My thoughts

[Asmodean]

Sounds like energy/waves/light/molecules/atoms fit this description?

Nice try, Sparky. But, A-1: you have given a bunch of definitions of "alive" - some of them metaphorical - not of "living". B-2: Some of those are, indeed, metaphorical. Your drivel, however, is not.   Oh, And C-3: HOW exactly does energy fit into even the metaphorical descriptions of "alive" where "alive" implies more than just being?

Lemme help out a bit:

Living: posessing or in an act of life

Life: Definition depends on source, but let us go with the mainstream: that which respires, multiplies and expires.

Atoms don't breethe. Nor does energy. Energy does not multiply, unless you are willing to admit that it can be created after saying that it "never" can. (Sounds like something you fished out of a fifth grade physics book... The same one in which 1-2 magically equals zero)

[Gawen]

oooops...that's twice that's happened

[Gawen]

The only thing existing outside the universe, is nothingness. Energy does not exist outside of the confines of the universe.

I believe quite the opposite is possible. Everything inside the universe is basically isolated amounts of energy surrounded by nothingness....but outside of the universe is possibly only energy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-grim/read-the-never-before-pub_b_227887.html
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v18n1/v18n1-MAPS_24.pdf
http://www.mayanmajix.com/art1699.html
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015

If you will consult first or second editions Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbooks, all that there is is nicely explained...*grinnin*

[Gawen]

You are being completely unreasonable, don't set the bar to such stratospheric heights, can't you just accept what the OP says without having to question everything all the time?

What? Of course not!...*grinnin*

*mutterin*...can't let 'em come in here makin' completely unreasonable assertions without them backing it up somehow

[TheJackel]

Sounds like energy/waves/light/molecules/atoms fit this description?

Nice try, Sparky. But, A-1: you have given a bunch of definitions of "alive" - some of them metaphorical - not of "living". B-2: Some of those are, indeed, metaphorical. Your drivel, however, is not.   Oh, And C-3: HOW exactly does energy fit into even the metaphorical descriptions of "alive" where "alive" implies more than just being?

Lemme help out a bit:

Living: posessing or in an act of life

Life: Definition depends on source, but let us go with the mainstream: that which respires, multiplies and expires.

Atoms don't breethe. Nor does energy. Energy does not multiply, unless you are willing to admit that it can be created after saying that it "never" can. (Sounds like something you fished out of a fifth grade physics book... The same one in which 1-2 magically equals zero)

This is some what incorrect, although atoms individually don't breath, but the the act of breathing requires them. Also, we can in fact state that it takes energy to breath because breathing is a material physical phenomenon. And physics isn't applicable without energy.

As far as how does energy fit into the term alive.., well that depends on how you use the term alive. Here we can say that Energy is alive because it self-oscillates. Or we can simply say that all things including life, and information are simply patterns of energy, and emerging properties, behaviors, patterns, attributes, actions, and reactions of energy.. Everything in existence can be summed up into 3 properties of energy.

positive
negative
neutral

Regardless of what it is, there can only be a positive, negative, or neutral action, reaction, process, or phenomenon even if somethings are considered a constant. This includes; life, breathing, the existence of particles and atoms, or even consciousness.

So we can state that there are 3 things that can represent a Universal Set of all Sets, and all 3 of these are all one in the same...

Existence
Information
Energy

All 3 of these are of the same coin, or what I call the 3 sided coin (heads, tails, and the rim). All mass, matter, information, or phenomenon are all entirely comprised of energy itself. All of those are Phenomenon, or emerging properties of energy..

Now I agree that Prea's OP is largely nonsensical, but he is correct that Energy is pretty much anything, and everything that "Does exist"... The only problems with his argument is that Energy is not a Deity, or GOD even if it can reach a complexity capable of achieving self-directed cognitive dynamics that lead to phenomenon such as consciousness.. The other problems with his argument is that consciousness is observer matter relationships, and requires far more cause and complexity than zero base energy. Hence, consciousness can't be said to exist outside the biological process and container. So you need a brain, or a structure capable of a conscious phenomenon, or "life". Each life form is a collective of energy of all 3 stages of matter (liquid, solids, and gasses).. Take out just one of those and life, or even consciousness will cease to be a phenomenon.

[Asmodean]

Three sides of the same coin does not equal to the same side or identical or otherwise synonimous sides.

Yes, both matter and energy are required to maintain life, however, being the building blocks of it, they fail to meet the criteria of the mainstream definition of living.

That said, matter and energy are also two sides of the same coin. Energy is destroyed to create matter and matter is destroyed to create energy, so goeth the theory at least. However, matter and energy are NOT the same since we assign different properties to each definition.

It's a semantics game, really, in which I only engaged because I dislike seeing the definitions abused, especially by widening them outside their intended scope without a good reason.

[Prea]

Now I agree that Prea's OP is largely nonsensical, but he is correct that Energy is pretty much anything, and everything that "Does exist"... The only problems with his argument is that Energy is not a Deity, or GOD even if it can reach a complexity capable of achieving self-directed cognitive dynamics that lead to phenomenon such as consciousness.. The other problems with his argument is that consciousness is observer matter relationships and does requires far more cause and complexity than zero base energy. Hence, consciousness can't be said to exist outside the biological process and container. So you need a brain, or a structure capable of a conscious phenomenon, or "life". Each life form is a collective of energy of all 3 stages of matter (liquid, solids, and gasses).. Take out just one of those and life, or even consciousness will cease to be a phenomenon.

