huttnedu

This boils down to exist = matter/energy. What have we learned? This does not resolve the meaning of exist but rather appears to provide two synonyms. What is matter? What is energy? These are not basic concepts but crucial terms that make or break your definition. If something needs to interact with other existent entities in order to exist, then you are using the word exist to define the word exist, a circular definition. "Something exists if it interacts with things that exist." I mean, how much more circular can you get?

" if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists." " It just requires that if an observer is there, then the observer has to be able to detect it [in order for the thing to exist] " Be detected by WHOM? See, you are attempting to idealize the notion of "detectability" into an objective standard. However, detection is necessarily by definition an observer-dependent concept. There is NO objective standard for detectability. Detectable is always relative to an observer. Objectively detectable is a contradiction. " if the thing can possibly be detected then it exists. " Before the telescope it was IMPOSSIBLE for anybody to see extremely distant stars, and even with our very best means of detection, there are still objects in the universe that can never possibly be detected by us either because they are too small or too far away or whatever. Do those objects not exist?

KyleG, I think you've got it for the most part. Thank you so much. You are a voice of reason in this thread and I cannot thank you enough. Seriously, it's nice to see that people understand what I'm talking about. "The heat energy has the location and shape of the matter which is accellerated and producing thermal energy. It can be located and measured precisely. " I think you think energy has "location" because you haven't defined the term location. Location refers to "the static set of distances from an object to all other objects". If energy is an object then it has a shape of it's own. So what does energy look like in the absence of matter? What does "a" SINGLE energy look like with nothing around it? "The force that affects your skin is, after all, just a conceptualization, and lacks distinct boundaries." This is exactly why you're confused. The skin is not being contacted BY "a force". The skin is being contacted, surface to surface, by the vibrating atoms of the stove or the air. That contact is what we call "a force". It is a verb... what an object is DOING. The action of the object, not the object itself. "KyleG, let's make this easier. Can you read this question? Can you see me asking you a question in front of you at this very moment?" Nathan, for common speech, we all understand what people mean when they say "questions exist". However, what really exists in the screen and my eyes and the mediator of light between them and all of those are physical objects, interacting. However, in reality, questions do not exist as chairs or apples or humans do. They have no shape or location. In reality, you interact with the screen and your brain understands that a question is being asked. See: Your brain performs a specific action (wonders about something) which activates your nerves which activate your fingers to type which activates your computer which activates the mediator of electromagnetic waves which then activates my computer which activates my screen which activates the atoms of my eyes which activate the atoms of my brain in such a way that we could understand it as "reading the question". In normal speech we can turn actions into nouns (such as with "a" question rather than "activity of your brain") but if you really want to know how the universe really works and how to understand phenomena rationally (i.e. science) then you have to understand the difference between concepts and objects. All words refer to either concepts or objects... that which has shape and that which is a relation between two or more objects. Objects may exist, concepts may not. Like KyleG said, we need to actually define the terms we use unambiguously and consistently in order to actually understand them or apply them rationally within their proper context. However, it's tough to get people to define basic words because they have even tricked themselves into thinking they understand it, even though they inconsistently on a regular basis. But I do completely understand because I used to apply exist to energy the way Stefan does and had no idea how I was being inconsisent. That's because I had never actually defined, in an unambiguous manner, the term exist. It is crucial for any scientific explanation.

