Is the universe alive?

[rrr6]

Virus'es are the twilight organism between existence as a mineral, or as a biological life. Thank you Bucky Fuller.

Virus has either RNA or DNA never both.

Bacteria may be the simplist biological life. Human female{ Xx } being the most complex biological life.

Fred Hoyle states, that, if bacteria left unchecked would reproduce to match the mass of known Universe{ 1990's ).

B. Fuller states, that, the less complex a design, the more easily it is to mass-reproduce that design adn gives the example of element of hydrogen being most abundant element of Universe.

Earth provides conditions for most simple and most complex biological existence.

Universe provides environment for most simple and most complex conditions, that, encourage biological existence, and not.

I'm not aware of animate Universe having a cosmic RNA or DNA set. I do have ideas of some very abstract concepts of mind/intellect mathematics that may imply of infer a cosmic design that is aligned with basic design of of more complex animals.

I presume, that, the most complex biological designs embrace most simple biological designs..

This latter is has better chance of being understood more so, if not comprehended, once my cosmic heirarchy has been posted with relevant mathematics if not most specifically geometry ergo shapes of primary static space and observed inferred/implied dynamic/animate space.

r6

 

[fast]

It's not alive, but as similarities are noticed, people will talk as though it is, and that's okay, but if we forget to inform others of our pretend-speak and others start talking as if it's correct, eventually, a whole usage could make it into our lexicon. Then, the extremists that like to pull and stretch definitions to include or exclude the scope of the words make it difficult not to slap them.

 

[skepticalbip]

It's not alive, but as similarities are noticed, people will talk as though it is, and that's okay, but if we forget to inform others of our pretend-speak and others start talking as if it's correct, eventually, a whole usage could make it into our lexicon. Then, the extremists that like to pull and stretch definitions to include or exclude the scope of the words make it difficult not to slap them.

I have been advocating making it legal as in a "justified slapping the shit out of anyone using sophistry" - sophistry, IMHO, being much more grievous than outright lies.

 

[bilby]

Virus'es are the twilight organism between existence as a mineral, or as a biological life. Thank you Bucky Fuller.

Virus has either RNA or DNA never both.

Bacteria may be the simplist biological life. Human female{ Xx } being the most complex biological life.

OK, I am going to have to stop you there, because this is completely wrong, and any conclusions or arguments you develop from this premise are therefore going to be totally worthless bullshit.

The most complex biological life, measured by genome size (which is the only thing that renders human females more complex than human males), is the Japanese Canopy Plant, Paris Japonica, which has fifty times the number of base pairs found in humans.

The amoeba Polychaos Dubium may be even more 'complex' by this measure, with a genome 200 times the size of a human's; but as the genome size of this protist was estimated using methods that are now somewhat dated, this claim should be treated with caution.

One thing that even a casual study of biology can tell us for certain, is that humans are nothing special. We are not at the top of any list other than 'intelligence' - a characteristic we had to invent for ourselves - and even that spot is contested by certain cetaceans.

All extant life forms could claim to be the pinnacle of all life. Humans have a worse claim than most, insofar as such a claim is even vaguely sensible.

 

[Kharakov]

It's not alive, but as similarities are noticed, people will talk as though it is, and that's okay, but if we forget to inform others of our pretend-speak and others start talking as if it's correct, eventually, a whole usage could make it into our lexicon. Then, the extremists that like to pull and stretch definitions to include or exclude the scope of the words make it difficult not to slap them.

I have been advocating making it legal as in a "justified slapping the shit out of anyone using sophistry" - sophistry, IMHO, being much more grievous than outright lies.

Sophistry works against Sapphire in Neuromancer. Just sayin'.

 

[rrr6]

Humasn Woman Most Complex imho

OK, I am going to have to stop you there, because this is completely wrong, and any conclusions or arguments you develop from this premise are therefore going to be totally worthless bullshit.

You reposted several of my sentences, however, your comments above is only addressing a few of them, not all. This makes your claims partly off target for starters, as you include more of my concepts into the mix, than your comments actually address. To be clear.

The most complex biological life, measured by genome size (which is the only thing that renders human females more complex than human males), is the Japanese Canopy Plant, Paris Japonica, which has fifty times the number of base pairs found in humans.

Size translates as the number/numerical of atoms, or molecules, or genome or mass, or number/numerical of relationships between any of those biolgical parts. So size, as related to those givens--- if not also others ---is just a higher or lower numermical count and that is just one kind of complexity or defifnition of complexity. imho.

