God:the early answer to a problem?

[Enmos]

what is the distinction between a dead thing and an inanimate thing (apart from the apriori knowledge that the dead thing was previously alive)?

]if the inert machinery cannot be re-invested with life, what is the ultimate distinction?

So the simplest definition of life is a definition of non live...

In other words, if a see a rock and examine it I will know the essence of life.

It seems insufficient somehow..

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

much like the simplest definition of heat would involve turning off the heater
”
Umm... classic bullshit

you disagree that it is not simple?
or do you disagree that it doesn't define heat?

“
its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis
”
Under what [valid] definition of consciousness do you claim it falls under?

Valid?
Valid to who?
(its certainly valid to a living person - lol)

[Enmos]

once again, the easiest way to explain it would be to turn off the light

I asked for a definition, not some local explanation..

This is a definition of light:
"Also called luminous energy, radiant energy. electromagnetic radiation to which the organs of sight react, ranging in wavelength from about 400 to 700 nm and propagated at a speed of 186,282 mi./sec (299,972 km/sec), considered variously as a wave, corpuscular, or quantum phenomenon."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light

[lightgigantic]

So the simplest definition of life is a definition of non live...

In other words, if a see a rock and examine it I will know the essence of life.

only if you had previously encountered the rock in a living state

[Enmos]

consciousness is the very thing we are seeing with - defining it in a local way is probably the only option available, at least for one in conditioned life

Defining it as an opposite of death tells me nothing at all about it, plus it's just plain wrong.

[Enmos]

only if you had previously encountered the rock in a living state

No, you said there is no difference between dead and inanimate matter.
What you thus said is that life is the opposite of non life. Which is rather obvious and completely useless as a definition.

[lightgigantic]

I asked for a definition, not some local explanation..

This is a definition of light:
"Also called luminous energy, radiant energy. electromagnetic radiation to which the organs of sight react, ranging in wavelength from about 400 to 700 nm and propagated at a speed of 186,282 mi./sec (299,972 km/sec), considered variously as a wave, corpuscular, or quantum phenomenon."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light

(that's the simplest defintion? Probably wouldn't work on a bunch of 6 year olds)

Of course the problem at hand here is that light can be indicated as a separate issue from our consciousness - in other words our ability to see (in the sense of being conscious) is not dependent on light, so it can be reduced in a variety of mechanistic ways.
Now how do you propose to see what you are seeing with?

surely not by any reductionist methods that one could indicate light by
(yes it is a complex topic, thus the simplest definition of consciousness is to define it by death, since the absence of consciousness clearly indicates the significance of its presence)

[Enmos]

Me: What is the definition of 'eating' ?
LG: The opposite of 'not eating'.

[lightgigantic]

No, you said there is no difference between dead and inanimate matter.

sure
they both behave in the same way

however contrasting the living and dead examples of a particular specimen clearly indicates the nature of life

What you thus said is that life is the opposite of non life. Which is rather obvious and completely useless as a definition.

Once again, the survey starts to become dynamic when you encounter a living specimen.
Otherwise it is just like turning off the light switch in a room that is already dark.

[Enmos]

(that's the simplest defintion? Probably wouldn't work on a bunch of 6 year olds)

Did I ever ask for the simplest definition ?
6 year olds ?

Of course the problem at hand here is that light can be indicated as a separate issue from our consciousness - in other words our ability to see (in the sense of being conscious) is not dependent on light, so it can be reduced in a variety of mechanistic ways.
Now how do you propose to see what you are seeing with?

surely not by any reductionist methods that one could indicate light by
(yes it is a complex topic, thus the simplest definition of consciousness is to define it by death, since the absence of consciousness clearly indicates the significance of its presence)

What are you on about ? Having fun ?

[Enmos]

sure
they both behave in the same way

however contrasting the living and dead examples of a particular specimen clearly indicates the nature of life


Once again, the survey starts to become dynamic when you encounter a living specimen.
Otherwise it is just like turning off the light switch in a room that is already dark.

Are you acting like this on purpose ?

[lightgigantic]

Me: What is the definition of 'eating' ?
LG: The opposite of 'not eating'.

if you changed the dualistic options to something a bit more particular, like "nourishment" and "starvation", it would certainly work as a simple definition (meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand)

[Enmos]

if you changed the dualistic options to something a bit more particular, like "nourishment" and "starvation", it would certainly work as a simple definition (meaning only fools would not have a clear idea what the use of the word "nourishment" and "starvation" implies - provided they weren't in a perpetual state of starvation beforehand)

This is how you define things then ?