Hey Victor, thanks for the response. "the universe is all that exists" That's fine, but that still makes the universe a concept, since it relates two or more objects. "What exists is matter and energy" Exist = matter Exist = energy This is synonymous and therefore ambiguous. Energy is activity of atoms. The atoms exist, the energy does not. This is exactly what I mean when I say you equivocate on the usage of this term. Exist refers to something physically present, and also not physically present. Here's a perfect example: " A concept can be described as a particular arrangement in our neurons and the electrical processes in our brain" The Cerebral Cortex could be described as a "particular arrangement" or "physical configuration" of neurons. The cerebral cortex is NOT a concept. It has a shape and location inside of my head. On the other hand, an electrical process is the activity or interaction of those existent neurons. The process is not physically present, the process occurs and is understood, but physically present (i.e. existence) only rationally refers to the objects themselves. "But we know of things that exist and yet have no shape. A good example is an electron." An electron is not "known", but ASSUMED to exist by mathematicians and the shapeless model cannot possibly explain the phenomena. How is an entity with shape formed with shapeless components? The mathematicians may have found ways to make accurate measurements & predictions about the behavior of whatever is down there, but they don't have a clue what it really looks like. They use multiple, incongruent models of the electron to explain their behavior, which I explain further below. Much like ancient humans with the sun, moon, and stars. They could predict their motion, but they had no idea what they really were. They thought they were gods! Now, we just think they are concepts. "you don't recognize the existence of energy and processes." It's not about my recognition! Energy and processes are concepts or relations between objects. They are not physical (i.e. objects). They do not exist pursuant to a consistent definition of exist. We all use the term exist to refer to objects with location, now lets be consistent about it. Concepts do not exist, not even "in the brain". Neurons exist in the brain, concepts do not. I am not saying that concepts cannot be understood. We all understand and think conceptually on a daily basis, but that is an ACTIVITY being performed within the brain. It does not exist. Your ideas do not exist, they are simply processes occuring between objects. "These two quotes reveal the contradictory nature of your thinking. You state that detection involves surface to surface contact, yet mention the example of telescopes to detect distant stars. Are we in contact with the surface of a distant star in order to detect it? The contradiction springs out of the fact that light is not an object, and then would not exist per your definition." I knew I should have put in an explanation with that one... I understand you are not in direct surface to surface contact with the object you see, but you are directly connected via the EM ropes which comprise and connect every object in the universe. The torsion of the ropes is what we call light and when the ropes torque, atoms expand and contract, reeling and releasing rope. This involves direct contact. Even under the photon model, the light particle allegedly comes in direct contact with your eye. "So you quietly ignore it in order to hold on to your believes." Dude, what?! Why the stab? I am trying to address the key points of all your arguments and you tell me I'm ignoring? I don't get it. "we cannot arrive at a true or accepted model describing anything independently from observation or detection." True or accepted can be used interchangably? I agree. Science is not about coming to "accepted" conclusions, but rather, objective ones. Objectivity is that which relates objects only, thus objectivitiy is observer independent. Apart from exist, motion is another example of an objective concept. Motion is two or more locations of an object. The moon does not require an observer to change location. "by definition what exists is that which interacts" Harry Potter interacts with Severus Snape in the Harry Potter books. Interaction does not mean exist. And even if you say, "that which interacts in reality" you are still using a synonym for the term, reality, within the definition. That is circular and ambiguous. "your conclusions are bizarre." I know, I already said that. But bizarre does not mean irrational. Bizarre is only relative to the norm, and the norm has been irrational for thousands of years. "I have contradicted them in the past, but you seem impervious to that." I have thoroughly rebuked each of your attempts to contradict my arguments. I have also contradicted each of your arguments and definitions thoroughly in this post. "I've proposed a definition which is both unambiguous and consistent and I'm willing and able to defend it at your leisure." "by definition what exists is that which interacts" Is that your definition? I contradicted it above with the Harry Potter example. "Because your definitions require we dump most of our physics and re-work most of our science, it does seem like an attempt at stalling progress or holding people down, specially because it has no predictive power and does not help us to model reality in better (truer, more accurate) ways." The theoretical understanding of phenomena does not have anything to do with the furtherance of technology or the mathematical modeling and prediction of future events. Technology is developed via trial and error. It's all tinkering and building upon and modifying old inventions. Scientific theory is meant to explain events that, hypothetically, have already occurred. This is done only for the purpose of understanding rationally. Theoretical science is done analytically in the brain, not in the lab or workshop. When we analyze hypothetical models and phenomena and their theoretical explanations, we do so within our minds to understand. Scientific theories are based on assumptions that stand or fall by critical analysis only. The only objective, scientific conclusions we can reach about events and objects of reality are "possible" and "not possible." "It would in fact make us abandon most of modern electronics" I don't think so. They are not really understood today! Even Richard Feynman admits that mathematicians have no idea what energy is or how the objects actually interact at that small of a scale. You mentioned the electron. Even that object is not consistently represented by the establishment. On one hand they require a particle model to explain phenomena such as the photoelectric effect, but on the other hand they need it to be a conceptual probability cloud to explain bonding and ionization. Electricity uses the particle model too, alleging that the electron particles zoom up and down the wire as a "current". Totally contradictory. "It looks very much trolly to me; given my definition of a troll as someone who goes out to the world to re-create the bad experiences he's had unto others... someone who works to make the world ugly and the people in it unhappy." Damn dude! What about me? You're giving me a pretty bad experience by accusing me of such dark aspirations. How the hell are you coming to such a conclusion? I know I may have acted pretty emotionally in some past conversations but I really want to continue presenting myself with an analytic, emotion-free attitude in these discussions of science. "I ask you to prove to me you're not a troll. Demonstrate my definition of reality is inconsistent or irrational, as I've done with yours." I hope I have done just that! Thanks for a serious response.