The amoeba Polychaos Dubium may be even more 'complex' by this measure, with a genome 200 times the size of a human's; but as the genome size of this protist was estimated using methods that are now somewhat dated, this claim should be treated with caution.

I believe salmanders also have a high number of chromosomes. Salmanders or your given above are purely a numerical only consideration of specific aspect of a biologicals.

A whale, elephant, fungus-- no brain there ---has many times higher number of atoms if not also molecules if not also brain{ not fungus } aspects etc......

Until you can get beyond a purely higher or lower count of some biological aspect, then your limiting yourself to the kinds, or definitions of the word complex/complexity. imho

Ive been very clear as to woman{ Xx } being most complex. There are many rationally logical zmc common sense ideas that attest to this truth, beyond being more complex than a man, however, I will start with one, or more ideas that both woman and man share.

Woman or man can create many technologically complex marvels, or parts thereof, that allow humans to see macro outward and micro inward and then humans can drive those technological marvels to the market, to the moon too beyond our solar system etc.....

A protist--- whatever that is ---in no way comes close to the complexity of man much less a woman.

One thing that even a casual study of biology can tell us for certain, is that humans are nothing special.

Protists have special abilities and humans have special abilities. All biologicals have evolved special abilities. It appears to me, that you want exclude any aspect of human special abilities the greater whole list of specialities that, in combination represent all biolgoicals.

Why you want to exclude humans special abilities appears irrational at best, to me i.e. you appear to want to place many if not all other biologicals above humans.

We are not at the top of any list other than 'intelligence' - a characteristic we had to invent for ourselves - and even that spot is contested by certain cetaceans.

I did not say "at top" I said most complex, and I dont mean a higher or lower numerical count of some specific biological parts of a body. I can post link to exponentially increasing numerical complexity, if you want, however, that excludes other kinds/definitions of complexity. imho

All extant life forms could claim to be the pinnacle of all life. Humans have a worse claim than most, insofar as such a claim is even vaguely sensible.

I have no idea what "extant life form" is so cant say if your statement is even relevant. Also pinnacle sounds like your previous at the top and what Ive stated is woman is most complex biological, not at top or pinnacle.

If you associate "at the top" and "pinnacle" with most complex and most complex is your given "protist", then please clarify exactly which set of biologicals are most complex, and whether you associating "pinnacle" and "at the top" with most complex. Thx.

r6

 

[bilby]

You reposted several of my sentences, however, your comments above is only addressing a few of them, not all. This makes your claims partly off target for starters, as you include more of my concepts into the mix, than your comments actually address. To be clear.

The most complex biological life, measured by genome size (which is the only thing that renders human females more complex than human males), is the Japanese Canopy Plant, Paris Japonica, which has fifty times the number of base pairs found in humans.

Size translates as the number/numerical of atoms, or molecules, or genome or mass, or number/numerical of relationships between any of those biolgical parts. So size, as related to those givens--- if not also others ---is just a higher or lower numermical count and that is just one kind of complexity or defifnition of complexity. imho.

The amoeba Polychaos Dubium may be even more 'complex' by this measure, with a genome 200 times the size of a human's; but as the genome size of this protist was estimated using methods that are now somewhat dated, this claim should be treated with caution.

I believe salmanders also have a high number of chromosomes. Salmanders or your given above are purely a numerical only consideration of specific aspect of a biologicals.

A whale, elephant, fungus-- no brain there ---has many times higher number of atoms if not also molecules if not also brain{ not fungus } aspects etc......

Until you can get beyond a purely higher or lower count of some biological aspect, then your limiting yourself to the kinds, or definitions of the word complex/complexity. imho

Ive been very clear as to woman{ Xx } being most complex. There are many rationally logical zmc common sense ideas that attest to this truth, beyond being more complex than a man, however, I will start with one, or more ideas that both woman and man share.

Woman or man can create many technologically complex marvels, or parts thereof, that allow humans to see macro outward and micro inward and then humans can drive those technological marvels to the market, to the moon too beyond our solar system etc.....

A protist--- whatever that is ---in no way comes close to the complexity of man much less a woman.

One thing that even a casual study of biology can tell us for certain, is that humans are nothing special.

Protists have special abilities and humans have special abilities. All biologicals have evolved special abilities. It appears to me, that you want exclude any aspect of human special abilities the greater whole list of specialities that, in combination represent all biolgoicals.

