Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy component to it because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion in them. But I could also envision pure motion without involving any atoms...like a vibration in the fabric of space,
On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas wrote: > > Heh except of course that when it comes right down to it.energy is matter > and matter is energy. > On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: >> >> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be circumnavigated >> by the possibility that the original creator was not matter, but energy. >> Just like thinking of anything is much faster and much easier than building >> it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns could have evolved in a >> random chance way and finely tuned by selective processes to reach >> intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that patterns of atoms >> and molecules evolved to form intelligent life. >> >> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they manipulated atoms >> to desired patterns and forms to code the information required for life and >> to allow them to evolve on their own to complex intelligent beings able to >> wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where they came from, where >> they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and purpose could then be >> given to our fleeting moment of existence. >> >> >> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote: >>> >>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit >>> creation, begging the question of what created that in an infinite >>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in which creation >>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth comes closer. >>> >>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain live >>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe ,but >>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of the >>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and nothing else. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > What survives is the gene - subject to mutations etc. We are >>> already >>> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind could be >>> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our bodies are >>> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new substrate could >>> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's 'hope'. Such >>> > > substrated minds might link in super-intelligence and be able to re- >>> > > transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to make. This >>> would >>> > > be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what such intelligence >>> > > might invent or even discover - perhaps such intelligence would >>> > > discover we are not as alone as we think. Being human or human >>> being >>> > > might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to live free again. >>> > > We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much part of our >>> > > behaviour now. >>> > >>> > > On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr >>> > >> Allan >>> > >>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light >>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' then (my >>> grammar and >>> > >> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' though)! :) >>> > >>> > >> > 2012/11/28 James <[email protected]> >>> > >>> > >> >> I am an aspect of what was, is, and will be, coextensively. >>> Maybe. >>> > >>> > >> >> On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote: >>> > >>> > >> >>> Attachment to life is the cause of the desire for immortality >>> and the >>> > >> >>> readiness to believe in an after-life or re-birth. It is an >>> off-shoot of >>> > >> >>> the instinct for survival. >>> > >>> > >> >>> -- >>> > >>> > >> >> -- >>> > >>> > >> > -- >>> > >>> > > -- >>> >> --