Hello, I am the person who Stefan was speaking with during the video reference in the title and I want to start this response by promising you that I am not a troll. I really do enjoy a lot of Stefan's work. This has just been one sticking point for me and I wish he would've given me more time on the call. In this response I will be addressing your definition of exist and the multiple ways you have applied it inconsistently. Please read the whole way through, I took a couple of hours to write this, though I've decided to just post it before I start proofing it which will probably end up in me not posting it at all. and hey Stefan, I really hope you have the time to respond. I'd like to conduct myself with a professional attitude, and I will attempt to justify, in my own words, every statement that I make. I have a feeling you'll do the same! Video description: "Stefan Molyneux is asked about the difference between concepts and reality." Even this title is misleading, since reality is, in fact, a concept. Reality is a synonym for the universe which is rationally defined as matter and space. Reality is a relationship that we UNDERSTAND only. It does not exist. Why? Because, objects and concepts are in totally separate and distinct categories. Objects are "defined" (and I put that in quotes because object really are not defined, they are visualized. All objects are amenable to visualization by definition because an object is that which has shape) And concepts are relationships between those objects. Concepts are defined by their referent objects and how they relate. So you see, there is a big difference. Stefan Molyneux doesn't seem to understand this difference because he stated within the video I am responding to that "concepts exist within the brain." Now, I'd like to take an in depth look at both that assumption and juxtapose it with some of Stefan's other statements. Stefan also states as his definition of exist: "Objectively detectable as matter, energy, and the effects thereof." However, detectability is never objective. It is always RELATIVE to a subjective observer, by definition. Detection involves surface to surface contact between objects. You detect a smell when the molecule reaches your nose, you detect a sound when your eardrums are pushed by the air, ect. Before the telescope was invented, nobody in the entire world could possibly detect distant stars. Did they not exist? Even now there are objects out there that we cannot possibly, even with the best technology, detect. Every new telescope reveals farther and farther objects in the immeasurable distance of the universe. Do they not exist? Clearly this is not an objective criterion. Since Stefan is working with a definition of exist which is limited to detection, it's impossible for him to come to objective, or observer-independent conclusions about it. But regardless of Stefan's definition of exist, he contradicts himself by stating that relationships between neurons in the brain exist, but also that the neurons themselves exist. Why is that a contradiction? Because a neuron is an object, has shape, and the activity it performs, such as the concepts of consciousness and beliefs do not. A shape relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding. (syn: form). Relationships do NOT have form. But simply having form is not enough, a neuron exists because it has shape AND location, or a distance between it and all other objects in the universe. Concepts such as beliefs have no shape and therefore no possible location. So, Stefan is effectively saying exist is that which has shape and location, and also that exist is that which has no shape and location. A clear contraction. So once again, I hope you realize I am no troll, but a mere independent researcher who has some weird definitions for words. But I think they are consistent definitions, and cannot be contradicted. So I will reiterate them here for clarity. Object: That which has shape. Concept: Relation between two or more objects Shape: a term that relates what is bounded from the immediate surrounding. Exist: Physical presence. (Physical refers to the object and presence to location.) I am very concerned about this distinction because, even as Stefan said, most people would assert that gravity exists, and by using this dual meaning they think they've understood how nature works. This is when Stefan exits philosophy and enters the realm of science. In science, his definitions need to be unambiguous and noncontradictory. Pursuant to a rational definition of exist, gravity does not exist, it is a description of a relationship between objects in reality. It does not explain, or visualize the mechanism (mechanism refers to an object) that actually performs the actions. When we say, "gravity pulls" what do we mean? Gravity is not a mechanism, but a description. I understand that they are not arms but there has to be SOMETHING out there extending from the Earth to you, pulling you, right? I mean, if concepts are relationships between objects, and gravity is a concept, then what objects does it relate? How do you physically relate to the earth in such a way that it actually pulls you back down to it? I understand that there are no arms, but there must be some *thing* some object that does the pulling. What is it? I would assume it is , since that would also explain light, the configuration of , , all using different configurations of the same fundamental object. You'll run into a lot of weird conclusions based upon this understanding. Such as experience and perception does not "exist". Gasp! Shocking! I should just jump out of the window then, right? Not really. The fact that perception or consciousness or the mind or whatever other concept you want to reify (reification) does not exist does not mean that it's not actually some activity performed by objects in reality. Even big momma nature and big daddy universe don't "exist" if you define the term and apply it consistently. ONLY objects with location can exist if you want to use the term rationally (i.e. unambiguously and consistently). But that's not really the topic of the thread. The topic is the term exist. By now, I hope that you can understand why I conclude: 1. Stefan is using a definition of exist which depends on detection, making it subjective. 2. Stefan's usage of exist is contradictory. To him exist means that it has shape & location and no shape & location. Thanks for reading.

