they have to be inherent, or what you propose communication "is", isnt inherently communication at all.
What i propose is to learn from our entirety. We act like we know all there is to know about life forms without consulting the other life forms that we may be quite ignorantly neglecting.
Nay, there mightn't even be any need TO communicate or learn from tremendously larger or smaller bodies/life forms, but the potential TO be able to does not strike you as worth investigation?
HOW will we know there is nothing to gain from treating the universe as a collection of life-forms, building life-forms, building life-forms^building life forms, etc. unless we investigate?
Ignorance does not become us.
For all we know, the entire history of all life on earth could be etched into the face of all stone(s), and we are simply too ignorant (and negligent) to learn how to read it.
What i propose is to learn from our entirety. We act like we know all there is to know about life forms without consulting the other life forms that we may be quite ignorantly neglecting.
Nay, there mightn't even be any need TO communicate or learn from tremendously larger or smaller bodies/life forms, but the potential TO be able to does not strike you as worth investigation?
HOW will we know there is nothing to gain from treating the universe as a collection of life-forms, building life-forms, building life-forms^building life forms, etc. unless we investigate?
Ignorance does not become us.
For all we know, the entire history of all life on earth could be etched into the face of all stone(s), and we are simply too ignorant (and negligent) to learn how to read it.
SuicideDo, the Brewtal Drunken Immortal.
I think you are underthinking, Shortyish. They dont eat in terms of organic material, but in terms of mineral material. they dont drink in time-frames which can be observed over one human generation.
rocks contribute to the life within the earths body much like the bones in our bodies contribute to the life within us.
Our bones are a part of us but not alive. each mollecule is a part of us but not a life form, and yet we, somehow, through this combination of unliving material, qualify as alive?
Only by comparison of frequencies.
is it really that the material resources which a body consumes must be retained in circulation in order to qualify as a life form?
So, is that to include the physics of organic life, but deny the physics of inorganic life?
Something must be alive within matter, in order to keep it functioning in any manner to which creates our reality.
If the environment is autonomous, then so too are we. we cannot be more or less "alive" than the materials which we consume and construct.
rocks contribute to the life within the earths body much like the bones in our bodies contribute to the life within us.
Our bones are a part of us but not alive. each mollecule is a part of us but not a life form, and yet we, somehow, through this combination of unliving material, qualify as alive?
Only by comparison of frequencies.
is it really that the material resources which a body consumes must be retained in circulation in order to qualify as a life form?
So, is that to include the physics of organic life, but deny the physics of inorganic life?
Something must be alive within matter, in order to keep it functioning in any manner to which creates our reality.
If the environment is autonomous, then so too are we. we cannot be more or less "alive" than the materials which we consume and construct.
SuicideDo, the Brewtal Drunken Immortal.
Originally Posted by SuicideDo
Nay, there mightn't even be any need TO communicate or learn from tremendously larger or smaller bodies/life forms, but the potential TO be able to does not strike you as worth investigation?
HOW will we know there is nothing to gain from treating the universe as a collection of life-forms, building life-forms, building life-forms^building life forms, etc. unless we investigate?
For all we know, the entire history of all life on earth could be etched into the face of all stone(s), and we are simply too ignorant (and negligent) to learn how to read it.
If you want to follow your ideas, follow them, don't let us stop you. Don't expect any of us to turn away from what we've experienced just because of your ideas, though; you can't just tell people who thought the earth was flat that it's round without getting them wicked pissed.
Suppose though, you are overthinking it, and there is nothing to be gained from pursuing these ideas? You would have used many resources to ultimately defeat your own ideas. The benefits of them being correct put up against the evidence against them, and the resources it would take to even investigate them, makes this something that -- for convenience sake -- gets swept under the carpet. If it doesn't follow precedent or is very unlikely, then it probably isn't.
But, don't let me stop you -- who knows, you could prove me completely wrong, and I'd look the fool.
"Well, I don't want to leave you alone. I want you to get mad!"
Originally Posted by Elkrazar
If you want to follow your ideas, follow them, don't let us stop you. Don't expect any of us to turn away from what we've experienced just because of your ideas, though; you can't just tell people who thought the earth was flat that it's round without getting them wicked pissed.
Suppose though, you are overthinking it, and there is nothing to be gained from pursuing these ideas? You would have used many resources to ultimately defeat your own ideas. The benefits of them being correct put up against the evidence against them, and the resources it would take to even investigate them, makes this something that -- for convenience sake -- gets swept under the carpet. If it doesn't follow precedent or is very unlikely, then it probably isn't.
But, don't let me stop you -- who knows, you could prove me completely wrong, and I'd look the fool.
actually, that raises a point that would be rather off topic but i digress, how is it responsible to support the norm, in the face of being possibly, and foolishly, wrong?
DIDNT we learn from THAT mistake? the world's flat, after all.
We havent learned from that? that reality is always more than it appears to be?
We havent learned to keep an open mind to the possibility that the universe is training us to adapt to it, while we unceasingly seek to adapt it to us?
The world is flat, we cant fly, instant communications with distant lands is impossible. so too, to ad to the list, is that life, and life-forms, are limited to our verbal definitions of them.
Productivity of the machine to turn the universe into a resource to act to our will is always more important than learning to coexist with the will of the universe.
Always.
SuicideDo, the Brewtal Drunken Immortal.
