Life, the Universe and Everything

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Life, the Universe and Everything

Do you ever push back the frame of "logic" or "rationality" (or maybe it's not even pushing it back, just opening it up) to ask yourself about the real nature of "life" on a grander scheme?

I was watching Cox explain that if one electron were in the room at the Royal Institution, the next nearest electron would be on the coast of France. and that given the size of electrons (and we won't even go into bozons and other ons) a molecule, or a cup of water would be likened to a galaxy or even a universe by comparison.

An electron could not even "see" a human, much less have any concept that said human is breathing, talking, walking, reproducing and all those things. Our sense of time, rather the scale on which we live our time, is fixed within a framework we can understand. minutes, days, years, centuries.

But in my stranger moments, I start to wonder if suns could be alive, if the galaxy or something that we can't even consider casue we are not in its same scope, could be alive, and we would never know it, cause their lifetime is billions of years, thier size, like a body to an atom.

I know it sounds stupid and/or waxing poetic, but I was reading the "what is life" section, and I really leaves me curious. Native Americans will tell you that rocks and mountains and the earth itself are alive, but cannot be conscious of us, because they do not live in the same scope. And now I think of things so small, they must "think" (mind you, they do not have brains, i know, i know) the universe they inhabit is reality.

There is a reason, i think, Carl Sagan choose to get stoned once and a while. sometimes you have to just step back and say, with every bit of mind blowing awe, "fuck".

Pink mowse.pngGodotEn live02:46, 4 January 2012

In short, yes.

But as for what life could be, it could be anything depending on what you recognise as life. If you can point to it and say "life", then it's life. But that doesn't therefore mean it has unalienable rights and whatnot - for that you have to state specific properties that are relevant to what you want to do with it. In your Native American view, which is nice and poetic of course, you wouldn't say that a rock has the right to "life, liberty and property" - because it doesn't posses the features that make "life, liberty and property" meaningful to it.

We should never be as generic and general as trying to shoehorn things into "alive" and "not alive" because there is no reason that the universe should kowtow to our opinion that way.

Scarlet A.pngpostate02:55, 4 January 2012
 

Been hanging around Esalen recently?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)03:32, 4 January 2012

I don't think you need to get particularly new-agey to think about it and perhaps get your mind blown by possibilities. Perhaps it is "alive", as indeed scope limits our understanding a lot so we might not be able to observe the properties of life in a way we'd recognise any more than a single individual cell could recognise our emergent consciousness. Perhaps, although I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Of course, I think this works best if we keep the hardcore rationalist hat firmly on to think about it. Because if you think "ah, but the world is alive!!" you get a woo-flavoured Gaia Hypothesis that's meaningless because you haven't quite figured out what you mean by "alive" yet and are simply triggering you "life" category without triggering the properties... on the other hand, if you think that emegent properties can appear on larger scales, think China brain, then we have some really interesting possibilities to the universe we can explore.

Also, obligatory: http://xkcd.com/505/

Scarlet A.pngbomination04:02, 4 January 2012

Oh, believe me, I know. I want to take some of the things I've heard at philosophy/theory of mind seminars and add the words "dude" and "like, man" to the end of sentences and see if people can distinguish between them and pothead/New Age gibberish.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:08, 4 January 2012

Totally going to have to try that.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic04:09, 4 January 2012

"Dude, it's like we're all, connected and shit, ya know, man?"

Scarlet A.pngpathetic04:10, 4 January 2012

Dude, there's no such thing as reality, only what our mind constructs from its sensory input. Like, y'know what I'm sayin' here, man?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:12, 4 January 2012

Define reality as "what our mind constructs from its sensory input" and that phrase becomes quite hilarious.

Scarlet A.pngmoral13:48, 4 January 2012
 
 
 
 

I wrote this last night, but the system crashed on me. Joy!