I believe the totality of all the energy in the cosmos somehow forms one continuous living organism that we are all apart of. I don't know how and I can't explain it

[pinkocommie]

Now I agree that Prea's OP is largely nonsensical, but he is correct that Energy is pretty much anything, and everything that "Does exist"... The only problems with his argument is that Energy is not a Deity, or GOD even if it can reach a complexity capable of achieving self-directed cognitive dynamics that lead to phenomenon such as consciousness.. The other problems with his argument is that consciousness is observer matter relationships and does requires far more cause and complexity than zero base energy. Hence, consciousness can't be said to exist outside the biological process and container. So you need a brain, or a structure capable of a conscious phenomenon, or "life". Each life form is a collective of energy of all 3 stages of matter (liquid, solids, and gasses).. Take out just one of those and life, or even consciousness will cease to be a phenomenon.

I believe the totality of all the energy in the cosmos somehow forms one continuous living organism that we are all apart of. I don't know how and I can't explain it

Why?  What information are you aware of that leads you to make the logic jump from energy existing to energy being some kind of living organism?  It sounds super crazy pants.

[Prea]

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration â€" that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
-Bill Hicks

[pinkocommie]

"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration â€" that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
-Bill Hicks

So your source of information is a dead comedian?  Or is it acid?  Are you serious?

Look, I did a lot of acid when I was a kid so here is my advice to you - stop assuming that when you're on acid you're somehow peering into realms of understanding that no one else can see.  Nope...you're just on acid.

[Prea]

In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system. In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole.

I used to not believe in crop circles, but now I'm not so sure. They make sense now

one nation, under god, indivisible

How could we not see this before?

indivisible - incapable of being divided; atomic; Incapable of being divided by a specific integer without leaving a remainder

Indivisibility - In concurrent programming, an operation is linearizable, atomic, indivisible or uninterruptible if it appears to take effect instantaneously. Implementation details may be ignored by the user, except insofar as they affect performance. ...

[Asmodean]

[TheJackel]

Three sides of the same coin does not equal to the same side or identical or otherwise synonimous sides.

They don't have to be identical sides, it just a means to describe that they are essentially the sum total of the coin, or different words for the same thing. I think you read too deeply into the analogy. And in any case, energy would represent all sides..

Yes, both matter and energy are required to maintain life, however, being the building blocks of it, they fail to meet the criteria of the mainstream definition of living.

I think this is where you mistaken my argument, and I say this because I am not saying energy and matter is inherently always in the state of "living", as in a living organism .. It takes a complex biochemical structure of matter and energy that to which becomes a living organism.. Hence, matter and energy can become "living" organisms.. Life is nothing more than another phenomenon of matter and energy..

That said, matter and energy are also two sides of the same coin. Energy is destroyed to create matter and matter is destroyed to create energy, so goeth the theory at least. However, matter and energy are NOT the same since we assign different properties to each definition.

This is however false   , this is the reality of what everything is essentially made of.. We human beings are in fact examples of "living energy", it's really not arguable what-so-ever. I am not just spouting out philosophy here, but rather scientific fact.  :pop:

So I kindly ask you to review my posts and then comeback to the following definition of energy :pop:  

[Asmodean]

Not bad... Not bad at all. Methink I like you  

Don't have a time to make a proper reply yet, but in defence of my semantics-argument, we have a term "matter". We also have a term "energy" When converting one to the other, the original state is no more. Thus, the original is destroyed. Yes, one comes from the other and yes, in a way, one IS the other. However, because of the properties assigned to the different terms, one is not the other as far as linguistics are concerned.

[Prea]

The term Alpha and Omega comes from the phrase "I am the alpha and the omega" (Koiné Greek: Ï,,ὸ Î' καὶ Ï,,ὸ Ω), an appellation of Jesus[1] in the Book of Revelation (verses 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13).

Its meaning is found in the fact that alpha (Î') and omega (Ω) are respectively the first and last letters of the Classical (Ionic) Greek alphabet. This would be similar to referring to someone in English as the "A and Z". Thus, twice when the title appears it is further clarified with the additional title "the beginning and the end" (21:6, 22:13).

Does anyone see the ironies in all of this? This is pretty fucked
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=universe+self+aware
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... bjectively

In his forward to The Self-Aware Universe, Dr. Wolf writes:

"There is too much quantum weirdness around, too many experiments showing that the objective world...is an illusion of our thinking.

"The author posits a hypothesis that is so strange to our Western minds as to be automatically dismissed as the ravings of an Eastern mystic. It says that all of the [paradoxes of quantum physics] are explainable, are understandable, if we are to give up that precious assumption that there is an objective reality "out there" independent of consciousness. It says even more, that the universe is "self-aware" and that it is consciousness itself that creates the physical world."

this "objective vs. subjective" debate is a bit like the nature vs. nurture thing in psychology. Your brain is a lot better off if you stop thinking in these exclusive either/or dichotomies.

Stream of consciousness may refer to:
Ostensibly unedited, spontaneous live or recorded performances, as in film, music, and dramatic and comic monologues, intended to recreate the raw experience of the person portrayed or the performer
Stream of consciousness (narrative mode), a narrative mode used as a literary, cinematic, theatrical, or lyrical technique
Stream of consciousness (psychology), in psychology
stream-of-being also known as the mindstream (Buddhism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvVHsmdTbTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z945mHQpcyc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtRbEgoTqQs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4itrQb_BvXM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6rJava11i0