Can there be life on Sun?
Sanny
I am interested in some Life form not made of Organic matter but
something else.
If someone says can there be life under Ocean. ignorant will say
anyone who drowns in Ocean dies So no one can live under ocean. But we
know fishes live under water with Gills instead of lungs.
Life can take many shapes and sizes. It can be as small as an ant and
as Big as an Elephant.
Life can be fast as a bird or slow as a tree.
Life is everywhere whether grass, air, inside our Body and can take
any shape and be made of anything one can think of.
There are many elements on the Sun in liquid state. Say molten iron on
the sun works like water on earth.
And the Life uses molter iron as its drink. and the food is the heat
ernergy on tthe Sun.
We see a lot of movement on the surface of Sun may be it is a Big
ocean of Plasma and many creatures live under that hot plasma.
Bye
Sanny
Skybuck Flying
That's were the aliens are hiding in our own sun... so we will never find
them ;)
Bye,
Skybuck =D
Sanny
Only when someone jumps into a Ocean with Oxygen tank can see the
beautiful fishes under the sea.
But how can man Jump into the Sun's molyten plasma. We need something
that can withstand that temperature and we can use submarines and dive
into the Suns surface and take video of creatures living in the hot
Plasma Ocean on the Sun.
Bye
Sanny
Sanny
> the sun works like water on earth.
>
> And the Life uses molter iron as its drink. and the food is the heat
> ernergy on tthe Sun.
>
> We see a lot of movement on the surface of Sun may be it is a Big
> ocean of Plasma and many creatures live under that hot plasma.
Just like we cannot survive in -100^ C Because all water in our body
will turn into ice and blood will become solid.
Those living on the sun cannot survive at temperature on earth. So how
can we contact them. If we touch them we will die as they will be
100,000,000 ^ C and if they come near us we will start burning.
Bye
Sanny
zanthi...@gmail.com
Too hot for organic life perhaps, but there could be other types of
life.
Perhaps the sun itself has a consciousness, and then the sun itself
would be a type of life.
Orval Fairbairn
"Skybuck Flying" <Blood...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Their women must look really HOT! ;>)
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
hhc...@yahoo.com
Hey Sanny,my uncle Don claimed to have been born on the Sun, but
unfortunately the authorities did no belive this, when they closed
down his still and took him away to the 'rest home'.
Harry C.
Mark Earnest
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbf8499a-00eb-4abc...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
> I am interested in some Life form not made of Organic matter but
> something else.
>
> If someone says can there be life under Ocean. ignorant will say
> anyone who drowns in Ocean dies So no one can live under ocean. But we
> know fishes live under water with Gills instead of lungs.
And that is just how ignorant people are when they say life cannot be on
Mars, or Venus, or Saturn, or Pluto...or the Moon...or yes, even the Sun.
As was said on Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way."
tadchem
"Life" implies organization - reduction of entropy. All life forms of
whatever nature may be described as more organized arrangements of the
substance of their environment.
When the environment is one of matter found in the periodic table of
the elements, "life" must be composed of *organized* forms of that
matter.
To organize matter found in the periodic table, two or more atoms must
be attached to each other.
The state of MAXIMUM entropy (i.e. the absence of all possible life)
is one in which no two atoms are connected together even momentarily.
It is a state in which each atom goes its own way without regard for
anything any other individual atom may be doing.
The sun is composed of, among other things, helium. Helium has an
ionization energy of about 24.5 electron-volts. This is the highest
ionization energy of any element that can be placed on the periodic
table.
This means that there is a temperature above which the thermal
agitation is sufficient to ionized even helium atoms. IIRC, this
temperature is about 3800° - 4500° K.
Because it has the highest ionization energy of all possible chemical
elements, when helium is ionized, everything else is also ionized.
Electrons have been removed and all that remains is positively charged
ions drifting aimlessly in a sea of hot electrons.
Positive ions cannot form bonds to each other. They cannot form
organized structures. Molecules of any kind cannot exist in a helium
plasma.
The temperature of the photosphere (the visible "surface" of the sun)
averages about 5800° K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosphere
The sun is simply too hot for ANY organized chemical structures to
form.
The most "organized" structures that can form in the sun are purely
physical and temporary 'structures' called convection cells:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection_cell
which last only a few minutes, and are no more alive than similar
convection cells here on earth (called "thunderstorms").
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Justintruth
you don't mean that... you mean can there be other things...
One of the mysteries of life is that it seems to occur whenever there
is an information accumulation or in other words whenever there is an
ongoing decrease in entropy. In fact, one may posit a ongoing decrease
in entropy as a defining characteristic of life. That is why there is
interest with respect to computers as to whether they are alive
because they in fact can store information. We know that our brains
store information and we know we are alive so we can make the working
assumption that any ongoing ability to store of information will
result in some life form. This is an hypothesis not a statement of
fact. In a sense our lives are as a result of the sun loosing a little
of what it would need to support life and giving that to us. That is
why most life on the earth is dependent on a food chain that
terminates with light from the sun.
So your question becomes, could there be something on the sun that
could store information.
The answer lies, in my mind in the second law of thermodynamics. Life
on earth is dependent on energy from the sun because it then breaks
the isolation of the system and allows the buildup of information.
Without that you can't build information and given our working
characteristic of life you can't have it.
So there are two possibilities. One that an external energy source is
providing energy to the sun and that will allow the organization of
some form of matter or else that there is some zone on the sun that is
different from some other zone and that is receiving energy from and
internal transfer.
My understanding is that the sun is broadcasting energy and there are
no non-negligible external sources of energy. That would mean the sun
as a whole cannot be a brain.
The next question is whether part of the sun could. The problem there,
is to find some subset of the sun that is capable of storing
information in an ongoing fashion.
There does not appear to be states available in any of the physical
processes. In fact all of the models that I am aware of, I am not a
solar scientist but have only a layman's grasp of the sun, still all
of the models have the physics represented by statistical equilibrium
rather than a buildup of information.
So the real trick is to find some physical states that could be
organized in the physics of the sun. I am afraid I know of none. The
information in our brains appears to be stored in mechanical
structures requiring matter organized in the solid state. In other
words it is the arrangement of atoms into structures that appears to
be where the information is stored. This structuring is inherent in
the process of information storage. There are no such solid structures
in the sun as the heat would destroy them.
So in a sense the answer is simply that the sun, due to its
temperature, is far too fluid a place to have life. There are no
physical states that can receive and store information.
The one other possibility is that the sun, as it is part of larger
structures, could be like an atom is in a body, a piece of a much
larger sized brain. Unfortunately it doesn't look that way to me. When
we look at large scale formations in the universe it does not seem to
be organized into a computer-like structure. In fact it appears to be
more like dust than a structure.
So every way I can think of saying yes to the answer seems to have a
road block.
The only possibility left would be for the sun to support life without
corresponding physical organization. There is no current theory that
rejects that as an option but there is a problem with that. The
problem is that it could not communicate with us through our senses as
that would mean that the sun was somehow organizing and it is not. So
if there is life in the sun we won't be able to know it unless it
turns out there is non-physical communication.
If there is that communication, then there can be life in the sun that
is not associated with the physics of the sun but only associated with
its location. If you believe that consciousness requires the physical
arrangement of some matter, that life is inherently corporal, then
this is impossible. In any case I know of no one who has communication
from beings living in the sun and sense the burden of proof would be
on those that conclude that there is life there, then I conclude,
absent that proof there is no life there.
So again I keep coming up with the no answer.
Too bad. It would be neat.
curmudgeon
But they do make the Loudest Noises of anything in our Solar System.
*curmudgeon*
"The best read illiterate in the country"
Uncle Al
>
> No, Never as it is too hot....
At night, forever running before the terminator.
> Sanny
An example of ruptured Sannytation.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Starman
so what other kind of life should that posible be?
<zanthi...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:aa4ab43e-3c87-4f98...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Androcles
"Starman" <sta...@universe.dk> wrote in message
news:489a2149$0$15876$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
| Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic
OUR definition is NOT your definition.
I happen to know the electrical sockets in my home are alive.
Mark Earnest
"Sanny" <soft...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbf8499a-00eb-4abc...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Life is on the Sun right now even as we speak...
...for the simple reason that we are talking about it.
How for heaven's sake can one talk about nothing?
Anthony Buckland
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:ENqmk.79920$dz3....@newsfe20.ams2...
Okay, but don't try to kill them by stabbing them with a sharp
knife.
Back to life. Is it organized, self-reproducing, and metabolic
(in some sense)? To make it interesting, is it mutable without
necessarily dying?
Sanny
> elements, when helium is ionized, everything else is also ionized.
> Electrons have been removed and all that remains is positively charged
> ions drifting aimlessly in a sea of hot electrons.
>
> Positive ions cannot form bonds to each other. They cannot form
> organized structures. Molecules of any kind cannot exist in a helium
> plasma.