Anyhow, for me, neb, science actually makes me more poetic. Law, language, and daily cleaning are very pragmatic and rather drole. I can discuss how topic based sentences have 1st order translation issues, or read about meta langauge in a paper and say "yea, cool". But to think that the yellow ball of sun, rising, is soooooo fucking big, that we can see it from millions of miles away, and it throbs so hotly that it keeps us nice and toasty kinda just blows me away. Then to star at the stars and realize I'm actually seeing into the past -- that some of those stars are virtual newborns when I'm seeing their images (and that the've lived 8 billion years since I'm seeing them) just makes me giggle with the poetic side.

Sadly, my writing is competent, and that's about it. Staring out at the stars demands Whitman "Carol of the Words" ability, not just "competent".

Pink mowse.pngGodotEn live15:34, 4 January 2012

Sometimes there is a fine line between poetic science talk and woo (see also gaia hypothesis). Also, relevant.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:56, 4 January 2012
 
 
 

There is a reason, i think, Carl Sagan choose to get stoned once and a while. Now, remind me, what was it you were saying about Carl Sagan's views on "spirituality" being a counterexample to the link between dope and "spiritual experiences"?

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX16:58, 10 January 2012

I'm saying he defined spirtuality as something distinct about how he saw the universe. He also did pot. The two are not connected. he enjoyed his pot. He enjoyed staring up at the stars. You like putting yoru ideas into other people's heads. It's amusing to watch.

Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up23:04, 10 January 2012

The two are not connected. What, then, is the reason that he "choose" to get doped up?

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX00:34, 11 January 2012

Peer pressure. He thought it made him look cool :-)

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.00:45, 11 January 2012

It did indeed. Course, walking backwards while wearing knickers, on a winter's day, talking to himself while staring backwards into space - he would still look cool....

Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up00:48, 11 January 2012
 
 
 

If you're going to try to claim spiritual experiences are solely the product of drugs, you could at least pick one of the serotonergic psychedelics like LSD or something.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:49, 10 January 2012

peyote will give you dry mouth... i think its the drums that really do the mystical deed, though.

Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up23:51, 10 January 2012
Nebuchadnezzar (talk)00:26, 11 January 2012

more like [this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtDnkPUePdQ] for hours... and hours... endlessly. while you are stoned. and it's hot. very very hot. and quite quickly your brain goes nuts. I don't think I needed the peyote to get that effect. the heat and music and fasting were enough.

Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up00:40, 11 January 2012
 
 

Pardon me, but: (1) cannabis has seen extensive entheogenic use, and (2) I never said that dope was the only cause of "spiritual experiences." Other attested causes are schizophrenia and epilepsy.

Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX00:37, 11 January 2012

LOL. good to know you are so well read up on the subject. Your arrogance is often betrayed by your words.

Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up00:43, 11 January 2012

Well, I've lost the original point already.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic00:44, 11 January 2012

That's the glory of LiquidThreads.

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.00:46, 11 January 2012

Nothing to do with LQT and everything to do with people more concerned with one-up-ing each other rather than making points.

Scarlet A.pngnarchist01:01, 11 January 2012

Pshah. Everybody knows I'm the best one-upper.

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.01:04, 11 January 2012

Your mum is the best one-upper.

Scarlet A.pngmoral01:06, 11 January 2012

My mom's in California...

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.01:10, 11 January 2012

Where's she's getting the best one-upper!!

I shame both myself and my family's honour.

Scarlet A.pngmoral01:12, 11 January 2012

Your mom gave up her honor last night.

Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.01:14, 11 January 2012

To yours, it apparently wasn't that great.

Scarlet A.pngpostate01:15, 11 January 2012
 

I will outlive God trying to get the last word!

Scarlet A.pngsshole01:25, 11 January 2012

I'm still waiting for God(ot)

Pink mowse.pngGodotDear god, fucking grow up03:22, 11 January 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

So is there a point then, or are you just JAQing off?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:07, 11 January 2012