"Whatever upward momentum the balloon gains is applied as downward momentum to the atmosphere. It is tiny amount, but it is equal by basic physics. A bird is the same way, the forces are equal." -RestoringGuy This is pseudo-scientific math garble. "Momentum" and "energy" are just variables in your equation, NOT things in reality! A balloon does not GAIN ANYTHING called momentum in physical reality. In REALITY, the balloon is PUSHED UPWARDS away from earth by the AIR which surrounds it. Period! Whereas, a BIRD in reality is PUSHED UPWARDS away from earth by IT'S WINGS. Air does not simply LIFT a bird the way it does the balloon, it requires the bird to perform actions of it's own against gravity. Are you beginning to see the difference? " I cannot see why a non-moving and/or weightless object drifting in zero gravity should automatically be non-living." -RestoringGuy Nowhere is there "no gravity". All objects pull upon each other- when you wiggle your finger you pull the Andromeda Galaxy. Life indepedent motion against the pull of all other objects, i.e. gravity. "For sure I cannot see why a bird and airplane have different movement with regard to the term "on it's own" -RestoringGuy Is a plane assembled naturally by it's environment? Does a plane move around on it's own? Tell me how that's possible. " If you would please consider the word Moving to include internal metabolism or flow of nutrients or even information carriers, it would make more sense to me." -RestoringGuy "internal metabolism, flow of nutrients, information carriers" all refer to MOTION of tiny chemicals. These may be processes occuring within a living object, but they are not themselves the process of living. Living = an object's self-induced motion against gravity. The definition of life PRECEDES metabolism. We need to understand what we mean by "alive" first because metabolism is the concept of chemical interactions within a LIVING object. -------- "I think usefulness is all that matters when we are discussing conceptualization at higher levels/ranges of reality." -Victor I don't think you understood me when I said that usefulness is a SUBJECTIVE term resolving to opinion. Your opinions don't matter when conceptualizing (i.e. relating) reality (i.e. objects with location) for the purposes of Science (explaning phenomena rationally). And LOL could you please name just a couple "levels" of reality for me? I think you've been reading too much Dante's Inferno. "Reality is composed of matter and energy." -Victor Reality is a term that either refers to an object or a concept. Since "matter" refers to objects and "energy" refers to concept (referring to how objects behave or act wrt each other) then you are proposing a DUALITY. A duality is when someone proposes that a word refers to BOTH an object and a concept. In normal speech, you may "Wave to your friend while riding a wave" (using wave as both an object and a concept), but if we wish to be rational (i.e. non-contradictory) then we cannot say it is both something (an object) and nothing (a concept). Also, com·po·si·tion, synonym: STRUCTURE /ˌkämpəˈziSHən/ Noun The nature of something's ingredients or constituents; the way in which a whole or mixture is made up. The action of putting things together; formation or construction. Only OBJECTS have a composition. Reality is the concept of all objects with location. "Reality" has no composition, only individual objects may. "objects are just concepts" -Victor This is to say that something is nothing, you're just contradicting yourself blatently. "Now, an atom is not an object. You define Object as that which has shape. But physics has shown us that shape is not a valid concept. Shape refers to a geometrical description of the space occupied by the object, determined by its external boundary, but there is no external boundary in an atom." -Victor Physics, like any other science, requires visualization of the mechanism at work in a theory. If you cannot even imagine (i.e. make an image, illustration, visualization of) your theory, then it is not objective and rational. From Fatfist's new article: "Shape: a term that relates what a boundary encloses from the immediate surrounding. (Synonym: form)" If an atom is not an object then you are saying it is a CONCEPT and therefore performs no actions whatsoever in reality. Without a boundary (i.e. a shape), then there can be no physical interaction or relation to other objects of reality because there is NOTHING to relate! "Consider spin or angular momentum of particles and symmetries." -Victor Oddities such as EPR can be explained easily using the Rope Hypothesis, if you're interested I can provide you more information on that. "In order to define existence, you then need to drop/abandon/don’t-hang-on-to the concept object and the idea of shape. Drop that. No need for it. It will just confuse you, or render your capacity to describe and predict reality futile and powerless in ranges other than those you can grab with your cumbersome hands." -Victor My hands have nothing to do with imagining the objects in question. Illustration and visualization is the only OBJECTIVE criterion for presenting an object within a hypothesis for explanation of a theory. Objects are that which have shape, no matter how big or small- if it exists, it has shape. Confusion