May be Molecular bonds are not possible but Nuclear Bonds are possible
at that temperature.
Instead of Molecules the Life would be made of Nuclear Bonds may be.
Bye
Sanny
Tom Potter
a manned landing on the Sun.
To avoid the heat,
they plan to land at night.
( And leave before sunrise. )
They used General Relativity to plan the trip.
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
tadchem
> "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
You haven't heard Barack speaking yet, have you?
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Androcles
"Anthony Buckland" <anthonybuc...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:UcKdnbUbH6U_wQfV...@giganews.com...
organizing a piss-up in a brewery, or does it mean having lungs,
heart, liver etc...?
Self-reproducing...if you have a vasectomy invest in Xerox.
Metabolic -
1 a: the sum of the processes in the buildup and destruction of protoplasm;
specifically : the chemical changes in living cells by which energy is
provided for vital processes and activities and new material is assimilated
b: the sum of the processes by which a particular substance is handled in
the living body
If life is metabolic and metabolism is change in the living then we have a
circular definition.
Mutable without dying.
Now we come to individuals which die and species which do not.
Is larval stage to adult in insect metamorphosis mutable?
In particular, do caterpillars die?
It amuses me that the anti-evolution brigade where a species
changes to adapt to its environment (as man and dog have done)
find that idea preposterous, yet insects can do it within the
life span of the individual.
Machine automata are a simple form of life.
http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/
At what level of complexity do we say a chemical reaction is "life",
and does it need to be chemical?
Are viruses alive? Are bacteria alive?
And I don't care about your answer since it would only be opinion.
Starman
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ENqmk.79920$dz3....@newsfe20.ams2...
mike3
So what definition involves "consciousness" as part of "life"? A
bacterium
is alive but not conscious.
heni...@netvision.net.il
> "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybucklandnos...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:UcKdnbUbH6U_wQfV...@giganews.com...
> || "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>
> |news:ENqmk.79920$dz3....@newsfe20.ams2...
> | >
> | > "Starman" <star...@universe.dk> wrote in message
Are Viruses "Alive"?
alive = organism:
arth's organisms: temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic
systems that support and maintain Earth's biosphere by maintenance of
genes.
Every "self-replicable" genetic system has a unique package of
essentials for replication...and viruses are not different in this
respect than other organisms.
Dov Henis
PS: 21st Century Life Comprehension
1. Definitions Of Earth Life, Organism, Gene, Genome And Cellular
Organisms.
Earth Life: 1. a format of temporarily constrained energy, retained in
temporary constrained genetic energy packages in forms of genes,
genomes and organisms 2. a real virtual affair that pops in and out of
existence in its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth's
biosphere.
Earth organism: a temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic
system that supports and maintains Earth's biosphere by maintenance of
genes.
Gene: a primal Earth's organism.
Genome: a multigenes organism consisting of a cooperative commune of
its member genes.
Cellular organisms: mono- or multi-celled earth organisms.
2. Update of life sciences conceptions is now feasible and urgently
desirable
- Earth's biosphere phenomenon is a distant relative of black holes, a
form of constrained
energy pocket.
- First were independent individual genes, Earth's primal organisms.
- Genes aggregated cooperatively into genomes, multigenes organisms,
with genomes' organs.
- Simultaneously or consequently genomes evolved protective and
functional membranes, organs.
- Then followed cellular organisms, with a variety of outer-cell
membranes shapes and
functionalities.
3. Nature, Origin, Function And Purpose Of Life
Nature of Earth life: a replicating construction temporarily
constraining and maintaining energy.
Origin of Earth life: serendipitous energy-induced formation of
Earth's primal organisms, individual independent genes.
Nature of Earth's organisms: temporary self-replicable constrained-
energy genetic systems that support and maintain Earth's biosphere by
maintenance of genes.
Function of Earth life: uphold and maintain as much constrained energy
as possible by upholding and maintaining Earth's biosphere.
The purpose of OUR life and its promotion is ours to choose and set.
It derives solely from our cognition.
Dov Henis
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
zanthi...@gmail.com
> Yeah but isn't our definition of life that it is organic
> so what other kind of life should that posible be?
I define life as that which has a consciousness.
zanthi...@gmail.com
> So what definition involves "consciousness" as part of "life"? A
> bacterium is alive but not conscious.
How do you know that a bacteria hasn't some kind of consciousness?
I don't consider anything to be "alive" unless it has a consciousness.
Landy
<zanthi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3874b7db-eae8-4ae3...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
So only humans are life in your book?
Androcles
| No you mean YOUR definition of life is not the same as OURS
I mean YOUR definition of life is not the same as other people's, as
some have written to show you. They have their own definitions.
You are the kind of idiot that supports a football team and if it
wins you say "WE won", but if it loses then it was the referee's
fault, yet you are not even a player.
OUR definition is NOT your definition. WE do not agree with YOU,
even if your buddy does.
Androcles
<heni...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:220621da-7dd3-4652...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Are Viruses "Alive"?
alive = organism:
============================================
Read the thread title and then ask yourself if "arth" is the Sun.
Uncle Ben
> something else.
>
> If someone says can there be life under Ocean. ignorant will say
> anyone who drowns in Ocean dies So no one can live under ocean. But we
> know fishes live under water with Gills instead of lungs.
>
> Life can take many shapes and sizes. It can be as small as an ant and
> as Big as an Elephant.
>
> Life can be fast as a bird or slow as a tree.
>
> Life is everywhere whether grass, air, inside our Body and can take
> any shape and be made of anything one can think of.
>
> There are many elements on the Sun in liquid state. Say molten iron on
> the sun works like water on earth.
>
> And the Life uses molter iron as its drink. and the food is the heat
> ernergy on tthe Sun.
>
> We see a lot of movement on the surface of Sun may be it is a Big
> ocean of Plasma and many creatures live under that hot plasma.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
There aren't even liquids on the Sun. At its temperature, everything
is a gas. Can you imagine life in gaseous form?
Uncle Ben
Zanthius
> > I define life as that which has a consciousness.
>
> So only humans are life in your book?
No. I am almost completely certain that all animals with a neocortex
have a consciousness, and I am quite certain that organic lifeforms
without the neocortex have some kind of a consciousness, although I
think they are less conscious than organic lifeforms with the
neocortex.
Wordsmith
> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
> I am interested in some Life form not made of Organic matter but
> something else.
>
> If someone says can there be life under Ocean. ignorant will say
> anyone who drowns in Ocean dies So no one can live under ocean. But we
> know fishes live under water with Gills instead of lungs.
>
> Life can take many shapes and sizes. It can be as small as an ant and
> as Big as an Elephant.
>
> Life can be fast as a bird or slow as a tree.
>
> Life is everywhere whether grass, air, inside our Body and can take
> any shape and be made of anything one can think of.
>
> There are many elements on the Sun in liquid state. Say molten iron on
> the sun works like water on earth.
>
> And the Life uses molter iron as its drink. and the food is the heat
> ernergy on tthe Sun.
>
> We see a lot of movement on the surface of Sun may be it is a Big
> ocean of Plasma and many creatures live under that hot plasma.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
If life existed on or in the sun, it'd probably be some type of
gaseous
plasma critter, nothing like anything on this planet.
W : )
Landy
"Zanthius" <zanthius...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f70810f-0272-424c...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Yeah right. So plants are right out of contention then.........
zanthi...@gmail.com
> Yeah right. So plants are right out of contention then.........
I think it is possible that plants have some kind of a consciousness,
although I don't think they are nearly as conscious as animals with
the neocortex.
If a bacteria doesn't have any consciousness, then it is merely a self-
replicating machine, not life.
Edward Green
> No, Never as it is too hot....
>
> I am interested in some Life form not made of Organic matter but
> something else.
>
> If someone says can there be life under Ocean. ignorant will say
> anyone who drowns in Ocean dies So no one can live under ocean. But we
> know fishes live under water with Gills instead of lungs.
>
> Life can take many shapes and sizes. It can be as small as an ant and
> as Big as an Elephant.
>
> Life can be fast as a bird or slow as a tree.
>
> Life is everywhere whether grass, air, inside our Body and can take
> any shape and be made of anything one can think of.
>
> There are many elements on the Sun in liquid state. Say molten iron on
> the sun works like water on earth.
>
> And the Life uses molter iron as its drink. and the food is the heat
> ernergy on tthe Sun.
>
> We see a lot of movement on the surface of Sun may be it is a Big
> ocean of Plasma and many creatures live under that hot plasma.
One can abstract away the chemistry of terrestrial life, or indeed any
chemistry at all. But one cannot abstract away, as far as I can tell,
the element of structure. So your question would seem to be: "Can
matter under the conditions of the surface or interior of the sun
support complex structures persistent enough to allow the kinds of
behaviors we might recognize as a life "?
