart failure?



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

01 Jun 2015, 4:59 pm

This, although you don't realise it, is quite silly.

If your lack of reasoning is continued you will be asserting that plants are not alive (no difference between a dead one and a live one) because they don't have "brain activity" and things such as yeasts and many other organisms that don't need oxygen from the air, or have a brain, are even less alive than just plain dead because dead clearly implies "was alive but now is not".

What I'm saying is that a conglomeration of atoms is not "life".



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,508
Location: x

01 Jun 2015, 5:33 pm

Oldavid wrote:
This, although you don't realise it, is quite silly.


I am guessing that by "this" you mean
Janissy wrote:
Oxygen. How exactly does oxygen travel the body after heart failure?



Oldavid wrote:
If your lack of reasoning is continued you will be asserting that plants are not alive (no difference between a dead one and a live one) because they don't have "brain activity"

straw man- I have never asserted in any of my posts that brain activity is a necessary component of life. Did you not read my VERY FIRST POST in this thread where I described the cellular definition of life?
Quote:
and things such as yeasts and many other organisms that don't need oxygen from the air,

yeasts need oxygen- they just get it dissolved in whatever medium they are growing in. You may not know this but oxygen is found in other places besides air. Anaerobic bacteria don't need oxygen but they do need other molecules as electron receptors. *
Quote:
or have a brain,

straw man- I never brought up brains.
Quote:
are even less alive than just plain dead because dead clearly implies "was alive but now is not".

What I'm saying is that a conglomeration of atoms is not "life".


The only place where I discussed the ambiguity of alive/dead/never alive was in reference to viruses because they don't fit the cellular definition of life. Go back to the very first page where I discuss the cellular definition of life.

*why are electron receptors needed? They let electrons leave the electron transport chain (a part of the metabolic process of cellular energy production) so it doesn't stall and have to resort to anaerobic respiration which doesn't work for us multicellular organisms except in very short bursts. Oxygen is the most widely used electron receptor but there are some unicellular organisms that use other molecules.

A conglomeration of atoms is not life. There needs to be metabolism- at least in the cellular definition of life.Thus the enigma of viruses.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,816
Location: Reading, England

01 Jun 2015, 5:48 pm

I think David was responding to my posts, where I said that heart failure in humans would lead to brain damage and then death. I don't actually know whether lack of support from the brain or local lactoacidosis or something is what stops metabolism, but lactoacidosis seems more likely now I think about it. Maybe lactoacidosis in the brain causes irreversible damage that the organism cannot hope to survive first?

I do agree with the points you make though, Janissy.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,508
Location: x

01 Jun 2015, 6:16 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
I think David was responding to my posts, where I said that heart failure in humans would lead to brain damage and then death. I don't actually know whether lack of support from the brain or local lactoacidosis or something is what stops metabolism, but lactoacidosis seems more likely now I think about it. Maybe lactoacidosis in the brain causes irreversible damage that the organism cannot hope to survive first?

I do agree with the points you make though, Janissy.


Yup. It's the lactoacidosis. The emergency switchover to anaerobic metabolism can keep us multicellular organisms alive for a little while but it does lead to cell death in the brain. A modest amount of that is survivable but it's not pretty. Surviving a really bad cardiac arrest can lead to some traumatic brain injury. This is a horrible shock to people who assumed that it's all going to be ok after resuscitation. :cry: :cry: :cry: As you might imagine, there is a hard limit on how much cell death a brain can withstand before it simply doesn't work at all. :cry: :cry: :cry:



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,295
Location: New Orleans

01 Jun 2015, 10:44 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Inventor wrote:
We are but a small part of a massive being of energy involved in a fantastic artwork.

We could be more useful.
I liked you better when the cyber-hole ate your submissions.

How do you know that "We are but a small part of a massive being of energy involved in a fantastic artwork"? To me the most fantastic artwork is the fantastic artworks of loonies completely detached from the constraints of reality.