Why you want to exclude humans special abilities appears irrational at best, to me i.e. you appear to want to place many if not all other biologicals above humans.

We are not at the top of any list other than 'intelligence' - a characteristic we had to invent for ourselves - and even that spot is contested by certain cetaceans.

I did not say "at top" I said most complex, and I dont mean a higher or lower numerical count of some specific biological parts of a body. I can post link to exponentially increasing numerical complexity, if you want, however, that excludes other kinds/definitions of complexity. imho

All extant life forms could claim to be the pinnacle of all life. Humans have a worse claim than most, insofar as such a claim is even vaguely sensible.

I have no idea what "extant life form" is so cant say if your statement is even relevant. Also pinnacle sounds like your previous at the top and what Ive stated is woman is most complex biological, not at top or pinnacle.

If you associate "at the top" and "pinnacle" with most complex and most complex is your given "protist", then please clarify exactly which set of biologicals are most complex, and whether you associating "pinnacle" and "at the top" with most complex. Thx.

r6

This is rambling nonsense.

If you don't even know what a protist is, or what the word 'extant' means, then it is unlikely that you have much to contribute to any discussion about biology, or indeed about reality.

You make assertions that are nonsense; and you cannot even coherently address my post showing how your assertion is nonsensical.

I would like to have a rational and reasoned discussion with you; but it is evident that that is not possible, so let's not waste any more time on this.

 

[rrr6]

Lack of Moral Integrity, Respect, Sincerity of Heart etc......

This is rambling nonsense.

Invalid statement with no evidence of such claims again ergo off-target for 2nd time.

If you don't even know what a protist is, or what the word 'extant' means, then it is unlikely that you have much to contribute to any discussion about biology, or indeed about reality.

This above yours reminds me of those who would take an error of someones else statements, and from an insignficant error generalized that everything that they say is not worthy of being stated.

However, your actions are worse than that i.e. you take and insignificant piece of knowledge--- so no even an error in my statements ---and then generalize that none of my comments are worthy of consideration. Now that is sad :--( lack of morals, respect and sincere heart.


You are the one who denies rational, logical and common sense disscussion, not I.

You make assertions that are nonsense; and you cannot even coherently address my post showing how your assertion is nonsensical.

When you actually some evidence to back your claims, please share, i,e. when you can address my comments specifically as stated, with some rational, logical and common sense comments, that invalidate my comments as stated, then please do so.

You have not because you have not. :--(

Here again, you claims of wanting to have rational and reaoned dissscussion is bogus, insincere, lacking integrity, lacking sincerity of heart and respect.

I would like to have a rational and reasoned discussion with you; but it is evident that that is not possible, so let's not waste any more time on this.

No you would not because you do not. I believe your lack any valid statements that invalidate anything Ive stated, so your defensive posture is to make false claims in my direction, so you can evade having a rational, logical and common sense disscussaion ergo the exact opposite of what you claim to desire.

Please share, when you can address my comments as stated, with any rational, logical and common sense statements, that, invalidated my comments as stated. Thx

r6

 

[none]

you can try and pick a fight like you just did or rrr6 you could admit you don't know what extant or protist is.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ive been very clear as to woman being most complex.

Yes.
But you never actually defined the word 'complex.' Or complexity. Or given the means by which one might objectively compare complexity of two different beings and possibly validate your claim.

 

[Keith&Co.]

you can try and pick a fight like you just did or rrr6 you could admit you don't know what extant or protist is.

Which would be fine, especially if English isn't your first language.

Which would be more along the lines of what bilby is saying...
If you cannot discuss the basics, you're in no position to claim superiority.

If you do not speak Klingon at all, you're in no position to correct the grammar of my Klingon death poetry.

 

[rrr6]

More Lame Asserations Not Content/Beef To Sink Our Metpahysical Teeth Into Sad :--(

you can try and pick a fight like you just did or rrr6 you could admit you don't know what extant or protist is.

Huh? Dude, you need to go reread my post where acknowledge from get go that I didn't know what a protist is. I have vague idea but it would be recalling old memories.

So just like the other off-target dude, you also are off-target. LAme at best.

Please share when you actually want to offer us some beef{ content } that addresses my comments as stated, with some rational, logical, and common sense statements, that, invalidate any of my comments as stated, or adds some substantially relevant beef to them.

You do not because you have not. Sad :--(

r6

 

[none]

you can try and pick a fight like you just did or rrr6 you could admit you don't know what extant or protist is.