My first reaction is “no”, but I don’t know enough to give a better
answer. The structural substrate of life need not have the same
scales of length and time as life forms we are familiar with. There
is a lot of elbow room in the Sun! There might be “microbes”
kilometers across.
Given some kind of substrate, that is. At least the Sun is far from
dead in the colloquial sense that it is turbulently active: it’s not a
featureless glowing ball of gas. It seems to have weather, and
quite a lot of it! But can this turbulence support structures that
mimic the role of molecules in life on Earth? I don’t know.
Sanny
> chemistry at all. But one cannot abstract away, as far as I can tell,
> the element of structure. So your question would seem to be: "Can
> matter under the conditions of the surface or interior of the sun
> support complex structures persistent enough to allow the kinds of
> behaviors we might recognize as a life "?
Life on Sun need not eat anything it can get energy from the sun's
heat
> My first reaction is “no”, but I don’t know enough to give a better
> answer. The structural substrate of life need not have the same
> scales of length and time as life forms we are familiar with. There
> is a lot of elbow room in the Sun! There might be “microbes”
> kilometers across.
We often think life with age of 1 month - 100 years.
What about life form that live for only 1 second. There can be a life
which has a lifetime of just 1 sec.
Or may be some Living giant which lives for million years. and for him
1 year = 1 second. So we are unable to detect its movements.
Bye
Sanny
Edward Green
> > One can abstract away the chemistry of terrestrial life, or indeed any
> > chemistry at all. But one cannot abstract away, as far as I can tell,
> > the element of structure. So your question would seem to be: "Can
> > matter under the conditions of the surface or interior of thesun
> > support complex structures persistent enough to allow the kinds of
> > behaviors we might recognize as a life "?
>
> heat
Technical point: what life needs is not energy, but "free energy",
which is roughly, the ability to do work. But no problem. There is
plenty of free energy available in and near the sun for the same
reason there is plenty of free energy available on the Earth --
because the (hot) sun is radiating into (cold) space.
> > My first reaction is “no”, but I don’t know enough to give a better
> > answer. The structural substrate of life need not have the same
> > scales of length and time as life forms we are familiar with. There
> > is a lot of elbow room in theSun! There might be “microbes”
> > kilometers across.
>
> We often think life with age of 1 month - 100 years.
>
> What about life form that live for only 1 second. There can be a life
> which has a lifetime of just 1 sec.
>
> Or may be some Living giant which lives for million years. and for him
> 1 year = 1 second. So we are unable to detect its movements.
All true. We would be unable to communicate with life that lived on a
time scale wildly outside ours.
Starman
your definition of life except
the ususal nuts in here, so once again the REAL and NORMAL world do not support
your CYBERWORLD fantasy
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> skrev i en meddelelse
news:8Cenk.7534$Iy1....@newsfe11.ams2...
Androcles
YOUR definition of life is not the same as other people's, as
some have written to show you. They have their own definitions.
You are the kind of idiot that supports a football team and if it
wins you say "WE won", but if it loses then it was the referee's
fault, yet you are not even a player.
OUR definition is NOT your definition. WE do not agree with YOU,
even if your best buddy does.
"Starman" <sta...@universe.dk> wrote in message
news:489f74b5$0$15896$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Starman
and did you just top-post calling me a top-posting fuckhead
and it only seems that it's your best buddy who has another definition of life
than OURS
so i really don't care if you and your football buddy don't agree with US
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ZCKnk.233302$x66.1...@newsfe25.ams2...
Androcles
Fuck off, cretin, but first see Tom Davidson's argument (tadchem's),
top-posting fuckhead.
YOUR definition of life is not the same as other people's, as
some have written to show you. They have their own definitions.
You are the kind of idiot that supports a football team and if it
wins you say "WE won", but if it loses then it was the referee's
fault, yet you are not even a player.
OUR definition is NOT your definition. WE do not agree with YOU,
even if your best buddy does.
"Starman" <sta...@universe.dk> wrote in message
news:489f85ea$0$15898$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Landy
<zanthi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc7893f4-428d-4437...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Kook-a-doodle-doo!
Justintruth
> Technical point: what life needs is not energy, but "free energy",
> which is roughly, the ability to do work. But no problem. There is
> plenty of free energy available in and near the sun for the same
> reason there is plenty of free energy available on the Earth --
> because the (hot) sun is radiating into (cold) space.
>
Another technical point: What life needs free energy for is to reduce
entropy and produce information. I don't know of any way to store
information in the material states of the sun. So...
Conjecture: Life needs to arrange matter into structures that create
consciousness and represent information external to the structure
internal to it.
Conclusion: There is no life on the sun.
Why: Because the temperature is too high to maintain material
structures.
Possible and unlikely exception: If life is indeed "caused" in the
material sense by some kind of arrangement of particles then, it is
possible but highly unlikely that the sun or a part of the sun could
achieve such an organized state spontaneously in a chance coincidence
and for that time such and arrangement would be technically alive.
This would be a failure of the second law of thermodynamics but is
technically possible and highly unlikely.
Edward Green
> > Technical point: what life needs is not energy, but "free energy",
> > which is roughly, the ability to do work. But no problem. There is
> > plenty of free energy available in and near the sun for the same
> > reason there is plenty of free energy available on the Earth --
> > because the (hot) sun is radiating into (cold) space.
>
> Another technical point: What life needs free energy for is to reduce
> entropy and produce information. I don't know of any way to store
> information in the material states of the sun. So...
Nor do I, but I can't rule out the possibility either.
Structure, or information, as you put it, need not be limited to
stable arrangements of matter; I can neither rule out nor rule in
possible stable structures in the states of matter and energy found in
the sun. I don't believe you can either, except by bald assertion.
The constituents of structure might be persistent field and flow
patterns.
Here is an example of an unlikely but persistent structure: the
magneto generative core of the Earth. A front running hypothesis is
that the molten iron has in effect boot-strapped itself into a self-
exciting generator, parasitic on whatever effect allows the core to
continue circulating instead of running down -- nuclear? Tidal
effects?
Ok... one single planetary core sized structure is not going to allow
the evolution of life, but what if similar smaller regions could
persist in the hot plasma in the sun -- as I already mentioned, we at
least have abundant free energy available to drive steady state non-
equilibrium processes. You have a lot of room, and you have a lot of
time: but I don't know if you could create structures of sufficient
persistence and complexity to create what we might recognize as
"life".
Purest idle speculation, I readily admit.
> Conjecture: Life needs to arrange matter into structures that create
> consciousness and represent information external to the structure
> internal to it.
Somebody has already mentioned that this definition is unduly
restrictive, as it puts plants and fungi right out of the picture.
> Conclusion: There is no life on the sun.
>
> Why: Because the temperature is too high to maintain material
> structures.
You may simply be insufficiently imaginative: the information need not
be encoded in cold matter.
Zanthius
> Kook-a-doodle-doo!
Would you consider a bacteria without any consciousness to be life,
while considering a non organic entity with a consciousness not to be
life? That would be a pretty biased view of life.
Zanthius
> You may simply be insufficiently imaginative: the information need not
> be encoded in cold matter.
Your consciousness is not cold matter. Your consciousness is an
emergent field of brain waves generated by the combined neural
activity of all the neurons in your head.
Your consciousness is never turned off during your life. When you are
sleeping you are merely reducing the oscillation frequency of your
consciousness, you are never turning it off.
If information is stored it the field of your consciousness, then all
of your memories might be erased, if you somehow managed to completely
turn off your consciousness, much like the information stored in the
RAM of your computer would be erased if you just turned off your
computer.
Justintruth
> Nor do I, but I can't rule out the possibility either.
My understanding of the sun is that all states are in thermal
equilibrium with a huge injection of energy from hydrogen fusion in
balance with a huge emission of energy particulate and electromagnetic
radiation. If that is true then there is no information increase going
on and you can in fact "rule out the possibility".
I guess the first step is to realize that in order to claim that the
possibility exists one must posit some way that it could.. In a kind
of radical way the possibility for the unknown always exists. In other
words if the sun is not as we think it is, maybe there are laws of
physics we don't yet know etc, then anything is possible - even that
that sun does not exist, does not produce energy etc etc. But I think
the question is not of that order. The question is "If the sun is the
sun can it produce life". Given what the sun is, as established by
science, I claim it is not incorporating and sustaining information
into states that reproduce and sustain themselves. When I look at
hydrogen fusion and the models of the sun, including its magnetic
fields, I do not find examples of organization or decreasing entropy.
From a model of the physics of the sun and a reasonable definition of
life I think you can conclude that they are exclusive. That is what I
am saying.
So I agree that in a sense you can't rule out the possibility in a
radical way, but if you do assume that the sun is as current science
says it is then I think that rules our life because the sun does not
have states that store external information.
