tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post2142699626806187220..comments2023-10-10T05:17:55.737-07:00Comments on Crushed By Ingsoc: Life- Why the spark in the first place?Crushedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02479751225625007588noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-69859566660581215192007-03-05T10:28:00.000-08:002007-03-05T10:28:00.000-08:00Your description of life seems to include fire. (...Your description of life seems to include fire. (It also grows, moves, eats/consumes, there is respiration and reproduction.)<br><br>I think life is defined by something outside of physical matter and energy. I call it, 'life'.<br><br>Free will, humour and determination may be strongly affected by (and even dependant upon) chemicals and currents. But those physicals will never fully account for life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-33491153633888020612007-03-05T11:04:00.000-08:002007-03-05T11:04:00.000-08:00I would settle for just getting a life. Your defin...I would settle for just getting a life. Your definition, CBI, strikes me as something that would fit nicely into my Graham Greene-esque worldview, but it's even more bleak than standard random evolution. I remember reading somewhere (Paul Davies?) that it was for the universe to begin to understand itself- we are steps in the universe's own appreciation of its own genius. Or something. Not quite as crap as that. It was a nice idea. I was struggling to imagine non-existence yesterday; I found it extremely hard as a thought experiment, even though I failed to exist for a miserable 15 billion years before 1976. I can't remember what that was like. I can't remember the 23rd February 1982 either, but I know I did exist then. So what's the difference? I understand the logic but not the feeling of it. "Intellectually there is very little wrong with you. Only emotionally have you failed to make progress" (O Brien to Winston)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-30659941277592313292007-03-05T11:43:00.000-08:002007-03-05T11:43:00.000-08:00There is a quid pro quo to the idea, though. If we...There is a quid pro quo to the idea, though. If we, simple chemical constructs are conscious entities- ones who have been here a mere instant in the grand scheme of things, is it not plausible to say that a universe that has been here for fifteen billion here has evolved in a conscious direction, as in the universe has evolved consciousness- as in my interpretation, it necessarily would- somewhat of a pantheistic interpretation, true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-43941771703354859172007-03-06T09:52:00.000-08:002007-03-06T09:52:00.000-08:00Put bluntly, we exist as a way for the universe to...<i>Put bluntly, we exist as a way for the universe to waste energy.</i><br><br>How inspiring! Why is it we don't hear more songs about this on the radio? We like to sing about purpose and meaning do we not? If this is our meaning why not put it to song?<br><br>Not sure if you actually believe this or not, I just breifly scanned your blog and happened across this post. It struck a chord with the current metaphysical debate we have going over at Matt & I's blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-85848010128082763212007-03-06T15:44:00.000-08:002007-03-06T15:44:00.000-08:00I do actually believe it Alex, because I believe t...I do actually believe it Alex, because I believe that ultimately the driving force of the universe and therefore everything will pan out to be contained in the laws of thermodynamics.<br>I think the fundamental law of any universe will be 'All energy moves to zero point by the shortest available route'.<br>This holds even in a singularity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-86615807319740135872007-03-08T18:46:00.000-08:002007-03-08T18:46:00.000-08:00I suppose I'd have no problem with what you are sa...I suppose I'd have no problem with what you are saying if you would include in your equation the presence of a law giver in relation to these laws of thermodynamics. But then again I'm a theist so of course I'd say that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-35843251735594627162007-03-09T10:58:00.000-08:002007-03-09T10:58:00.000-08:00I think, Alex you will find my answer that in your...I think, Alex you will find my answer that in your own debate with Matt.<br>'The one thing you can say for sure is that energy exists'.<br>Am I being too esoteric there?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com