Anime & Manga The World God Only Knows Emotional Support Group

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaWe do not look to the mother of our creation in our desires but to the mother of life on the world we know. When we stare into the night sky we see the remnants of that event which started it all, but not of that which set us, the life we know and understand, into motion. We know that the first replicating proteins did so in the bosom the primordial sea. Therefore it is the sea which mothered life on this world. To look towards the beginning of the universe as the mother of life would be to look at the architect of your home as your mother rather than she who created you. You challenged the philosophy of my choice in Waifu and now you must argue that point to its conclusion.


@MrNekoGood Luck and Fair Seas Captain. *Muffled Shouts of "It's a Carnival!" in the distance*

 

[Idea]

@IdeaWe do not look to the mother of our creation in our desires but to the mother of life on the world we know. When we stare into the night sky we see the remnants of that event which started it all, but not of that which set us, the life we know and understand, into motion. We know that the first replicating proteins did so in the bosom the primordial sea. Therefore it is the sea which mothered life on this world. To look towards the beginning of the universe as the mother of life would be to look at the architect of your home as your mother rather than she who created you. You challenged the philosophy of my choice in Waifu and now you must argue that point to its conclusion.


@MrNekoGood Luck and Fair Seas Captain. *Muffled Shouts of "It's a Carnival!" in the distance*

What defines "life" then?

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaI am defining life as the living organisms we are familiar with as common inhabitants of this planet. As of this moment we have yet to establish any extraterrestrial life despite the statistical certainty that it exists. Terrestrial life originated from the seas.

 

[Idea]

@IdeaI am defining life as the living organisms we are familiar with as common inhabitants of this planet. As of this moment we have yet to establish any extraterrestrial life despite the statistical certainty that it exists. Terrestrial life originated from the seas.

And "living organism" is...

 

[MrNeko]

I am admiral as my fleet refers me. You fleet sure is an interesting one quite strong and loyal like mine though they have strengths and weakness. They all have their personalities and cooperate well.

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaIn biology, an organism is any contiguous living system, such as an animal, plant, fungus, archaeon, or bacterium. All known types of organisms are capable of some degree of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and homeostasis.


@MrNekoI agree. Your Fleet has an incredible diversity of personalities and skills. By sheer numbers of force your fleet is enviable.

 

[Idea]

@IdeaIn biology, an organism is any contiguous living system, such as an animal, plant, fungus, archaeon, or bacterium. All known types of organisms are capable of some degree of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and homeostasis.


@MrNekoI agree. Your Fleet has an incredible diversity of personalities and skills. By sheer numbers of force your fleet is enviable.

Hmmm I see. Admittedly by that definition life materially speaking, can be traced back to WATER. 


Wait...actually... the Sun fits into that defintion.

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaIt is not the sun itself but its energy which gives life reliant on photosynthesis the ability to live. But there are forms of life which persist without the sun, and surely you do not look to energy which fuels you as your mother? Do you look to your daily bread as the mother of your life?

 

[MrNeko]

Why thank you captain your fleet possess power by weaponry and strategy maybe our two fleet should cooperate sometime in combat. Your ships personalities can be from threatening to very kind like mine I like that from a fleet even though we fight on different oceans we may fight together against a common enemy or as allies.

 

[Jean Otus]

@MrNekoI'm sure that if my fleet and your's were both to encounter those alien foes of your's we would fight side by side as defenders of earth.

 

[Idea]

@IdeaIt is not the sun itself but its energy which gives life reliant on photosynthesis the ability to live. But there are forms of life which persist without the sun, and surely you do not look to energy which fuels you as your mother? Do you look to your daily bread as the mother of your life?

Don't dodge the question. The Sun fits into your defintion of "life".

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaNo the sun fits into my definition of energy. The sun did not give us life.

 

[Idea]

@IdeaNo the sun fits into my definition of energy. The sun did not give us life.

WHat part of the defintion does the sun not fit then?