So if you think that is not true then I think you need to point out
which states are not in thermal equilibrium with a huge injection of
energy from fusion in balance with an outpouring of radiation. It is
not a static structure. So what else is there that you are
considering? Certainly its not the electromagnetic fields. How could
they be arranged to store information given the random emissions that
are going on there. What other states are there? Nuclear? It seems its
just hydrogen fusing into helium in a thermal equilibrium so not there
either. So if you think there is a possibility it requires that you
identify what states you are talking about. So given the scientific
solar models where do you think the possibility of life exists? It is
insufficient to say: "I don't know but that does not mean that it
couldn't still be there." Anything is possible give that loophole. To
assert that it is possible means that you at least see somewhere where
it could be true. Where?
I
Justintruth
Justintruth
It is a contingent fact, not logically necessary but factually true
that all consciousness "like mine" is associated with a structure that
stores information - i.e. it is associated with some form of nervous
system.
How is this established? I become aware of my own consciousness and my
own body and what it means. For example I am aware of what I am
feeling when I cry, what I am feeling when I am hungry and what it
feels like to eat, to move my hand etc etc. Then, by analogy, I become
aware that there are others around that do the same. In fact the faces
of people give me communication of the state of their consciousness,
not directly but through the medium of their physical expression.
There is a kind of language that is trans species. I can tell when my
mother is angry and when she is pleased etc. by looking at her face
and listening to the tone of her voice. I can also tell, but not as
well, when a dog snarls that it is not pleased. The details of the
process are not really relevant only that it occurs.
Now we know that a bacteria has a structure and that the information
in its DNA is transcribed over generations, mutated etc. So bacteria
store and retain information and pass it on. But can I communicate
with them?
The question is how far do we take the analogy before it becomes
false? To what extent do we claim that information content in bacteria
imply a consciousness?
I think that the simple level of concern I have when my appendix is
removed or even my arm vs the concern I would have if my brain were
removed or my endocrine system tampered with gives me the answer. If
my arm were removed and placed on one gurney and the rest of me on the
second I would definitely say that I was on the second gurney. In fact
if my head were placed on one and my body on another and I had to
choose the choice would be obvious. Cryogenics preservation companies
even have "discount" storage for "just the head" for people who hope
to be "revived" in the future. So based on that I would say that
bacteria while still being alive are not conscious and killing one
does not seem to me to be to kill another being. Not so with higher
level animals with nervous systems. Much harder to draw the line there
and to draw it between us and other primates? Very doubtful to me.
However, all of this is by analogy with my own experience not by
logical conclusion but as a fact of experience that I make the
connection. So I can imagine the breakdown of my body and the world
into swirling masses of color with no spatial depth and sounds with no
material origins telepathy going on with others but factually I do not
find that situation to be occurring. Instead I find remarkable
consistency in my experience with object models and with communication
only from organisms having nervous systems.
The only possible exception to this is religious experience in which
messages are received not from a material being in space and time but
there are question on the nature of meaning that need be addressed
there.
So a bacteria is life but the level of its organization does not
sustain the analogy that it is conscious.
I once did an experiment with an ant in which I tried to communicate
with it. I found that by placing my hand around it and blocking its
path at first it just kept moving normally but as I persisted and
became more intrusive there suddenly was a great increase in activity
and the ant tried basically to get away from me. There was a distinct
moment when it, again by analogy with my own experience, seemed to
become suddenly conscious of me as a threat. No amount of gentleness
could I then generate that would relieve it and make it calm down.
Only by removing my self from interaction would its "fear?" subside.
Based on this observation I believe that ants are conscious. Similar
experience can be carried out on bacteria with opposite conclusion.
Justintruth
It is a contingent fact, not logically necessary but factually true
Landy
"Zanthius" <zanthius...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:26630508-e3b1-4fbc...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Aug, 12:10, "Landy" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Kook-a-doodle-doo!
>
> Would you consider a bacteria without any consciousness to be life,
Yes
> while considering a non organic entity with a consciousness not to be
> life?
No
> That would be a pretty biased view of life.
They are both life.
Starman
think, the rest of the world do not agree with you
you clearly don't have a mind of your own, you quote the same stupid argument 3
times, and you TOPPOST your self you stupid
lamebrain prick !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you can have your own fantasy definition of life, but it do not change facts of
what can be defined as life, so it really dosen't matter
what you say, it has no value
you are the kind of person who thinks you speak on behalf of everybody if you
find just 1 person who will agree with you
i guess you must be very young since you do not comprehend very much, and you
have a hard time reason with reality
my guess would be that you are 13-14 years old, so don't give up yet you will
gradually learn more when you become adult
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> skrev i en meddelelse
news:XAMnk.22202$tc1....@newsfe24.ams2...
Androcles
what you
think, the rest of the world do not agree with you.
Fuck off, I'm done with you.
******************plonk*****************
"Starman" <sta...@universe.dk> wrote in message
news:48a212b7$0$15872$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Edward Green
> > Nor do I, but I can't rule out the possibility either.
>
> My understanding of the sun is that all states are in thermal
> equilibrium with a huge injection of energy from hydrogen fusion in
> balance with a huge emission of energy particulate and electromagnetic
> radiation.
Well, there is "thermal equilibrium" and there is thermal
equilibrium. The sun is definitely _not_ in thermal equilibrium in
the sense of being a boring constant temperature reservoir. It may be
in local thermal equilibrium -- in the sense that the little bits have
a temperature -- a property shared by many non-equilibrium systems
(like the Earth's weather, and the human body), but globally it is at
most in a steady state: and a rather turbulent steady state at that
(for what that's worth) on scales observable from the Earth.
> If that is true then there is no information increase going
> on and you can in fact "rule out the possibility".
Your inference is incorrect however: in whatever sense the sun is in
"thermal equilibrium" so is the human body: having a local temperature
is no barrier to the creation of persistent structure.
> I guess the first step is to realize that in order to claim that the
> possibility exists one must posit some way that it could...
I did, in extremely vague and speculative terms: persistent patterns
of electric and magnetic fields, coupled to persistent patterns of
plasma motion. I even gave a single example of a conductive fluid
with a self-sustaining field pattern and motion, powered by the
ability to do work (somewhere, somehow) -- the Earth's core.
Can such patterns exist in sufficient stability on scales and
densities that would enable them to form a substrate for the larger
sorts of patterns we might recognize as life inside the sun?
I have very little idea, and if forced to take an even bet, would bet
against it. But I doubt you have a better idea here, though you say
"no" with greater certainty. Certainty is not an argument.
> In a kind
> of radical way the possibility for the unknown always exists. In other
> words if the sun is not as we think it is, maybe there are laws of
> physics we don't yet know etc, then anything is possible - even that
> that sun does not exist, does not produce energy etc etc. But I think
> the question is not of that order. The question is "If the sun is the
> sun can it produce life". Given what the sun is, as established by
> science, I claim it is not incorporating and sustaining information
> into states that reproduce and sustain themselves.
You don't know that. That is simply your best guess. I'd probably
make it my best guess too: but I'd sustain a 10-15% Bayesian prior
that the kind of driven plasma system found in the sun could
spontaneously evolve persistent structure. Actually ... let me split
that prior: depending on what we accept as "persistent structure", my
prior is much higher ... like maybe approaching unity: a sun spot is
structure. Structure suitable to evolve "life"? I might even depress
my estimate. But not trivially close to zero: I give it at least a
few percent.
Another example of persistent structure in an non-equilibrium flow
environment: the Great Red Spot. Yes, a storm. A very big storm that
has lasted a (human scale) long time. Suitable structural substrate
for life? No... it takes up too much of the planet! You couldn't
build one "molecule" out of Great Red Spots! We would need something
analogous, smaller (even given that the sun is larger), and much, much
more numerous.
> When I look at
> hydrogen fusion and the models of the sun, including its magnetic
> fields, I do not find examples of organization or decreasing entropy.
You can't find something in the model which isn't in the model. You
might find something in the sun which isn't in the model.
> From a model of the physics of the sun and a reasonable definition of
> life I think you can conclude that they are exclusive. That is what I
> am saying.
>
> So I agree that in a sense you can't rule out the possibility in a
> radical way, but if you do assume that the sun is as current science
> says it is then I think that rules our life because the sun does not
> have states that store external information.
So you say, but my counterclaim is that you probably don't know enough
about the dynamics of driven plasmas (i.e., being cooked on one side
and cooled on the other) to rule out the kind of persistent structure
I am suggesting. I don't claim certainty ... far from it ... but you
do, and I think without adequate basis. What are the self-organizing
possibilities of plasma under steady state heat flow?
> So if you think that is not true then I think you need to point out
> which states are not in thermal equilibrium with a huge injection of
> energy from fusion in balance with an outpouring of radiation. It is
> not a static structure. So what else is there that you are
> considering? Certainly its not the electromagnetic fields. How could
> they be arranged to store information given the random emissions that
> are going on there.
