Is the water live?

You can perceive a surface by touch. You can perceive by heat-sensitive cells that the surface is hot, if it is. You cannot perceive the hotness by touch-sensitive cells. Different senses. Sorry. Maybe pick up a basic anatomy book for 7^th graders next time before arguing this...

sorry but I dont have to sit inside of a camp fire to know its hot. not sure what your even talking about with touch sensitive cells. every cell on the body is touch sensitive. I can feel when things touch me or I touch them. sounds like touch sensitiveity to me. I know heat because I can feel heat. I know the sun is hot because I can feel the heat. pretty simple actually.

Only nerve cells can sense anything at all. And far from all of them react to external stimuli, like touch, or temperature. And far from all sensory neurons can pick up touch. Far from all can pick up heat, too. I know that you are not sure what I'm talking about, because you are a know-it-all who has all the wisdom of the world without having visited one class in anything. "Every cell on the body is touch sensitive", are you kidding me! Most cells on the skin of your back are not even touch sensitive, and you can find that out with a banal household experiment involving a partner, two pencils, and - if you don't trust the partner's word alone - a mirror or two.

And, by the way, you cannot touch how hot the sun is. You feel radiation from it, picked up by - granted - the same heat-sensitive cells, but only after the radiation was stored as heat in the surrounding skin tissue. What feels hot about the sun is actually your own body.

Touch sensitive cells are called mechanoreceptors. Heat sensitive ones are thermoreceptors. Alas, mammals do not have dedicated infrared receptors, but those exist in nature, too. Heat is sensed by heat-sensing, at any rate, not by touch.

gee that was a neat lesson. How does it refute the fact that I can feel heat again? oh it actually confirms that we can feel heat so its tangeable! Thanks Gist.

Fyxe, I never set out to refute that you can feel heat. All I said was that it was not tangible. Because tangibility is exclusive to touch-sensing. We cannot pick up heat with touch sensors. It is, by definition, not tangible. That is why I keep saying that tangibility is a very silly criterion to distinguish physical from non-physical, or objective from subjective, or real from esoteric, or which ever dichotomy of the day it shall be. There is any number of things that cannot be touched, that are non-tangible, but that are still every bit as physical, intersubjective, and real, as we would say the tangible things are. Pay attention to the argument. It wasn't long enough ago to already have lost all track of it...

Gisteron wrote: Fyxe, I never set out to refute that you can feel heat. All I said was that it was not tangible. Because tangibility is exclusive to touch-sensing. We cannot pick up heat with touch sensors. It is, by definition, not tangible. That is why I keep saying that tangibility is a very silly criterion to distinguish physical from non-physical, or objective from subjective, or real from esoteric, or which ever dichotomy of the day it shall be. There is any number of things that cannot be touched, that are non-tangible, but that are still every bit as physical, intersubjective, and real, as we would say the tangible things are. Pay attention to the argument. It wasn't long enough ago to already have lost all track of it...

Tangeable is a form of perceptible. What you are talking about is tactile. I mean you can perceive heat. you can touch something and tell how much heat is in it. you dont even have to touch something just hold your hand close to see if its warm. It is perceptible because it exists objectivley.

Fyxe wrote: I dont get it. This place is a spiritual place right? A temple dedicated to pursuit of the mystical qualities of life? So why is science elevated to godlike status here and philosophy is a bad word?

Spirituality isn't mysticism.

People often confuse these things.

People want magic to exist. It is a belief. That doesn't mean other people have to accept that belief. The problem with some beliefs is that people start treating them like they're true and then they start building on them to the point in which there's a whole system built on top an idea that has never been proven.

And if we're just going to pretend and if truth doesn't matter then why not go all the way and pretend we can force choke each other?

I actually like the fact that can (even though it agitates some people) talk about the movies. However, it agitates me when people try to merge in every other belief as if it doesn't matter what's true and what isn't. With science, we can say "these things are objectively true and these things are just theories". But with beliefs... Everyone tends to want you to accept their belief as fact because of something they experienced but cannot necessarily duplicate or prove scientifically.

The truth is that the same powerful mind that could create a galaxy far far away is the same mind that can produce a vision of a scary old woman pushing down on your chest if you have night terrors. The same mind that thought of "jedi mind tricks" is the same mind that can trick you into thinking something's real when it isn't.

I'd like to stay grounded in reality. If you can prove something else beyond that then... prove it. But why should we accept it on faith?

Fyxe wrote: Tangeable is a form of perceptible. What you are talking about is tactile. I mean you can perceive heat. you can touch something and tell how much heat is in it. you dont even have to touch something just hold your hand close to see if its warm. It is perceptible because it exists objectivley.

Fair enough. Perceptible has enough wiggle room to it to where measurement by aid of dedicated instruments can also be said to count as perception. My only point was that tangibility, i.e. touchability was not a mark of reality because, frankly, a lot of what we'd otherwise call real also happens to be intangible. One may of course also dispute whether reality only consists of what can be perceived (or detected, by extension), but that is more of a philosophical question to which I don't think we'd find an answer, and I for one don't even have a position on. I think you do adopt a burden of proof if you wish to say that reality consists only of the detectable, but on a practical level the correctness of that statement is indistinguishable from its incorrectness and only an appeal to parsimony would seem to give any push either direction on pragmatic grounds.

Fyxe wrote: What are you finding dramtic or or emotionally suffering? Its a simple conversation that is civil and I think quite on topic given the unusual nature of the question?

I felt it that way, it seemed to me aggressive when I read your conversations, though it wasn´t directed at me.