I do a bit of art myself, so I see the patterns. I also raise worms.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

02 Jun 2015, 8:04 am

Inventor wrote:
I do a bit of art myself, so I see the patterns. I also raise worms.
I can see patterns too. Even patterns not of my own creation that precede me and which existed long before I recognised them.

Patterns are created and recognised by intellect, not energy.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,603

02 Jun 2015, 9:16 am

Oldavid wrote:
Inventor wrote:
I do a bit of art myself, so I see the patterns. I also raise worms.
I can see patterns too. Even patterns not of my own creation that precede me and which existed long before I recognised them.

Patterns are created and recognised by intellect, not energy.




'Daily Mass of Energy and Light'

9:16

Emotion IS energy.

Emotion IS Mass.

Brain scans evidence this IS True.

Energy is abstract constructs is words
is thoughts is intellect is Mass is ME.

Emotions energize mass of human as one.

Yes, again; emotions and energy and
mass and words and thoughts
and intellect is one MIND.

Human is energy.

Human is mass.

E is energy.

M is Mass.

C2 is Speed
of light Squared.

E=MC2 and ME.

Science, and the
FACT that I
am Energy
IS Mass
Times
Light
Squared
does
not
scare 'ME' (mind and body
in balance) is Energy me is
Mass times Speed of LIGHT squared.

It thrills me to be Energy MASS LIGHT.

Like the folks in this video:



Smiles..:)

I control my energy IS Mass
times Speed of Light Squared
with the synergy of All of this.

Some folks don't, so they
stay stuck HERE, instead
of the 'Milky Way' like
me..;)

Yes, I am more than
meets the 'eye'
at
first
glance..:)

YOU, yes YOU, can be
A 'Star pArt God' of 'LIGHT'
too, if you figure out
how all innately
instinctually
and intuitively
like ME
AKA
ENERGY
MASS
LIGHT.

AND sure, folks
THINK Einstein
is full of woo too;
But his imagination
and CREATIVITY
is stronger than
any textbook
OR robot
thinking
SCIENTIST
BEFORE.

WE ARE all 'CREATIVE
Stars pArts'
IF we find
THAT
in us
and
use
tHis
Energy
MASS
LIGHT
to 'our'
FULLER
HUMAN potential.

'M E' CONTROLS THIS
through the synergy
of all the above;
but yah, for
most folks
THIS
Syn-
ergy
is
WOO.
HA! BUT!
M E! CAN PROVE!
IT WORKS FOR ME!
AT least in
results
he HE!..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

02 Jun 2015, 12:02 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Inventor wrote:
I do a bit of art myself, so I see the patterns. I also raise worms.
I can see patterns too. Even patterns not of my own creation that precede me and which existed long before I recognised them.

Patterns are created and recognised by intellect, not energy.
really? are you claiming that a rational intellect created life on earth? because, uh.. well..

Image



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

02 Jun 2015, 3:59 pm

Fugu wrote:
really? are you claiming that a rational intellect created life on earth? because, uh.. well..
Er, no. Rational is a step by step process that is peculiar to us who are stuck in space-time. However, an attempt to dissect and explain the reasoning process to irrational minds would be quite futile and I have not the slightest intention of trying it around here.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

02 Jun 2015, 4:28 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Fugu wrote:
really? are you claiming that a rational intellect created life on earth? because, uh.. well..
Er, no. Rational is a step by step process that is peculiar to us who are stuck in space-time. However, an attempt to dissect and explain the reasoning process to irrational minds would be quite futile and I have not the slightest intention of trying it around here.
that's because you're one of the 'irrational minds' you mention. if you weren't busy trying to split hairs you'd see how at least 3 people(including aghogday) have refuted your arguments only for you to skate over the argument and start cherrypicking.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

02 Jun 2015, 5:14 pm

Fugu wrote:
that's because you're one of the 'irrational minds' you mention. if you weren't busy trying to split hairs you'd see how at least 3 people(including aghogday) have refuted your arguments only for you to skate over the argument and start cherrypicking.
No. You, and they, are deliberately ignoring the guts of the argument which is that life is more than a mere accumulation of atoms.

Fantastic speculations and assertions do not make a live organism out of a pile of atoms.