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaI never said the sea was life, I said that the sea was the cradle of life, the mother, if you will.  Neither the sea nor the sun are living organisms.

 

[Idea]

@IdeaI never said the sea was life, I said that the sea was the cradle of life, the mother, if you will.  Neither the sea nor the sun are living organisms.

But your defintion of what life is still encompasses something that you yourself admit is not actually life

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaMy definition of life does no such thing. My definition of life is an organism, which neither the sea or the sun is, such as an animal, plant, fungus, archaean, or bacterium. The organism also has to be capable of stimulus response, reproduction, growth, development, and homeostasis. Tell me what about that encompasses the sun? 

 

[Idea]

@IdeaMy definition of life does no such thing. My definition of life is an organism, which neither the sea or the sun is, such as an animal, plant, fungus, archaean, or bacterium. The organism also has to be capable of stimulus response, reproduction, growth, development, and homeostasis. Tell me what about that encompasses the sun? 

"organism" is the only part of that that the Sun doesn´t encompass, and it´s a redundant thing, because you can´t define an organism without resorting to the concept of life, thus creating a circular argument.

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaThe sun is not an animal, plant, fungus, archaean, or bacterium. The sun is a large scale chemical reaction incapable of the functions of life. 

 

[Idea]

@IdeaThe sun is not an animal, plant, fungus, archaean, or bacterium. The sun is a large scale chemical reaction incapable of the functions of life. 

Functions such as the ones you named all of which I already told you the Sun does?


Stimulus Response: contact with other solar objects and with the forces of physics causes reactions


Reproduction: all stars can split into new ones at the end of their lives


growth: In the alternation of phases and during certain phases, stars grow


development: just as before, the change in phase is a form of development for stars


homeostasis: a star has a natural state to be in, which can be perturbed by interaction with other objects, but once that interaction is over either results in the end of the star or in it returning to the previous state


your "just chemical reactions" argument could easily be refuted with a basic chemistry knowledge that WE are made of atoms. We are made from the stuff made in the stars and you cannot make any concrete statements over what degree of complexity separates a star from life. From there, just read the above descriptions and the feeble nature of your and perhaps by extention the "biological" definition for life falls short as a definition.

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaThe sun does not fulfill the seven characteristics of life. One, the sun is made up of hydrogen and helium atoms, a living thing must be made up of cells, an atom is not recognized as a cell. Two, living things must have multiple levels of of organization, only in the loosest sense could the sun be made up multiple levels of organization, only having hydrogen and helium atoms. Three, living things must use energy, the sun is a fusion reaction, it produces more energy than it takes in to maintain itself. Four, living creatures must react to their environment in a complex behavior. Any inanimate object can exert interact with the environment, but the sun cannot act or react in a complex fashion. Five, living things grow through the replication or growth of cells, of which the sun has none. Six, living organisms must reproduce either sexually or asexually, that is by the joining of sex cells or without the use of gametes. Seven, organisms adapt to their environment, the sun cannot adapt as it cannot act in a complex manner. These are basic tenets of biology which debunk your claims that the sun is a living being.

 

[Idea]

@IdeaThe sun does not fulfill the seven characteristics of life. One, the sun is made up of hydrogen and helium atoms, a living thing must be made up of cells, an atom is not recognized as a cell. Two, living things must have multiple levels of of organization, only in the loosest sense could the sun be made up multiple levels of organization, only having hydrogen and helium atoms. Three, living things must use energy, the sun is a fusion reaction, it produces more energy than it takes in to maintain itself. Four, living creatures must react to their environment in a complex behavior. Any inanimate object can exert interact with the environment, but the sun cannot act or react in a complex fashion. Five, living things grow through the replication or growth of cells, of which the sun has none. Six, living organisms must reproduce either sexually or asexually, that is by the joining of sex cells or without the use of gametes. Seven, organisms adapt to their environment, the sun cannot adapt as it cannot act in a complex manner. These are basic tenets of biology which debunk your claims that the sun is a living being.