comes from the CONtradictory FUSion of object and concept within a single term. That's called reification or RELIGION and belongs in the Bible. "God is love," is no different from "light is a wave" or "electrons are 0D particles". It tries to turn a concept into an object and thus cannot be visualized. "Yes. Energy can compose a "thing", but we require it's aggregated into mass first. Energy can come together and give matter to where there was none. Energy can leave something and reduce its matter. It happens all the time everywhere. Matter and energy are interchangeable. So the concept "thing" is problematic." -Victor DEFINE ENERGY and we will see whether or not it can compose (form, provide structure to) a thing. Since only objects can perform this function, you will find that energy cannot do the magic tricks you say it can. "A good example of this is a nuclear power plant that takes Uranium 235, turns it into a Uranium 236 atom by hitting it with a Neutron, and breaks it down into Barium 141 and Krypton 92. There is mass missing there; but that mass was turned into energy making electrons “flow” through a wire." -Victor Electricity and fission do not involve any magical creation of something from nothing. Both phenomena can be explained rationally using the Rope Hypothesis, whereas you propose irrational 0D electrons zipping down a copper line and shapeless energy suddenly aquiring shape from the void. When I get electricuted, the wire is not pelting me with a 0 dimensional CONCEPT. I am interacting with a real THING and somehow it hurts me. "A hydrogen atom is a very specific concept representing a very specific thing," -Victor Try again! A hydrogen atom cannot be a THING and also a RELATION between things(concept). "I don't understand this rant against evidence" -Victor LOL "rant". Good one, Vic. What didn't you understand specifically? "Why the natural object clause? What is a natural object?" -Victor I forgot to include it initially, "natural" is required to define alive in a manner that can be used consistently. A natural object is assembled by gravity, inert chemical processes and interactions. "We humans create some other stuff that also moves against gravity and is not offspring" -Victor The difference between an airplane and a baby is that people don't decide to make babies. Having sex might be a decision, heck, even growing the kid in a lab might be your decision, but essentially, the process of that baby growing is 100% indepedent. Whether or not the fertilization will work, whether the baby will be healthy or die during the pregnancy, all depends on the natural interaction between sperm and egg and has nothing to do with your decisions. " “non-Natural” (whatever that is)" -Victor Something artificial is something that a human decided to assemble. It has a purpose. " if you can describe the motion of the ice cube as resulting from the “actions” of objects in its environment, then these objects must be the ones alive." -Victor No, the atoms of the liquid are smaller and move more freely and it slides it's way under the cube, pushing it upwards. Nothing is alive here. It's all just physics. ". How about if the environment prevents motion (like a woman tied down)?" -Victor The woman is still breathing and her heart is still beating, both phenomena can be described as natural, self-induced motion against gravity. "There is movement against gravity and something must be causing it (as you require that only objects exist). Whichever is responsible for this motion is the one alive? " -Victor There is motion against gravity, sure, but it is not achieved by a single object indepedently. A fish swimming to the top of a tank to get food is qualitatively different from an ice cube floating to the top, that difference is the fishes' independence of motion. "So, if an object causes the motion of another, which is the one living? Why? You can see how this leads us into an obscure path filled with contradictions." -Victor You see why those questions are misguided now? "This is a straw man as I’ve stated the requirements for a chemical process to be considered alive. This is not a valid rebuttal of my definition of Life." -Victor Nope, you've simply given an arbitrary label of metabolic processes and nutrient flow to the concept of a chemical process and you call it "alive". Reminds me of Frankenstein! Living objects may have metabolic processes and nutrient flows, but the concept of ALIVE is distinct from those and more fundamental. "Again, is the river then alive? Is the atmosphere then alive? If not, why not? It would constitute an arbitrary distinction from what a cell does when its parts move inside it against gravity." -Victor The river and atmosphere's motion is entirely dependent upon gravity and other inert interactions such as the spin of the earth. They do not move themselves against gravity. "Look, it’s been fun for me, and I think it’s been a productive debate for others. I think we’re near the end of it, where you (or I, as it can still happen) concede or abandon. It’s definitively the climax now. What do you think?" -Victor Yeah, I'd have to agree. I think that I have thoroughly addressed all of your questions and demonstrated why your definitions and arguments are contradictory. If we don't agree at this point then let's just call it quits.

