The Semantics of the Dead

  • #51
733
0
Imparcticle said:
My point exactly. Que' es el "cadaver"? (What is "cadaver"?)
A cadaver is a dead body. Dead bodies can not eat pizza no matter how much current you put into it.

No, acting and being are 2 different things. Acting does not neccesarily reveal the true reality, but rather an illusion or a false reality. No siempre cierto.
On the other hand, being may reveal the true reality. Just because something is acting does not mean that is its true state. I will act like a mad person, if you wish, to prove to you that what I act like is not the same as what kind of person I really am.
Acting alive is part of being alive, I do not understand why you do not see this.
I am referring to acting alive not behavior of living. There is only one way to act alive, there are many ways of behaving alive.

Ah, so you are asserting that a dead body has the potential to act alive? If this is true, then this would indicate that it is possible (in your opinion) to ressurect (sp?) a dead body.
The dead body had the potential for being alive, in its previous form, when dead it becomes a new potentiality for a new physcial life form. You realize that we are made of star dust, we have in us the particles of all forms, that might have existed before us. No one as far as I know has ever resurected from the dead in the same physcial life form except Jesus Christ but then I was not there to see it, it is third person knowledge.


Ethiopia( In East Africa) si'. :biggrin: Y tu'? Adonde usted?
Born in Chicago Illinois.

Do you realize you are asserting that a rock is aware of its surroundings? It is called inanimate for a reason.
Ya and do you realize, that I could be as correct as, one who says it is not. Words mean nothing except to those who use them.

Atoms are inanimate, Rader. You are implying that atoms are alive, and therefore conscious. Esta' no possible. They do not act independently. Particles do not find ways for complexity. The complexity that arises is a product of cause and effect sequences. If particles acted on their own, it(there would be particle civil rights issues :rolleyes: ) would be almost (hablo "almost" por que we would have to make peace treaties and tons of compromises about how we are really not making particles our slaves... :tongue: ) impossible to make computers. Computers primarily work by manipulating particle reactions, like electrons.
Nobody has ever seen an atom, yet we stick adjectives, on them, that they are inanimate, not alive or conscious. Physics has shown us that, all matter is composed of sperical waves. All forms have evolved from sperical waves, we observe that evolution of forms, by an increase in complexity, consciousness and behavior.

Then why does a body die? Because it is worn?
In a physcial sense it has a clock, that indicates when it will be worn out and break done and die. In a spirtual sense, why does a body die?, is the same question, why did the body come into existence? A unknown purpose, that is revealed to each individual, its something that is felt not known.

No entiendo. If what could evolve? I don't understand what the predicate for your second usage of "it" is.
We were discussing flowers. If the flower was not conscious of which way the sun was, could the flower survive? If it could not, could any higher form ever evolve from what is dead.

That is like asking "If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, will it make a sound/noise?". Something will exist, even if there is no one to observe it.
I am not so sure. Forms seem to exist because we are here to observe them.

Of course, alive and conscious are mere characteristics of the body.[/
Only if you want to use the words that way. If alive was spirit and consciousness was life. At anyrate those words are independent of physcial reality.
 
  • #52
567
3
I am not so sure. Forms seem to exist because we are here to observe them.
We don't see quarks, yet, but we still know they exist.

Why do you think atoms and other particles are alive? Is there any supporting evidence, anything that would cause such a suspicion?
 
  • #53
733
0
Imparcticle said:
We don't see quarks, yet, but we still know they exist.
We do not see many things, and we assume they exist. Are quarks any different from the love you have for your mother? The dream you dreamt last night? The idea you came up with to start this thead?
Your conscious experience of being a schoolgirl? My point is that, it is not the eye that sees, but consciousness, does the seeing. The conscious experience is the reality.

Why do you think atoms and other particles are alive? Is there any supporting evidence, anything that would cause such a suspicion?
Because we are alive. Because we are atoms. Because once all those particles were all once "one". Because particles have an inate nature of knowing how to build complexity. Because words make a fowled a attempt to describe what just "Is". Because consiousness just might be the basic building block of reality. Because no one has demonstated the contrary.

You might want to read this entire thread, it has usefull information on the EPR experiments and Bells Theorum. Some of the reasons, why my thoughts, have gone in this direction, has to do with this information.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12311
 

Related Threads on The Semantics of the Dead

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
921
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
620
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top