Not in some some self-sustaining arrangement of EM fields and mass
flows in the plasma? It would have to be more stable than a transient
turbulent vortex or eddy, and smaller than planet sized storm. Life
needs "atoms" sufficiently numerous to try out a lot of random
configurations, before a minimal self-reproducing one is found, and
sufficiently long lived to allow the discovered self-reproducing
configuration to reproduce.
So you say I'm an ignorant sot and you can sensibly eliminate the
possibility that a driven plasma could support such things at almost
100% probability, vs. my crackpot desire to credit the idea with a few
positive percent Bayesian prior, because I don't know any better in
ruling this out? Maybe. But I don't find your arguments on target
so far (the sun is not in global thermal equilibrium, and having a
local temperature hardly rules this out), and the idea that this is
"new physics" a bit strong: my speculation does not hinge on hitherto
undiscovered physical laws, but on the possible behavior of non-
equilibrium plasmas. It might be "new physics", but in a weak sense:
more a newly discovered phenomenon emergent from known physics.
I'm not defending my speculation in civil court, but merely in
criminal court, lets say at the 5% level. Unless you depress my prior
below 5% (usually accepted standard for "reasonable doubt"), I
maintain its not utter unreasonableness.
Starman
grow up and try to learn before you argue with adults again!!
'
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1xook.66525$GP7....@newsfe23.ams2...
Justintruth
> Your inference is incorrect however: in whatever sense the sun is in
> "thermal equilibrium" so is the human body: having a local temperature
> is no barrier to the creation of persistent structure.
I think you are right about this. It is not the fact that it has a
temperature. Low enough of a temperature and there can be biology. I
do think high temperatures however destroy life and there is something
physical about breaking bonds that occurs as the temp raises. So I am
wrong in saying that it is the fact that the sun is random. First its
not and second its not the fact that it has a temperature it is the
fact that it is hot that discourages me. Obviously the temperature on
the sun varies greatly from the core outward and into the photosphere
and the corona. I think that life is a non-random non-chaotic dynamic
system that replicates. When I consider what I know of the physics of
the sun I can see nowhere that such a process exists.
... persistent patterns
> of electric and magnetic fields, coupled to persistent patterns of
> plasma motion. I even gave a single example of a conductive fluid
> with a self-sustaining field pattern and motion, powered by the
> ability to do work (somewhere, somehow) -- the Earth's core.
I believe that that is an example of a chaotic system.
>
> Can such patterns exist in sufficient stability on scales and
> densities that would enable them to form a substrate for the larger
> sorts of patterns we might recognize as life inside the sun?
>
> I have very little idea, and if forced to take an even bet, would bet
> against it. But I doubt you have a better idea here, though you say
> "no" with greater certainty. Certainty is not an argument.
No, certainty is not an argument but the fact that there is
uncertainty does not equate to the fact that there is possibility in
this type of question. As I said there is always the kind of
uncertainty associated with things we just don't know or are wrong
about. They question here that to me is interesting is whether if the
sun truly is just as we know it can it have life in it. In other words
does the current physical model of the sun exclude life. My intuition
is that it does. I cannot seem to find a process in it that would
allow information to be stored and replicated. All of the examples you
give are essentially weather-like or chaotic. Life cannot exist in a
chaotic system unless we twist the meaning of the term. In a sense
even random processes can be considered "life-like" reproducing their
random "offspring" by consuming structure. But that is not what I
think is asked.
Does the current model of the sun contain a sub-system that is non-
random and non-chaotic? I don't see where? Certainly sunspots and
electric and magnetic fields are excluded. A sunspot is just like a
hurricane no?. It is a chaotic process. The temperature on the sun is
so high that the noise floor for any signal is very high. The signal
would have to be very high to be observed. And it would have to be
self replicating. I just don't see it in what I understand of the
sun.
Basically my idea of the sun is that it is a ball of hydrogen nuclei
under sufficient pressure at the core to fuse to helium. The energy
then radiates and convects to the surface where the photosphere emits
light and the solar wind. There is also the corona which is hydrogen.
Its a big ball of ionized gas. If that is what the sun is then there
can be no life there.
If that is not what the sun is... well then anything could be true....
and some things more strange than others...
I'd probably
> make it my best guess too: but I'd sustain a 10-15% Bayesian prior
> that the kind of driven plasma system found in the sun could
> spontaneously evolve persistent structure.
Well then all we need is to know what kind of a mechanism you
envision. This is the crux of the whole thread. My understanding of a
plasma is that it is like an ion gas. It interacts electromagnetically
because of the charge on the particles but that coupling does not
produce structure.
After reading what you wrote I tried to imagine how a plasma could
support a structure: 1) Arrangement of the ions into a structure -
doesn't work because the ions are positively charged and repel each
other 2) Some persistent aspect of the velocity field like vorticity -
doesn't work because I can't see how vorticity can bond. We would have
to have some way that the vorticity (non-zero curl) could reproduce
itself. A single vortex doesn't work and I don't see a way to make
multiple vorticies bind and "cooperate" 3) Some standing
electromagnetic structure. Again its a vector field and I don't see
how it can create replicating structure. 4) Some combination of 2 and
3 ? Still don't see how I even get the equivalent of atoms to form
never mind structures capable of replication or intentionality.
If life is a signal frozen in bonds then the high temp is like a noise
floor that breaks bonds.
I guess what I would need to be 100% sure would be a proof that a
plasma and associated electromagnetic field would necessarily be
chaotic or random or could not form bonds between any form of
entities.
Anyway, my Bayesian would be vanishingly small that is for sure based
on the fact that it is so unlike carbon bonding in which one can
easily see that all kind of tinker toys can be built with moving parts
etc. Completely different on the sun. The sun seems much more like a
cup of hot water to me than life.
a sun spot is
> structure.
My understanding is that those processes are like the weather on
earth. Hurricanes are not alive. They are chaotic systems and cannot
be so.
Actually, it would be interesting to know whether you think that
hurricanes could have life in them too?
> You can't find something in the model which isn't in the model. You
> might find something in the sun which isn't in the model.
Its always possible that the model is wrong. But the interesting
problem for me is that, assuming the model is right what about it
precludes life. What is it about life that is inconsistent with what
the sun is. Not an easy question for me to answer. My intuition is
that I should be able to state it clearly though. It would involve
information, randomness, entropy, temperature and chaos. The
temperature establishes a noise floor that eliminates a lot of
possibilities. Intuitively what is needed for life is the "bond" that
could cause structure and store information. The temperature seems to
preclude bonding and electromagnetic fields and plasmas, even fields
of them don't seem to have the ability to bond.
What are the self-organizing
> possibilities of plasma under steady state heat flow?
I don't know but I think the burden is on the one proposing that there
is one to propose one. My understanding of plasmas is not very good
but according to my understanding I have tried and can't find a self
organizing possibility so I said no. If you can posit one then perhaps
there is a possibility and someone could look for it but I cannot even
posit one so... I don't think there is life on the sun. Its not that I
can posit one and we just don't know if it is there. That would be "I
don't know" ... rather I can't even posit one.
While I am not a solar scientist or a biologists I think that both
communities would agree that the proper answer to the scientific
question: "Is there life on the sun?" is "No." Like all scientific
theories there is the possibility that it is wrong but that does not
mean that it is empty. The current model says something and I think it
says that there is no life on the sun. I don't believe that the proper
scientific answer is "We don't know" Its just not that unclear to me.
My amateur scientific position is: I don't think there is any solar
biology.
>
> Not in some some self-sustaining arrangement of EM fields and mass
> flows in the plasma? It would have to be more stable than a transient
> turbulent vortex or eddy, and smaller than planet sized storm. Life
> needs "atoms" sufficiently numerous to try out a lot of random
> configurations, before a minimal self-reproducing one is found, and
> sufficiently long lived to allow the discovered self-reproducing
> configuration to reproduce.
Would it not also require some sort of binding? If we could find a way
for plasmas or vector fields to bind....
>
> So you say I'm an ignorant sot and you can sensibly eliminate the
> possibility that a driven plasma could support such things at almost
> 100% probability, vs. my crackpot desire to credit the idea with a few
> positive percent Bayesian prior, because I don't know any better in
> ruling this out?
Ha! No. I am just trying hard to come up with a yes answer and I fail
every time. Is structure necessary for life? Is binding necessary for
structure? Can a plasma support binding? Are there plasma structures?
I keep coming up empty handed. Not just I don't know but... I can't
see how life can evolve without structure. I can't see how structure
can occur without binding. I can't see how a plasma, even with
vorticity and electromagnetic interactions, can create a structure (I
don't think a hurricane is a structure, I think it is chaotic
vorticity) So, I keep coming up with the same answer. No.
Maybe. But I don't find your arguments on target
> so far
Yea, its not just thermal equilibrium that is involved. I don't think
that non-random chaotic systems should be classified as alive either.
I still think there is a really fundamental answer to this involving
information theory, entropy etc. Wish I knew it.