Erinis wrote:

Fyxe wrote: What are you finding dramtic or or emotionally suffering? Its a simple conversation that is civil and I think quite on topic given the unusual nature of the question?

I felt it that way, it seemed to me aggressive when I read your conversations, though it wasn´t directed at me.

oh sorry about that. It was never my intent at least. I cant speak for anyone else though but I dont think anyone is too aggressive in their replies. i think it might be hard to see intent in text sometimes so its good to ask. Thanks for that so we have no misunderstandings!

Is water (H2O) alive?

If we have not agreed on the characteristics of life, on what it means to be alive, there is no answer at all.

This is from Quora at https://qr.ae/Tl7tir

Answering the question: Why is water not [a] living thing?

[hr]

Sudaravan, Passionate about Physics and Computer Science,
Answered Apr 20, 2018

By definition, water is inanimate (not living), it . Water is a molecule(H2O), it has never been and never will be a living thing. Water is definitely not a living thing. That said, most water contains living organisms in some form of suspension.

It doesn’t have any characteristics of a living thing like:

Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond and may adapt to their environment.

If something follows one or just a few of the characteristics listed above, it does not necessarily mean that it is living. Here are some examples:

Sugar crystals growing on the bottom of a syrup container. They grow, but that does not mean they are alive.
An automobile uses energy and moves, but that does not mean it is living.
Fire uses energy and reproduces, but that does not mean it is living.

Living things MUST exhibit all of the characteristics.

[hr]

If someone has a different list then present it. At least we'll know what we're talking about.

So as a Jedi do you believe that all things are connected? Do you believe in the Gaia principle that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet?

Sounds like a living biosphere that would very definately include water as a part of that process as well so I see no reason not to call it something that if not life itself contributes to life, just like blood contributes to our lives. Seems alive to me.

What would it take to change your mind?

Fyxe wrote: So as a Jedi do you believe that all things are connected? Do you believe in the Gaia principle that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet?

Sounds like a living biosphere that would very definately include water as a part of that process as well so I see no reason not to call it something that if not life itself contributes to life, just like blood contributes to our lives. Seems alive to me.

That's right. It's not alive but it's necessary for human life.

State your characteristics of a living thing.

Water is necessary for human life but it is not alive.

Saying stupid shit for a million times makes a great big pile of stupid shit. It does not make it true

DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE = H2O

Water is a simple molecule possessing 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen.

IT HAS NO BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS.
IT IS NOT ALIVE.

There is no other answer.

unless we are talking about it from a philosophical perspective, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJMwBwFj5nQ
.

Br. John wrote: Saying stupid shit for a million times makes a great big pile of stupid shit. It does not make it true

Haha, that is beautiful! Boy, were I to put it in such words, I'd never hear the end of it. That is magnificent! I salute thee.

Fyxe wrote: So as a Jedi do you believe that all things are connected? Do you believe in the Gaia principle that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet?

Very well said.
Conception of water could be, that it´s inorganic part of one living organism, without which the life couldn´t exist.
It connects solid matter together as a whole.

I found informations which says that at the beginning was the Universe liquid,
which fits into my idea about it, thus that liquid holds Universe as one living organism.
It can be observe not just within our body, but in the whole Universe

https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050418/full/050418-5.html

Fyxe wrote: So as a Jedi do you believe that all things are connected? Do you believe in the Gaia principle that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet?

Sounds like a living biosphere that would very definately include water as a part of that process as well so I see no reason not to call it something that if not life itself contributes to life, just like blood contributes to our lives. Seems alive to me.

You're right until you mess it up at the end. Water is part of the process of life. It's not alive itself; it contributes to life. Nobody disputes that

Erinis wrote:

Fyxe wrote: So as a Jedi do you believe that all things are connected? Do you believe in the Gaia principle that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet?

Very well said.
Conception of water could be, that it´s inorganic part of one living organism, without which the life couldn´t exist.
It connects solid matter together as a whole.

I found informations which says that at the beginning was the Universe liquid,
which fits into my idea about it, thus that liquid holds Universe as one living organism.
It can be observe not just within our body, but in the whole Universe

https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050418/full/050418-5.html

I read the article. The liquid phase lasted about 45 seconds and it was not water. There is no liquid that holds the Universe together today and there has not been for billions of years. That would be gravity. We are not talking about poetry and we are not speaking metaphorically. Pretend this is a high school Biology 1 Class. Kindly save the poetry and metaphors for English and Creative Writing.

Br. John wrote:

Fyxe wrote: So as a Jedi do you believe that all things are connected? Do you believe in the Gaia principle that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet?

Sounds like a living biosphere that would very definately include water as a part of that process as well so I see no reason not to call it something that if not life itself contributes to life, just like blood contributes to our lives. Seems alive to me.

That's right. It's not alive but it's necessary for human life.

State your characteristics of a living thing.

Water is necessary for human life but it is not alive.

Saying stupid shit for a million times makes a great big pile of stupid shit. It does not make it true

Characteristics for life is simply complexity. life is not an event or a thing. it is a process of complexity. it is an organization of elements that give rise to awareness. remove any of the elements and life ceases to exist. can you remove the blood from a human and that human still live? can you remove the water from this planet and expect it to continue to live? no in both cases. it is not the emergent property of awareness that creates life, it is the process itself and water is a necessary part of that process. so are the components of life alive? no but the resultant combination of them in specific quantities does create not only life but awareness. pretty amazing. thats alive to me. Its built into the very fabric of this universe. it cant help but be alive because of how the universe works.