Huh? Dude, you need to go reread my post where acknnowledge from get go that I didn't know what a protist is. I have vague idea but it would be recalling old memories.

So just like the other off-target dude, you also are off-target.

Please share when you actually want to off beef{ content } that addresses my comments as stated, with some rational, logical, and common sense statements, that, invalidate any of my comments as stated.

You do not because you have not.

r6

I just noticed you were more collected when you were picking a fight and not color formatting words in some salad about virus and and universe then dribbling off to complexity in your posts.
I might have a read again but your ideas don't appear to be revolutionary rather they appear to be insane.

 

[rrr6]

More Lame Response i.e No Content/Beef

you can try and pick a fight like you just did or rrr6 you could admit you don't know what extant or protist is.

Which would be fine, especially if English isn't your first language.
Which would be more along the lines of what bilby is saying...
If you cannot discuss the basics, you're in no position to claim superiority.
.

More lame response i.e. lacking content{ beef }. Please share when you can actually address my comments as stated, with rational, logical and common sense statsments, that invalidate my comments as stated.

You do not because you have not. Sad :--(

r6

 

[rrr6]

Huh? Dude, you need to go reread my post where I acknowledge from get go that I didn't know what a protist is. I have vague idea but it would be recalling old memories. So just like the other off-target dude, you also are off-target.
Please share when you actually want to off beef{ content } that addresses my comments as stated, with some rational, logical, and common sense statements, that, invalidate any of my comments as stated.
You do not because you have not. r6

I just noticed you were more collected when you were picking a fight and not color formatting words in some salad about virus and and universe then dribbling off to complexity in your posts.
I might have a read again but your ideas don't appear to be revolutionary rather they appear to be insane.

Ditto my above as your repeated lack of comprehensive reading skills of a simple paragraph is sad. :--( not to mention no content/beef of any relevant signicance is such a waste of human mind potential.

You have nothing valid to say in my regards ergo you offer nothing valid. Sad :--(


r6

 

[none]

empty promise:

once my cosmic heirarchy has been posted

 

[Keith&Co.]

More lame response i.e. lacking content{ beef }.

And you skipped over my beef with your missing content (deep sigh at the sadness of it all).

You do not because you have not.

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle gay?
You bitched that bilby apparently found one mistake and decided you had nothing to contribute, now you state that because I have not done something, i'm not capable of doing that.
Two-faced, much?

 

[rrr6]

Same-ole-same-ole

empty promise:

once my cosmic heirarchy has been posted

More evidence of lack of reading comprehension skills ergo more lame same-ole-same-ole.

Ive made no promises. Please share when you-- or others --- can actually address my comments, as stated, with rational, logical and common sense statements, that, invalidate my comments as stated.

You, nor others, do so, becausse you, nor others, have not such statements to offer.

No, our finite, occupied space Universe, is not alive, however, it dynamic/animated/spirited etc.......

r6

 

[rrr6]

And you skipped over my beef with your missing content (deep sigh at the sadness of it all).

You do not because you have not.

Well, isn't that the pot calling the kettle gay?
You bitched that bilby apparently found one mistake and decided you had nothing to contribute, now you state that because I have not done something, i'm not capable of doing that.
Two-faced, much?

Huh? Please share when you can address my comments, as stated, with some rational, logical and common sense statements, that, invalidate my comments, as stated.

You do not because you have not. Same-ole-same-ole evasion of truth, as stated, not as falsely projected by the lame gang. Sad lack of moral integrity. imho

If not also sad lack of intellectual integrity. :--(

r6

 

[none]

empty promise:

More evidence of lack of reading comprehension skills ergo more lame same-ole-same-ole.

Ive made no promises. Please share when you-- or others --- can actually address my comments, as stated, with rational, logical and common sense statements, that, invalidate my comments as stated.

You, nor others, do so, becausse you, nor others, have not such statements to offer.

No, our finite, occupied space Universe, is not alive, however, it dynamic/animated/spirited etc.......

r6

oh for fucks sake
you start strong but don't finish
"however, it dynamic/animated/spirited..."???
what, what is your coherent thought that you have that you didn't express?
it looks like you can't even finish your own sentences.
I said your post looked insane, the verdict is out but you are not making any progress to convince me your posts are anything but insane ramblings.

- - - Updated - - -

and this batshit crazy disclaimer is yours.

This latter is has better chance of being understood more so, if not comprehended, once my cosmic heirarchy has been posted