>
> I'm not defending my speculation in civil court, but merely in
> criminal court, lets say at the 5% level. Unless you depress my prior
> below 5% (usually accepted standard for "reasonable doubt"), I
> maintain its not utter unreasonableness.
I wish I could get above a fraction of a percent. I like the idea. But
looking at it I just can't. The thing the sun has going for it is that
there is plenty of energy there but then there seems that there is too
much. It doesn't seem to support structure. I would say for me
subjectively, the probability of finding life of any kind (not limited
to organic carbon based or even molecular but any organized
replicating structure) is much much less than 1 percent. More like .
0000000000001 or something.
There is a woman who blogs on the internet named Maria Odete. She may
actually know the answer.
Zanthius
> (I don't think a hurricane is a structure, I think it is chaotic
> vorticity) So, I keep coming up with the same answer. No.
If a hurricane was completely random, it wouldn't remain a hurricane
for long. It would dissolve instantly unless there was some kind of
information passed on from the hurricane's current state to the
hurricane's next state.
If weather patterns were completely random and chaotic, it would be
impossible to predict the weather. Why are we getting better and
better at predicting the weather, if the weather is completely random
and chaotic?
If you could visualize the entire field of brain waves constituting
your consciousness, I think you would find this field looking quite
chaotic and random too - much like weather patterns.
Zanthius
> I once did an experiment with an ant in which I tried to communicate
> with it. I found that by placing my hand around it and blocking its
> path at first it just kept moving normally but as I persisted and
> became more intrusive there suddenly was a great increase in activity
> and the ant tried basically to get away from me. There was a distinct
> moment when it, again by analogy with my own experience, seemed to
> become suddenly conscious of me as a threat. No amount of gentleness
> could I then generate that would relieve it and make it calm down.
> Only by removing my self from interaction would its "fear?" subside.
> Based on this observation I believe that ants are conscious. Similar
> experience can be carried out on bacteria with opposite conclusion.
There is a huge difference between ants and bacterias. Ants are
multicellular eucaryotic organisms, while bacterias are unicellular
procaryotic organisms. I think an ant is much more similar to you
genetically, than to a bacteria.
However, it wouldn't be much difficult to construct a computer program
which would react in the same way as you described the ant reacting.
Would you consider that computer program to be conscious?
Justintruth
First I don't think that a computer program means something that is
conscious. But then neither do I think a brain means something that is
conscious. But we have to ask the question when does consciousness
occur? Certainly it seems to occur with neurology but what about
neurology causes it? I think that it is possible that should one have
a sufficiently complex computer program running that consciousness
might then occur. It would not be the program running but something
would have occurred and a self conscious individual might occur. This
would be an existential occurrence not an essential one.
Justintruth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
in particular the paragraph titled "Distinguishing random from chaotic
data"
I think that it has been pretty much established that we cannot
predict the weather beyond a certain point because of chaotic
amplification of uncertainty.
mike3
> On 9 Aug, 10:10, mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > So what definition involves "consciousness" as part of "life"? A
> > bacterium is alive but not conscious.
>
> How do you know that a bacteria hasn't some kind of consciousness?
>
> I don't consider anything to be "alive" unless it has a consciousness.
What do you define as a "consciousness", then? Once that is provided
perhaps a meaningful discussion of whether a bacterium has
consciousness
would be possible. A bacterium certainly lacks the complexity of a
human,
for example, so my definition of "consciousness" may not agree with
yours
(that it is like what a human has.).
mike3
> On Aug 6, 10:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:fbf8499a-00eb-4abc...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > No, Never as it is too hot....
>
> > Life is on the Sun right now even as we speak...
>
> > ...for the simple reason that we are talking about it.
>
> > How for heaven's sake can one talk about nothing?
>
> You haven't heard Barack speaking yet, have you?
>
Heh. We've got 2 empty suits up there, and one or the
other is going to replace that plant (weed) we have in the
White House right now.
Zanthius
> Not random but chaotic. The weather is chaotic not random. Check out:
But if you mean chaotic and not random, then I cannot see why not
information cannot be stored in such a structure which seems chaotic
to you.
Many structures seems more chaotic when they increase in complexity,
and this doesn't mean that less information is stored in the
structure, it means that more information is stored in the structure.
If you were to make a computer simulation for all the weather dynamics
occuring on earth, it would need to process a huge amount of data
( information ). One of the reasons why we cannot predict the weather
beyond a certain point today, is because we don't have powerful enough
computers today to process such a huge amount of data ( information ).
Justintruth
> If you were to make a computer simulation for all the weather dynamics
> occuring on earth, it would need to process a huge amount of data
> ( information ). One of the reasons why we cannot predict the weather
> beyond a certain point today, is because we don't have powerful enough
> computers today to process such a huge amount of data ( information ).
My understanding is that in a chaotic system a small error in the
initial conditions is magnified and results in a short time in macro
effects. I believe that it was first thought about in the weather
where a small computer error cased big changes in weather predictions.
Basically I think that originally people thought that if you just
measured very accurately the state of each point in the atmosphere and
had large enough computers then you could predict the weather but then
they discovered chaos and realized that even if they got down to very
small cells for initial conditions the macroscopic weather would still
be uncertain. The analogy was the butterfly. If a butterfly flaps its
wing it could shortly cause a hurricane-or something like that. See
chaos in the wiki. So if want to maintain a structure you would have
to have exact initial conditions or else the small deviation from that
would result in a macro effect and wipe out the whole organism. So if
you stored information it would become erased by uncertainty being
"pumped up" from the microscopic world into the macroscopic world. I
think there are chaotic aspects of life in branching of veins for
example but I think if an organism existed in a chaotic system it soon
would not. My understanding is that a structure is non-chaotic because
the elements either don't move or have limited motion relative to
them. Gases and liquids are chaotic. I am sure that must be an
oversimplification but you get the idea. If you raise your arm the
lower it and raise it again you end up back in the same place. If you
know where your hand was initially you can put it back there.
Presumably there are some kind of structures in the brain that are
persistent and not impacted by chaos.
I guess you could say that if you had a "structure" in a liquid and
then stirred it it would destroy the structure. I guess the question
of whether life can exist on the sun might be related to the question
of whether life can exist in pure liquid form or in a gas form. Can
it? Does life require solids? Intuitively I think the answer is yes
but I don't think I could prove it.
Zanthius
Well, with powerful enough computers and satellites, it could be
possible to measure even the movements of butterlfies.
But this is about how much information is stored in a structure, and
there is an enormous amount data stored in weather dynamics, that is
why it is so hard to process the full scale of it.
> I guess you could say that if you had a "structure" in a liquid and
> then stirred it it would destroy the structure. I guess the question
> of whether life can exist on the sun might be related to the question
> of whether life can exist in pure liquid form or in a gas form. Can
> it? Does life require solids? Intuitively I think the answer is yes
> but I don't think I could prove it.
Your consciousness is not solid, but a field of brain waves. Could a
similar field of brain waves be generated from particles in a liquid
or gas? I think so. Your brain is not completely solid, and I think
name "plasma" for an ionized gas in physics, was chosen because it had
similarities to blood plasma.
Sanny
> > be encoded in cold matter.
>
> Your consciousness is not cold matter. Your consciousness is an
> emergent field of brain waves generated by the combined neural
> activity of all the neurons in your head.
>
> Your consciousness is never turned off during your life. When you are
> sleeping you are merely reducing the oscillation frequency of your
> consciousness, you are never turning it off.
Does plant have neural network or any consciousness? Still we call
them Life?
So there can be a life which is just floating and controlled by
magnetic fields on Sun.
We all know plasma can be controlled by magnetic field. So may be life
on Sun uses Magnetic field to move plasma Just like we use solid
movements using Bones.
Bye
Sanny
Zanthius
> We all know plasma can be controlled by magnetic field. So may be life
> on Sun uses Magnetic field to move plasma Just like we use solid
> movements using Bones.
I think it is highly probable that the sun and other stars are
somewhat alive. Would be an awful waste of space to create so many
beautiful stars, unless they are somewhat alive.
I don't think the earth is at the center of the universe. I think the
universe if full of life.
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> Does plant have neural network or any consciousness? Still we call
> them Life?
>
> So there can be a life which is just floating and controlled by
> magnetic fields on Sun.
<http://loscuatroojos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/youranidiot.jpg>
<http://www.dementedferret.com/contents/media/t_Idiot-Seeks-Village.jpg>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Sam Wormley
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Justintruth
> > of whether life can exist in pure liquid form or in a gas form. Can
> > it? Does life require solids? Intuitively I think the answer is yes
> > but I don't think I could prove it.
>
> Your consciousness is not solid, but a field of brain waves. Could a
> similar field of brain waves be generated from particles in a liquid
> or gas? I think so. Your brain is not completely solid, and I think
> name "plasma" for an ionized gas in physics, was chosen because it had
> similarities to blood plasma.