[lightgigantic]

Are you acting like this on purpose ?

the only way I can see this causing problems is if one was totally clueless what constituted a dead and living specimen.

Since the very nature of investigation requires consciousness (award winning posthumous scientists tend to only get awards for their previous body of research), we have some intrinsic knowledge on the subject already.

All that is required is the introduction of its absence to offer a clear picture of what consciousness entails.

[lightgigantic]

Did I ever ask for the simplest definition ?
6 year olds ?

when working with the simplest definition, its best to work with them as your target audience

What are you on about ? Having fun ?

o-k
back to the simple definition then ....

[lightgigantic]

This is how you define things then ?

its only one method, but a method most suitable given the topic of discussion

[Enmos]

the only way I can see this causing problems is if one was totally clueless what constituted a dead and living specimen.

Since the very nature of investigation requires consciousness (award winning posthumous scientists tend to only get awards for their previous body of research), we have some intrinsic knowledge on the subject already.

All that is required is the introduction of its absence to offer a clear picture of what consciousness entails.

Like being unconscious ?

Your definition is horribly incomplete.

Your definition: Life is the opposite of non life.

Commonly accepted definition: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

Edit: I need a break from this stuff..

[SnakeLord]

you disagree that it is not simple?
or do you disagree that it doesn't define heat?

Things are not recognised by their opposites, they are recognised by change to a base rate. So for instance you have a man that lives in a freezer which is constantly -30. To make this man recognise heat you claim the best method is to turn the freezer down to -60. This does not aid the man in recognising heat but in recognising the cold. It will also confuse him mightily if you explain that heat is used to cook food and he then for some strange reason has trouble making dinner by putting the hamburger in the freezer.

The easiest and appropriate way to explain heat is to turn the heating on, (or up if it's already on).

Valid?
Valid to who?

Dictionary valid.

(its certainly valid to a living person - lol)

Only if using the fallacious argument that anything that is conscious is alive therefore everything that is alive must be conscious.

[lightgigantic]

Things are not recognised by their opposites, they are recognised by change to a base rate.

so does an opposite reduce the base rate or make it constant

So for instance you have a man that lives in a freezer which is constantly -30. To make this man recognise heat you claim the best method is to turn the freezer down to -60.

actually I have experience of something like this
I was with an inspection crew that was going around in freezer yards constantly in about 5 degrees. They also had smaller one's maintained at about -10. After a few moments in one of those, the outside one's felt like the caribbean

This does not aid the man in recognising heat but in recognising the cold.

so when he can contrast the two experiences, what prevents him from understanding heat exactly?

It will also confuse him mightily if you explain that heat is used to cook food and he then for some strange reason has trouble making dinner by putting the hamburger in the freezer.

well I guess illustrating the nature of heat used for cooking would require something else, much like illustrating the nature of heat used for smelting iron would require something more than an electric stove

The easiest and appropriate way to explain heat is to turn the heating on, (or up if it's already on).

that's simply another alternative
it doesn't invalidate the existing one

Dictionary valid.

it certainly is a valid explanation
unfortunately it doesn't invalidate the already existing explanation
so I guess that means you are full of classic bullshit

Only if using the fallacious argument that anything that is conscious is alive therefore everything that is alive must be conscious.

why is that fallacious?
can you indicate the sun without sunlight or sunlight without a sun?

(IOW can you indicate an energy source that doesn't have energy or an energy that doesn't have a source)
(Please don't mention exploded stars )

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the only way I can see this causing problems is if one was totally clueless what constituted a dead and living specimen.

Since the very nature of investigation requires consciousness (award winning posthumous scientists tend to only get awards for their previous body of research), we have some intrinsic knowledge on the subject already.

All that is required is the introduction of its absence to offer a clear picture of what consciousness entails.
”
Like being unconscious ?

being permanently or irrevocably unconscious offers a good insight into the significance of death

Your definition is horribly incomplete.

of course there are other details bit it is sufficient for it to be clearly indicated.
In light of our discussions, I would have thought it would be quite clear how life is indicated

Your definition: Life is the opposite of non life.

Commonly accepted definition: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

interesting how it opens up with what you have been trying to beat me over the head with for the past hundred posts

Edit: I need a break from this stuff..

yes, there definitely is more to life