LIFE; What is it?

Post Reply New Topic

note the .........................................................crickets*

WELL said

Life:Living as long as you can, make babies, then dying that sums it up.

they can not feel pain, neither can a zygote.

better to have a 'narrow mind' than to be vomiting meaningless prose everywhere i think.

You prove my point well..

You surprise me Walrus.

From what I have been taught and can find using google search Aristotle influence Renaissance
this philosopher and his school had a very considerable influence on the time following the Medieval period. I would like to know why you consider this time period, the Renaissance, to be Medieval. It was a beginning of rational thought going back to Greek philosophers. This is important because the Renaissance was at the foundation of so much that is Western civilisation to this day. You have made a remarkable claim without an appropriate source.

Perhaps cato who seems to be doing Philosophy as a specialist subject would care to join us in this conversation.

^^^

Aristotle made a mistake; and it is the actual generations come after him that respected all of his other accomplishments so well that they refused to believe this human then, is capable of making a mistake.

However; that does not either lessen his remarkable achievements, noted by many cultures, as exceeding what most people accomplish in just one life.

It's easier to make philosophical mistakes, historically speaking, without the much greater eyes of science provided out into the future.

And of course, we still see this with the mythological worship of the early Constantine Catholic Church promoted Soldier King of the Universe GOD Man Jesus; instead of just another humble leaning Yogi Naturist guy, whose insights are not much different than philosophers come before him.

However, although there is myth mixed with Truth in the New Testament, still; and believed as such, now; it still does not outweigh the significance of the same Truths held as Universal in other philosophies and religions prior to the life of the so-called historical Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Yair, well, he doesn't surprise me, Grebs. I have endured many like him over a long time.

Aristotle is recorded as a chap who was a kind of "founding father" in the idea that science is the "study of reality" (as distinct from the mere airing of opinions or impressions) that developed into a formal scientific method which is the kind of objectivity that has led to the kind of technological achievements we enjoy.

All along, though, there has been an inextinguishable sophistry that assumes that reality is a subjective thing; manufactured by convenience or political expediency.

Of course, some of the observations and conclusions of Aristotle and his successors are severely limited by the technology that was available to make and evaluate such observations.

(I don't like the appearance and smell of eels either, and if I was clever enough in metaphors I might describe them as "live mud" but I wouldn't be sure that Aristotle ever said so only on the testimony of a Walrus).

It is sorta subjective, according to quantum theory(observers imposing their own viewpoints et c)

what mistake do you speak of? and what proof do you have it was a mistake?

My problem with Aristotle is that he doesn't seem to have ever tested his observations, even though the technology was there (in that many of his observations didn't require any technology to test).

examples: 'women have more teeth than men'

It may have seemed that way to him. Maybe women smiled more broadly and that gave the illusion of more teeth. Maybe men were more prone to doing things that cost them teeth and so some of them really did have fewer teeth. But that is so easy to test. Just count the teeth in two large samples of men and women (large enough that you aren't basing it all on a couple of guys who got their teeth knocked out) and count and compare. Simples. But he didn't.

'heavy objects fall faster than light ones'

Did he observe feathers and leaves as compared to rocks and then over generalize? All you have to do is drop two objects that differ only in their mass from a height to test. That's exactly what Galileo did instead of just thinking about it. That technology was available to Aristotle. He could have used balls like Galileo did to keep shape constant while changing only mass. The technology was there to make uniform balls out of stone/wood/metal.

But instead of experimenting he just observed and thought. And that's not enough for so many things.....

.....but it is enough for biological classification which he seems to have single-handedly invented, so for that I salute him.

A wiki about Aristotle talks about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

Hmm, that is the 'whole' reason I provided the Wiki link; for proof, in regard to Aristotle.

No; the earth is not the center of the Universe; Science has proof enough of that now.

I could have quoted the passage but I am thinking folks can read it, if they want to.

But anyway, thanks Janissy, for literally quoting what I linked, nice of you to do that.

And yes, in terms of Quantum physics, observed with 'Quantum' Human leap to
human mind; and with greater eyes of science today; it is a well known FACT
THAT humans manufacture their reality more than what they 'see' as reality.

However; all folks do not. Some folks recognized as Autistic and Schizophrenic
can neither recognize close faces of relatives from strangers or see common
illusions that the mind manufactures based on what it 'sees' in the past.

The human mind is a fascinating work of art and truly there is very little
that science can measure of it; in terms of each human being's experience
compared to another human beings experience in direct comparison.

And that may friend is why you cannot understand much of what I am
speaking of here in this forum; as you simply have no reference point
for it; and for all practical intents and purposes it does not exist
in your subjectively manufactured and perceived Universe.

And that's okay; obviously by the way you communicate here, you
are young and have much to learn, and much more to 'see'
of the Universe here in human potential, now and after.

And if you keep an open mind to all potential realities in life;
More will come. With a closed, and yes narrower mind
blocked off from human potential in mind and body
balance, your fate is sealed by you, yourself, friend.

And greater human potential
is a win-win scenario.

When you get
there friend;
if you get
tHERE;
then
you will
understand.

Or not.

In the last few days I took a dive back into physics and QM material just to try and make heads or tails of what it means for light to have no resting mass but to have inertial mass, for it to be infinitely time-dilated supposedly but only move at 186,300 mps, or what the practical limits are in implication of the measurement problem. It seems like it's dynamic equilibriums and averages that give us any sense of a 'normal', and I tend to doubt that Shrodinger's Cat experiment could go much farther than the thought simply based on the complexity of apparatus and all of its own inherent quantum parts.

I think the hardest thing for me to accept several years ago was the concept that probabilities were 'real things' rather than heuristics painted by human lack of data. That seems to in a sense wag the Newtonian dog by the tail.

Quote:

"Probabilities are real things rather than
heuristics painted by human lack of data

in a sense:

Wagging the Newtonian dog by the tail."

A 'perfect' metaphor for
'that' 'QuantumFT' 'WTFTW'..

And to tell a tale
of life, as what is is,
as well, for NOW..