Where did you get the fact that my "consciousness is not solid, but a
field of brain waves"?
RE weather: Let's take a real simple case of addition of two numbers.
Can you imagine how a gas can do this addition? Remember that you
cannot use chemistry as that would be again structure and the gas
cannot be manipulated by a solid. Can you use the macroscopic states
of a gas to store and process information? Even the word
"manipulation"... what would it mean for a gas?
Benj
> No Center
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>
> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>
> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Thanks Sam!
Your "references" constitute the finest proof so far that I've ever
seen that cosmology is the world's largest load of rubbish!
Right. Every point of the universe is it's "center" even those at the
"edge". And it's because our theories are only valid for the part of
the universe we "see". The part that we don't see (and haven't the
slightest clue about) is what makes the whole theory valid. You know
where the universe was once a "point" but now that point "expanded"
such that it isn't any "center". The Galaxies don't expand they just
get farther apart. But they all stay the same and are just as much
part of the "invisible" universe. And you guys have the nerve to
laugh at the other people who believe "God" made it all.
Hey, I've got an "invisible" force coming out of my ass making a
noise! I think I'll call it "cosmology"! Maybe if I light it with a
lighter it will give me a "Big Bang"!
Y
In the 4th dimension, all life on Earth would be strewn together as an
indistinguishable singular object. The Earth itself would be a donut
around the sun, the sun and earth both of which, strewn again to
whatever coughed it up inthe first place. Like Peter Cooks Guiness
world record snot stream.
Zanthius
> No Center
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>
> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>
> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
In what way is this related to the discussion about if life can exist
in plasma?
Zanthius
> Where did you get the fact that my "consciousness is not solid, but a
> field of brain waves"?
Perhaps I have a better insight into my own consciousness, and I know
for a fact that you get less conscious when the oscillation frequency
of your brain wave field is reduced.
It is possible to measure the oscillation frequency of your brain wave
field when you are awake or asleep. You have a much lower oscillation
frequency when you are in deep sleep compared to when you are awake.
Sam Wormley
Read the linked material and find out.
Zanthius
> Read the linked material and find out.
I am not going to read through a lot of information about the big bang
theory which I am already aware about.
If you have any information explicitly about why life can or cannot
exist in plasma, then please show me directly to it.
Sam Wormley
It might help to define what you consider life to be....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
Zanthius
> It might help to define what you consider life to be....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
I think anything that has a consciousness should be considered life,
don't you?
Antares 531
This is true, but it is not complete. Plants don't have a
consciousness, but they are definitely a form of life. The two most
general qualifications are;
Reacts to a stimulus
Reproduces
Sam Wormley
Can rocks have consciousness?
Can graphite have consciousness?
Electrolysis of water is the decomposition of water (H2O) into
oxygen (O2) and hydrogen gas (H2) due to an electric current being
passed through the water. Would the oxygen gas have consciousness?
Would the hydrogen gas have consciousness?
OK--Your question, can plasma have consciousness?
Most people associate consciousness with life and most
people define life similarly to concepts listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
So my question is... what is necessary, in your opinion, for
some entity to possess consciousness?
Zanthius
> So my question is... what is necessary, in your opinion, for
> some entity to possess consciousness?
Anything capable of generating something similar to your brainwave
field should have a consciousness.
Sam Wormley
In other words, neuron activity!
George Hammond
[Hammond]
Plants do not have neurons however plant cells do have
microtubule meshes the same as animal cells.
Microtubules have been substantially implicated in human
consciousness (Penrose, Hameroff) as a "subconscious
computer". Therefore it is not beyond the realm of
possibility that plants DO have some kind of a low level
"consciousness" related in principle to human consciousness.
Ergo, they probably do have a "god phenomena" and an
"eternal life phenomena" similar in kind if not degree just
as the animals do.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================
Painius
news:0f3ea4hvr4ac6t3bd...@4ax.com...
>
> . . .
> =====================================
> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
> mirror site:
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
> =====================================
If God could die, she'd be turning over in her grave.
I did like this one, though...
http://boomeria.org/physicslectures/secondsemester/relativity/tompkins.html
It's a popular li'l ditty by George Gamow.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!
P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net
Zanthius
> [Hammond]
> Plants do not have neurons however plant cells do have
> microtubule meshes the same as animal cells.
> Microtubules have been substantially implicated in human
> consciousness (Penrose, Hameroff) as a "subconscious
> computer". Therefore it is not beyond the realm of
> possibility that plants DO have some kind of a low level
> "consciousness" related in principle to human consciousness.
The only reason why Penrose proposed the microtubules, is because they
are small enough to possibly account for quantum effects in the brain.
Personally I don't think quantum effects = consciousness. I don't
think one kilogram of uranium is conscious just because it is
radioactive.
George Hammond
<starswi...@maol.com> wrote:
>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.org> wrote in message
>news:0f3ea4hvr4ac6t3bd...@4ax.com...
>>
>> . . .
>> =====================================
>> SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
>> http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
>> mirror site:
>> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
>> GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
>> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
>> =====================================
>
>If God could die, she'd be turning over in her grave.
>
>I did like this one, though...
>
> http://boomeria.org/physicslectures/secondsemester/relativity/tompkins.html
>
>It's a popular li'l ditty by George Gamow.
>
>
[Hammond]
Of course George Gamow's work is well known to me since
I'm a graduate physicist myself (M.S. Physics). The website
above has been known to me for years and is clearly cited on
my website (below).
GAMOW was the FIRST scientist to surmise that "God" was a
Relativistic perceptual phenomena. He thought it was caused
by SPECIAL RELATIVITY but it turns out (Hammoond, 2003) that
"God" is a GENERAL RELATIVISTIC phenomenon. Nevertheless,
I've always been comforted that such a clebrated physicist
as GAMOW was leaqd to the same conclusion that I later
proved and published!
>
>
>happy days and...
> starry starry nights!
>
[Hammond]
Likewise I'm sure.
Painius
I think i read somewhere that it would be "only by
faith" that people would be led to God. Oh, and too,
there was also something about trying to add things
to the religious text being, well, not so good for the
person who adds the words. I would think this also
goes for math formulas as well.
Why would God make it possible for anybody to find
"proof of God" if there is so much emphasis being
put on "faith and faith alone" type pathways to God?
But i don't suppose you'd entertain the possibility
that you've been hoodwinked? I can understand.
My cousin, bless him, once explained to me how
God has hoodwinked scientists by burying fossils
where they could be found so they would confound
science into thinking the world was a lot older than
it really is.
God seems to have some straaange motivations.
Sweeet Jesus.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Antares 531
wrote:
>
(snip)
>
>I think i read somewhere that it would be "only by
>faith" that people would be led to God. Oh, and too,
>there was also something about trying to add things
>to the religious text being, well, not so good for the
>person who adds the words. I would think this also
>goes for math formulas as well.
>
>Why would God make it possible for anybody to find
>"proof of God" if there is so much emphasis being
>put on "faith and faith alone" type pathways to God?
>
>But i don't suppose you'd entertain the possibility
>that you've been hoodwinked? I can understand.
>My cousin, bless him, once explained to me how
>God has hoodwinked scientists by burying fossils
>where they could be found so they would confound
>science into thinking the world was a lot older than
>it really is.
>
>God seems to have some straaange motivations.
>
>Sweeet Jesus.
>
>happy days and...
> starry starry nights!
>
book on this whole school of thought. If you or anyone else wants a
qualified scientist's insights on these matters let me recommend this
book;
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, by Stephen M. Barr
ISBN 0-268-03471-0
Painius
in message news:ehcha49svqk385f2o...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:09:31 GMT, "Painius" <starswi...@maol.com>
> wrote:
>>
> (snip)
>>
>> I think i read somewhere that it would be "only by
>> faith" that people would be led to God. Oh, and too,
>> there was also something about trying to add things
>> to the religious text being, well, not so good for the
>> person who adds the words. I would think this also
>> goes for math formulas as well.
>>
>> Why would God make it possible for anybody to find
>> "proof of God" if there is so much emphasis being
>> put on "faith and faith alone" type pathways to God?
>>
>> But i don't suppose you'd entertain the possibility
>> that you've been hoodwinked? I can understand.
>> My cousin, bless him, once explained to me how
>> God has hoodwinked scientists by burying fossils
>> where they could be found so they would confound
>> science into thinking the world was a lot older than
>> it really is.
>>
>> God seems to have some straaange motivations.
>>
>> Sweeet Jesus.
>
> book on this whole school of thought. If you or anyone else wants a
> qualified scientist's insights on these matters let me recommend this
> book;
>
> Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, by Stephen M. Barr
> ISBN 0-268-03471-0
I read a review written by Hannam of that work. Barr
seems to emphasize "credibility" rather than "proof".
