Alive?

[Kitsune]

Discussion from Gary Zukav's "The Dancing Wu Li Masters".


We're 'Alive' aren't we? I mean, ofcourse you'd say yes to that. But what defines Alive? Is it consciousness? Or, simply responding to stimuli? Or both? Think about a chemical reaction for a moment. If you provide proper stimulation something happens to the molecule(s) you're trying to change, right? Aren't we the same? If you do hit someone, they say "Ouch". If you use electricity to split the two Hydrogen atoms from the single Oxygen atom, they go their separate ways.
 My point being, what if everything is 'alive' but everything also follows a 'program', if you will. Our program is just much more massively more complex than that of water molecule. See what I'm getting at? If that doesn't make sense, here's what the book says(If that's illegal, have a moderator take it out):

"When we talk of physics as patterns of organic energy, the word that catches our attention is "organic." Organic means living. Most people think that physics is about things that are not living, such as pendulums and billiard balls. That is a common point of view, even among physicists, but it is not as evident as it may seem.
 Let us explore this viewpoint with the aid of a hypothetical person, a young man name Jim de Wit, who is the perpetual champion of the non-obvious.
 "It is not at all true," says Jim de Wit, "that physics is about nonliving things. This is evident from our discussion of falling bodies (page 32). Even if some of them are the human kind, they all accelerate at the same rate in a vacuum. So physics does apply to living things."
 "But that is an unfair example," we say. "Rocks have no choice in the matter of falling. If we drop them, they fall. If we don't dtop them, they don't fall. Humans, on the other hand, exercise choice. Accidents excluded, humans ordinarily are not found in the act of falling. Why? Because they know that falling may hurt them and they have no desire to be hurt. In other words, humans process INFORMATION (they know that hey may be hurt) and they respond to it (by not falling). Rocks can do niether"
 "That is the way things appear," says de Wit, "but it may not be the way the actually are. For example, bye watching time-lapse photography we know that plants often respond to stimulae with humanlike reactions. They retreat from pain, advance toward pleasure and even languash in the absence of affection. "

I got lazy... It goes on to speak about how everything responds to stimulae. This is the whole point:

Quote from page 51 "Chemicals have no options: they always must act one way or the other.
 "Ofcourse," beams Jim de Wit, "but how do we know that our responses aren't so rigiddly preprogrammed as those of a chemical, with the only difference being that our programs are enourmasely more complex?"


Isn't that interesting? I hope I get a lot of responses, cause that took forever...

[ubiquitous]

Fantastic,
      To extrapolate thoughts and feelings on this type of subject matter takes deep thought, mental construct and emission, it has been absorbed.
To me consciousness is what people refer to as "god" a plant can't speak but it has it.
We can speak and create and doesn't the planet know it!
The way this essence seems like you and me i feel  is a conjuring trick.
Who is the conjurer?
Fruits don't grow for show, oh no there for its surroundings to survive, nature/god has a motive.

My mind creates my character that others absorb, this domain is not yet quantifiable but has a sense of duality.
I might just plug my poem from Writers corner here

Locating internal dialog

Ploughing through the field of thought
What is this essence swimming
In the synthetic fabric above
Me i wonder

u just can't locate it but what it creates.. well just imagineAnation  !!!

Is it a particle or a wave, well its a "wave" if its sound but if its an xray" particle" seems more appropriate, but sound needs air what does light need? is there fine strands through all of us and everything that can appear as light but is just a resonance of this fabric? what is the resolution of space ? Planck's length and all that twoddle.

I'll mentally gather a more related reply when i have studied your post in more detail

Thank you kitsune
look forward to your next chemical
reaction