By Newton's laws, that happens with all things. When I walk, the atoms of the earth/grass push my shoes forward, and the earth itself moves backward with equal force. Without that pushing, the movement of my feet would get no traction, so I am also moved by the grass as well as my feet. A flying bird is also moved by the atmosphere with equal force as atmosphere is moved by it. The idea of "what moves" also seems not too clear. The whole earth moves "on it's own" as does every object in orbit. All motion is RELATIVE, but that is irrelevant to the definition of life. A bird pushing it's own wings against the atmosphere to fly up against gravity is completely different from a balloon rising because the atmosphere pushes it. The balloon does not push back- the bird does. The bird's motion is indepedent of (i.e. not caused by) it's environment. Just like how the earth moves around the sun BECAUSE OF and not irrespective of gravity. Surely you understand that.It's amusing that you all continue to strawman ONE part of the definition or the other. Either you attack the "motion on it's own" or "motion against gravity" instead of actually addressing the complete definition. Can you provide one contradiction of "natural objects' independent motion against gravity"? No. The definition stands as rational.

"The thought that stays at the center of my thinking is that objects are a useful way to conceptualize reality. Processes are also useful." Usefulness is entirely subjective and therefore irrelevant to the topic at hand. What's useful to me is worthless to you, and vice versa. Objects are NOT "a useful way..." (a concept). The term object refers to "that which has shape." If you are refering to a shape/form then you are referring to an object. It's that simple. We don't define objects- definitions are given to concepts- we simply point to the object in question and give it a name. "Both of these forms of conceptualization make use of what actually exists (mater and energy) and just serve as ways to present what matter and energy are doing (how they are inter-relating) in order to allow predictions and explanations." First, concepts are understood or conceived, objects are visualized. We must be consistent with our terms. Second, you really need to define exist in an unambiguous and non-contradictory way. Here's an article on what a Scientific Definition is: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-a-Scientific-Definition You are clearly using an ambiguous definition if it leads you to conclude that both matter AND the conceptual "potential ability" of matter (i.e. energy) both exist. The term exist can only refer to objects with location when defined rationally. " But you arbitrarily elevate objects over processes (both ways of conceptualizing phenomena, or occurrences in reality)" I am not "elevating" the category of objects over anything. Reification is ambiguous irrationality. This isn't poetry class- the motion of concepts is impossible. ALL that I have done is defined terms rationally, and explained how your arguments and definitions are irrational. Plain and simple. "you are reducing the definition of existence (that which is composed or matter and/or energy and interacts with matter and/or energy) into that which is an object." The definition of exist is: objects with location. An objects requires a location (i.e. a distance to all other objects in the universe). There can be imaginary objects too. The term object is completely distinct from exist. I understand that it's taken millenia to rationally define the term exist, and I didn't do it myself, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. In order to have meaning, all concepts are defined unambiguously. In order to even use the term exist meaningfully, you must provide a rational definition. "That which is composed of matter and energy" asserts that energy can "compose", or "form" a thing. Thing is synonymous with "object" and the definition of object is that which has shape. You are stating that "energy" or "the ability to do work (i.e. motion)" has a shape. That is clearly not the case, as you cannot illustrate "an" energy. Furthermore, the concept of energy, like all concepts, necessarily RELATES two or more objects or positions of an object. So your definition of exist includes a reference to "matter" which is a synonym for objects, and the concept of energy which belongs nowhere in the same category as objects. "For me this is like what religious people do when they go back to bronze-age descriptions of reality in order to get insights into our world of today." No, what religious people do is they define terms ambiguously and assert dualities (that something is both a concept and an object). They also use reifications (perform actions with concepts). Religion is ambiguous and contradictory. An irrational explanation. Science (rational explanation) is the complete opposite. "So an explosion is a concept... The bomb is an object... While the debris and shrapnel are objects, the blast, flash or bang are not. But they all exist." The bomb, shrapnel, debris all exist because they have shape. "The explosion" doesn't interact with ANYTHING. "The explosion" is a relation between the bomb and it's surroundings. It expands the air out around it rapidly, the chemicals inside of the bomb react with each other violently, torquing the EM ropes around it very hard... this whole interaction can only be explained rationally by using objects. To say that the house was destroyed by "an explosion" is fine for everyday speak, but not in Science when we attempt to explain phenomena such as heat, light, ect. But, this is the kind of conclusion you come to when you use an irrational definition of exist. "we have extraordinarily abundant evidence of phenomena/events/inter-relations of things that cannot be objects because they don’t have mass and have no shape (neutrinos, photons, etc)." Evidence is necessarily verified by a subjective observer. Evidence is a concept and we cannot have it. Evidence in a Scientific sense can only refer to hypothesis which are meant to be taken for granted at FACE VALUE (i.e. an assumption) in order to explain a theory. What the Scientists observe in the lab is some wacky stuff, but they- like any of us- look at their results and then go back home to produce MODELS or EXHIBITS to explain the behavior. The problem is that nowadays, the behavior is explained IRRATIONALLY. Without a shape (i.e. boundary, architecture, form) there is NOTHING to contact, NOTHING to interact with. Objects must have shape; concepts have no shape, and concepts do not perform actions, as I have already established. Interaction, mediation, influence... are all concepts which embody a surface to surface contact between two or more objects. Without contact- there's no interaction. Any hypothesis involving "an actor" with no shape and no size is irrational. "Modern technology would be impossible if we had not abandoned this dysfunctional paradigm of thinking that reality is composed of stuff that can be grabbed and has shape and feel to it." Technology is done by TRIAL and ERROR. "I have not failed. I've just found 10000 ways that won't work." - Thomas A. Edison The inventors do their tinkering and then the Scientists attempt to explain the phenomena. I've already explained all of this but check out this hub for a detailed look: http://monkeyminds.hubpages.com/hub/The-REAI-Scientific-Method " A drone helicopter is an object that spins wings (pushing a rotor to turn) and these wings create a difference of pressure in the air around them that result in the object moving up against gravity, powered by its own engine and energy." I already ammended my definition to "natural object", which was my mistake and did not represent the rational definition that was already provided in the article originally posted. That excludes the drone copter from being alive. "An ice cube is an object that pushes water aside when it crystallizes, creating a difference in specific weight or weight-to-volume ratio, resulting in the object moving up against gravity, powered by the energy states in the H2O atoms that compose it; its own energy." The motion of an ice cube is entirely resultant from chemical interactions between water molecules which is dependent upon the environment of the water. By definition, a living object generates motion on it's own independent of it's environment. "Maybe, if you could actually prove and establish your definition" We don't prove definitions. We propose them. If they are unambiguous and can be used with complete consistency then they are rational. "In this definition life is a process... Life (as a process) is matter and energy (chemicals) interacting in a specific way..." This is entirely ambiguous. Sodium + vinegar is a chemical process. It involves chemicals acting in a specific way... are they alive? No! Your definition is ambiguous and allows for contradictions. "[dead fish] move up to the surface, must be considered alive." Yes, and a balloon rises when you let it go. Do these things move themselves? NO! Please think more thoroughly about your statements before you post them. It's completely obvious that the fish is moved BY THE WATER and the balloon is moved BY THE ATMOSPHERE. They do not move on their own.