1. Not one of those was expressed in your definition of life, as prior given


2. Cells are made up of atoms. The same claim that life of a multicelular organism can be characterized by the presence of cells, would likewise imply that whatever are made of has an equal importance.


3.The sun doesn´t generate energy and does use energy. EXACTLY like every other thing in the universe.


4."complex" is being used in a circular subjective fashion and is therefore invalid


5. Human beings rebutte the last point

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaI'm defining life by the science of biology, it is not my definition but the established and accepted definition of the scientific community. All things are made of atoms, atoms are not cells, the structure of a cell must exist to be considered an living creature, the atoms of the sun do not form cells, the presence of atoms does not denote anything more than material existence. The sun does generate energy, the energy is produced from the fusing of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, the energy produced by this reaction then triggers more reactions, exponentially increasing the energy produced compared to the energy which caused the reaction. Complex behaviors suggest that the organism respond to the stimulus, not simply be moved by it. If a stone is moved by striking another stone that is not complex. If a dog is hit by a stone it will move of its own musculature, it will also most likely bark and associate the harm with the rock, several systems happening at once. The sun does nothing more than react to the forces around it, such as gravity, magnetism, and so on. Human beings adapt to their environment constantly. If you are cold you put on a jacket or move to where it is warm, over long periods of time humans also develop differently depending on their location, those living at greater altitudes often have a greater lung capacity to be better suited to living with less oxygen rich air.

 

[Idea]

@IdeaI'm defining life by the science of biology, it is not my definition but the established and accepted definition of the scientific community. All things are made of atoms, atoms are not cells, the structure of a cell must exist to be considered an living creature, the atoms of the sun do not form cells, the presence of atoms does not denote anything more than material existence. The sun does generate energy, the energy is produced from the fusing of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms, the energy produced by this reaction then triggers more reactions, exponentially increasing the energy produced compared to the energy which caused the reaction. Complex behaviors suggest that the organism respond to the stimulus, not simply be moved by it. If a stone is moved by striking another stone that is not complex. If a dog is hit by a stone it will move of its own musculature, it will also most likely bark and associate the harm with the rock, several systems happening at once. The sun does nothing more than react to the forces around it, such as gravity, magnetism, and so on. Human beings adapt to their environment constantly. If you are cold you put on a jacket or move to where it is warm, over long periods of time humans also develop differently depending on their location, those living at greater altitudes often have a greater lung capacity to be better suited to living with less oxygen rich air.

your arguments are contradictory as they are calling for paradoxically associated parameters, an entirely subjective separation on the boundary between watch should be interpreted through a scientific basis and what shouldn´t, whose only criteria is the convenience for your argument. That alone can make this entire thing pointless.


The second thing is, arguments by authority (yours or the scientific community´s alike) only apply AFTER the point could be considered plausible. Nomatter who says it though, the way in which the definition of life was presented and defended by you suggests none other than that it is a deeply incorrect definition.

 

[Jean Otus]

@IdeaLook, you can try as much as you like to declare my argument logically invalid but that doesn't change the fact that my argument is factually correct. A simple search of the basics of biology will provide you with the requisites for an object to be considered living, and applying those requirements to the sun will lead to the conclusion that the sun is an inanimate object. This is the factual truth regardless of whether or not I phrased it in the form of a syllogism.

 

[Idea]

@IdeaLook, you can try as much as you like to declare my argument logically invalid but that doesn't change the fact that my argument is factually correct. A simple search of the basics of biology will provide you with the requisites for an object to be considered living, and applying those requirements to the sun will lead to the conclusion that the sun is an inanimate object. This is the factual truth regardless of whether or not I phrased it in the form of a syllogism.

no, you are making a sh*t ton of assumptions everywhere, half of which are phallacies, plus disregarding actual facts in favor of subjective conceptions which only pile to the assumptions and to the fallacies.