That makes far more sense to me. There really can
be no "proof" of God. There *can* be philosophical
argument and logical deduction that sends atheists
a message that their conclusions might be incredibly
short-sighted.
One of my favorite classic examples is "Pascal's
Wager"...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
This has a tendency to make one "bet" on God's
existence "just in case". <g>
Atheists attempt to refute it, but never with logic,
just a lot of hand waving. "You just don't understand
my argument!" is a typical atheist rebuttal. They
don't realize that their bad logic is inherently hard or
impossible to comprehend. Nobody has refuted the
above "wager" to my satisfaction.
I like the "ontological argument", too.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
John Christiansen
"Painius" <starswi...@maol.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:%Zjqk.167842$102.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Painius
in message news:48a9d1cf$0$5955$ba62...@nntp06.dk.telia.net...
> the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
No, not really. None of those are said to be capable
of absolutely ruining your eternity.
Zanthius
> That makes far more sense to me. There really can
> be no "proof" of God. There *can* be philosophical
> argument and logical deduction that sends atheists
> a message that their conclusions might be incredibly
> short-sighted.
I think the ability to have God in your vision is more related to
personal development than to proof of any kind.
When you strive to be righteous, you develop more faith in that things
will turn out the way they are supposed to, and I guess that is faith
in God.
Zanthius
> But i don't suppose you'd entertain the possibility
> that you've been hoodwinked? I can understand.
> My cousin, bless him, once explained to me how
> God has hoodwinked scientists by burying fossils
> where they could be found so they would confound
> science into thinking the world was a lot older than
> it really is.
>
> God seems to have some straaange motivations.
The bible is just a human interpretation of God, and therefore not
necessarily anything better than yours or mine interpretation of God.
I prefer how God is described in the Bhagavad Gita, or in Beelzebub's
tales to his grandson, rather than how God is described in the bible.
Painius
news:3g9la41th5jujboio...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:22:35 GMT, "Painius" <starswi...@maol.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> One of my favorite classic examples is "Pascal's
>> Wager"...
>>
>> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
>>
>> This has a tendency to make one "bet" on God's
>> existence "just in case". <g>
>>
>> Atheists attempt to refute it, but never with logic,
>> just a lot of hand waving. "You just don't understand
>> my argument!" is a typical atheist rebuttal. They
>> don't realize that their bad logic is inherently hard or
>> impossible to comprehend. Nobody has refuted the
>> above "wager" to my satisfaction.
>
> there, Paine. . . .
I agree with you, Saul. Religion sucks. God, OTOH?
Some say God was invented by mankind. Religions
certainly were. God, OTOH?
Man's inhumanity to man is often blamed on God.
Even Einstein blamed God without accounting for
man's free will. The blame ought to be laid where
it truly belongs. We make our choices because we
love or hate something. God, OTOH?
If there is truly no God, then life, epecially humans,
is a truly lucky phenomenon. That might at first
sound atheistic, but when you think about it, there
are a whole shitload of circumstances that have to
be juuust right for us to be here, and for us to go on
being here. Luck is highly unreliable. God, OTOH?
bryanjuggler...@yahoo.com
> There really can
> be no "proof" of God. There *can* be philosophical
> argument and logical deduction that sends atheists
> a message that their conclusions might be incredibly
> short-sighted.
>
> One of my favorite classic examples is "Pascal's
> Wager"...
> Atheists attempt to refute it, but never with logic,
> just a lot of hand waving.
Pascal's Wager is not an argument for the existence of God at all. Its
premise is that one should believe a proposition based on whether such
a belief is to one's personal advantage, rather than whether the
proposition is true.
> "You just don't understand
> my argument!" is a typical atheist rebuttal. They
> don't realize that their bad logic is inherently hard or
> impossible to comprehend. Nobody has refuted the
> above "wager" to my satisfaction.
Painius, do you get as far as understanding that a logical argument
for X is one that tries to establish that X is true?
Even if I were convinced that Pascal's Wager establishes that one is
better off believing in God, it would be useless to me. I am unable to
believe what the evidence indicates to be false. Maybe I'd be happier
if every day I believed that tomorrow I'll win the lottery, but my
mind doesn't work like that.
Then again, I haven't really put much effort into making myself
believing the false. Maybe there are techniques by which I could. Self-
deception just never struck me as a worth-while pursuit.
Painius, since you like Pascal's Wager so much, is there anything
special you do to make yourself believe things regardless of the case
for their truth? Did it take much practice?
Followups set.
--
--Bryan
Zanthius
> I am unable to believe what the evidence indicates to be false.
There is nothing indicating that there is no God. There is a lot of
stuff indicating that the book of genesis is wrong on several
accounts, but the bible is just one of several human interpretations
of God. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics as well,
and although the predictions of quantum mechanics seems to work well,
I don't think all of the interpretations are right. Maybe none of the
human interpretations of God are right, but there can still be a God.
Zanthius
monkey. But a monkey can understand much more than a mouse, and a
mouse can understand much more than a mosquito.
Who is to say that humans have the capacity to understand everything?
Doesn't it seem quite improbable that humans are the peak of
intellectual evolution? Aren't there perhaps other species in the
universe, who are as clever compared to us, as we are compared to
monkeys?
There is a lot of stuff a monkey doesn't have the capability to learn,
and there is probably a lot of stuff humans don't have the capability
to learn. Maybe humans aren't clever enough to conceptualize God, just
like a monkey isn't clever enough to give a detailed description of
what it was doing 3 days ago.
WG
instead of god put Santa or the tooth fairy, and change the reward to either money under your pillow or gifts under the tree.
Pascals logic would require us to believe in both since the upside in belief is always greater than the downside.
This still has nothing to do with truth.
<bryanjuggler...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c017ca06-94e2-4bfa...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Zanthius
> Pascal's Wager is not an argument for the existence of God at all. Its
> premise is that one should believe a proposition based on whether such
> a belief is to one's personal advantage, rather than whether the
> proposition is true.
At the deepest level, I don't think it is to your advantage to believe
in anything that isn't true.
Martin Hogbin
> Yes,
>
> That's were the aliens are hiding in our own sun... so we will never find
> them ;)
>
> Bye,
> Skybuck =D
>
>
We could always go and have a look - at night.
Martin Hogbin
Painius
news:c017ca06-94e2-4bfa...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Painius wrote:
>>
>> There really can
>> be no "proof" of God. There *can* be philosophical
>> argument and logical deduction that sends atheists
>> a message that their conclusions might be incredibly
>> short-sighted.
>>
>> One of my favorite classic examples is "Pascal's
>> Wager"...
>>
>> Atheists attempt to refute it, but never with logic,
>> just a lot of hand waving.
>
> Pascal's Wager is not an argument for the existence of God at all. Its
> premise is that one should believe a proposition based on whether such
> a belief is to one's personal advantage, rather than whether the
> proposition is true.
I'll concede that the Wager is not a philosophical
argument for God's existence. And while it's not a
huge difference in perspective, i feel i should point
out that it's a proposition that is *also* based on
whether disbelief is to one's personal detriment as
well.
>> "You just don't understand
>> my argument!" is a typical atheist rebuttal. They
>> don't realize that their bad logic is inherently hard or
>> impossible to comprehend. Nobody has refuted the
>> above "wager" to my satisfaction.
>
> Painius, do you get as far as understanding that a logical argument
> for X is one that tries to establish that X is true?
I get that it is true that one just might be better off
believing in God rather than not. This makes it a
logical argument for believing in God, but as you say
it is only this, and nothing more.
> Even if I were convinced that Pascal's Wager establishes that one is
> better off believing in God, it would be useless to me. I am unable to
> believe what the evidence indicates to be false. Maybe I'd be happier
> if every day I believed that tomorrow I'll win the lottery, but my
> mind doesn't work like that.
I don't understand. You have evidence that what,
exactly, is false? Do you have evidence that God
does not exist? Or do you have evidence that there
is no logical basis for Pascal's Wager?
> Then again, I haven't really put much effort into making myself
> believing the false. Maybe there are techniques by which I could. Self-
> deception just never struck me as a worth-while pursuit.
So how do you know which direction results in self-
deception? If you do not allow yourself to believe
in God, how do you know for sure that your pursuit
of atheism isn't just self-deception?
> Painius, since you like Pascal's Wager so much, is there anything
> special you do to make yourself believe things regardless of the case
> for their truth? Did it take much practice?
As i said before, i like the ontological argument for
the existence of God. Nobody has been able to
refute it to my satisfaction. To answer your inquiry,
I make decisions based first upon factual evidence.
If there is not enough factual, hard evidence with
which i can be certain that i am correct, then i go
with my heart, while i search for more evidence.
Yes, to know which direction is best for me took a
lot of practice. Nearly sixty years worth of practice.
So far. And practice does not make perfect. One
can practice something incorrectly for a long, long
time and never get it right. "Perfect" practice is
what *really* makes perfect.