"One more thing! We do not build ourselves, and neither does the robot. Why is the 'top-down'- or 'bottom-up'-ness of its architecture/design/build relevant?" This is confusing because I left one crucial word out of my initial definition (although, the word CAN be found in the original definition provided in the article) From Fatfist's article: Living: a term that refers to a natural object moving by itself against the gravitational pull from all the other objects in the Universe. [/font]A natural object is one that has been forged by the environment. Artificial objects (ones manufactured with a purpose by living objects) cannot qualify as living. "Is a dead cell not a cell? "[/font] A cell is a STATIC concept, referring to the architecture of some object. Living is a DYNAMIC concept, referring to how that object moves. I agree that a cell is the basic unit of life, but the definition of life itself has nothing to do with it. When we define "living" we must specific what type of dynamic process (action) we are refering to when we use this verb.

@iajrz - Welcome to the FDR boards! I'm glad you've come to join the discussion. "huttnedu's definitions do not account for origin or structure of the life form, but of it's being an object and capable of movement against gravity." A definition (part of hypothesis) is NOT a theory. If you want to develop a theory (the origin of life on earth) then you must FIRST provide your definition for LIFE so that your audience can actually understand what you were trying to explain. There's no way to understand an explanation of some concept that hasn't been defined. "According to huttnedu, [the roomba] is [alive], because it is an object (has defined boundaries) and it moves itself against gravity." That does not follow from anything I've said.Really? The roomba did not put batteries in itself and it did not turn itself on. That is ALL caused by humans. All roomba motion can be attributed to humans beings who turn them on/off. Even though the *consequences* of your action (flipping on the switch) are much longer in duration than your physical interaction of the object, you are still the external object which caused the roomba to move. Without you, no roombas are gonna move. They do not move themselves. Come on, this is ridiculous. I mean, if I came into your house at night and stole your roomba, would you wake up the next morning and think, "Oh gee.. it must've turned itself on and moved itself right on outta here!" No way, I don't think you would. "Life is the concept used to describe the process through which a cell or group of cells hold back enthropy of the mechanisms that allows it to keep up holding back enthropy of said mechanisms." A cell is a living object so we can remove that redundancy from your definition and come up with: "An object that undergoes a decrease in entropy." Is that fair to say? I just want to understand your definition before I critique it, so could you please define that key word: entropy?

Dear Victor, Thank you for remaining in this discussion. I've said it before, but I do appreciate it. But I must say, you have really put your own foot in your mouth in that last post. "There are many kinds of chemical reactions. Most occur..." Occurance: A RELATION between objects (syn. event, phenomenon). A car crash is a CONCEPT that can occur between two cars. The cars EXIST, pursuant to the definition of exist. The occurance does NOT exist. "A" chemical reaction is a description of how two or more atoms/molecules are interacting with each other. A chemical reaction cannot be alive any more than a shadow puppet can. "But if you consider life in terms of atoms (objects), then you have a problem, because the atoms in my cells go out of my body all the time and then form part of other bodies, maybe the walls and the sewer water, and then may end up in a plant. How are they alive, dead, and then alive?" This is purely irrational MEREOLOGY. We do not consider an object based upon it's parts, but on it's overall shape and architecture. An object is NOT a concept like a "collection of atoms, cells, whatever). An object is merely that which has shape. We point to it and name it, and that's what performs actions. We can conceptually break the object apart and relate the parts to each other, but that is philosophy, not physics. We must never confuse our relations with the objects themselves. "A collection" does not perform actions in reality. I thought even Stefan Molyneux has put some material out addressing this issue. It may be a fact that the atoms of a cell are being constantly replaced, but nonetheless, that is still occuring to an existing object called a CELL. The cell remains ALIVE if it continues to move itself against gravity, regardless of it's constant ebb and flow of atoms. "So, the conditions to consider cell collections alive as organisms are dependent on the kind of organism and their own arrangement, system, intelligence, mechanisms." Once again, you are performing MEREOLOGY. A human being is not a CONCEPT (i.e. "a collection of cells"). The human being is a SINGLE independent object with a definite, continuous surface. It doesn't matter if you can go into your lab, rip the human apart and then look at each cell individually... because the cells have physically bonded together to assemble something entirely new and different. Existence is a STATIC concept. In other words, whether or not a cell or a human exists can be settled objectively in a single conceptual "photograph". Does it have shape and location, or not? That's it. It doesn't matter if that object happens to constantly replace it's parts, it still has a physical shape and location, or else it wouldn't be able to interact with other objects. "The conditions that make the ice crystal have less specific weight than the environment it's in are created by the ice crystal itself." IRRELEVANT. That ice cube's specific density or weight has nothing to do with it. ONLY the denser medium surrounding the ice cube PUSHES the lighter cube UP, against gravity. Likewise, the expansion of water into it's solid form is specifically caused by how QUICKLY the water's environment is forcing it to vibrate (i.e. how much "energy" it has.) Water molecules are inert. Victor, you haven't been able to provide a single contradiction for my definition of life. I think it's about time to accept it, or actually come up with a contradiction.

Me: "Water does NOT move by itself. Water's motion depends entirely upon it's environment." Vic: " When the "object " ice crystal (with a surface and shape, your pre-requisites) is formed, it has less specific weight that the environment, so it floats (moves up [is PUSHED up*] against gravity)." *My addition Precisely. It is pushed up by the atoms in it's environment. Water does not move itself, it is pushed and pulled by other objects in it's environment just like every other object in the universe. Only LIVING objects move *themselves* against gravity. " In fact, cells are even more dependent on the environment than ice cubes. They need more stuff. They need energy, water and other chemicals (electrolytes, etc.)." A cell may require certain conditions to form, but once it is formed, it begins to move, on it's own, against gravity. " In essence what is needed is a chemical reaction that is self-sustaining and that replicates." This is sloppy language and cannot possibly convey a rational, objective meaning. "A" chemical reaction is an interaction between two or more objects. "Chemical reactions" cannot perform actions such as "to sustain" or "replicate". And even if you change it to "an object" that replicates or sustains itself, the definition is still irrational. 1. An infant child cannot sustain itself. It will die without support from the parents. Therefore, the infant child was never alive? 2. If "to live" is "to replicate" and a cell exists that dies before it ever replicates, or has a mutation which prevents it from being able to replicate, then it isn't alive! Those are the problems with your definition.

Alive: to move by itself against gravity. Water does NOT move by itself. Water's motion depends entirely upon it's environment. When water is heated to a liquid state, the molecules vibrate and bounce off each other, rather than holding up a solid structure. When the temp. drops, the vibrations slow down enough for the molecules to stablize and hold apart, rigidly from each other, meaning more space between the molecules. This phenomena is dependent upon the external environment, not the water itself. Water is definitely not alive. Fire does not have a surface. Imagine having a camera that took pictures of shapes only and completely disregarded brightness. If you took a picture of the torch with that camera you would see nothing but AIR and WOOD. What you think of as "a" fire is simply a process which increases the speed at which the acting molecules vibrate (heat/energy increase) and subsequently the speed/intensity at which the EM ropes connected to those molecules torque (increased brightness). "The" fire has no physical surface like a molecule does. BTW: you misattributed the quote in your post, Moncaloono.

Please refer to the video I linked above. There's no such object as a "line of force". "Force" implicitly embodies motion. The objects surrounding a magnet are countless, invisible magnetic threads. The "force" is due to those threads all sweeping in the same direction. This was all explained in the video I linked above.

Is fire a concept or an object? Fire is a process of oxidation of a substance, therefore it is a concept. The stuff (air/coal/wood whatever object is being burned) begins to move at a higher rate which causes it to light up. The stuff undergoing combustion has a surface, but "the" combustion itself has no surface (no shape). You may relate the brightness of atoms undergoing combustion to the brightness of those atoms adjacent but that abstract relation you call "a" flame is not an object of reality. It does not have a surface or shape of it's own. Same idea with shadow puppets. A relation of bright to not-so-bright (what we call a shadow) is not an object.