Technically, you're not alive

[Dante]

To me, a chemical reaction is a physical movemrent, as a rock thrown into the air is physically moving. It doesn't mean we are limited to this. Otherwise, moving matter with a similar behavior to human would be called human.

A rock being thrown is an action, not a reaction, and it certainly isn't chemical.

And moving matter that acts like a human could just as well be a robot, a mechanical brain or body. Or even both. Thus, is anything that can move like a human really human? And if anything that can think is alive, then are computers alive? Some of them are happily close to free will...

If we're approaching the matter that way, "living" is a collective noun for any series of chemical reactions that repeats, spreads and tends to preserve itself.

Sounds reasonable to me...

[sneezer3]

I offered no insults in my post. We may have free will, just like animals may have free will, we do have a body just like animals have a body, we have the ability to worship a god because we have a rational mind to come up with answers to questions brought up because of the rational mind. Oh, and don't forget we are animals.

Well, we obviously have a diffrance in thiestic and evolution beliefs here so not much a point in going on with the debate...

[nemafakei]

"In logic this known as the fallacy of composition, assuming that just because a whole contains certain parts it is automatically equal as a whole to such parts"

But is in not fair if we understand how the components interact and function to create the effect? Granted, we have yet to work out all the specifics, but we have the vast majority of the theory, and it's now but a question of precise details.

As to the geometry, you've lost me in the bit where you somehow said it was a four-sided trinagle.

[Phage]

But is in not fair if we understand how the components interact and function to create the effect? Granted, we have yet to work out all the specifics, but we have the vast majority of the theory, and it's now but a question of precise details.

As to the geometry, you've lost me in the bit where you somehow said it was a four-sided trinagle.

What I am pointing out is how just because a bunch of parts are not sufficient to create or be something, it doesn't mean they are insufficient as a whole.

For example one dollar does not make someone rich. Does that mean there are no rich people because all they have is a lot of dollars, each dollar not being able to make you rich?

Or to make another example, one cell does not make an arm. That doesn't mean arms don't exist now because they are made of cells. Or computers and parts, take a computer apart and no single part by itself or apart is a comouter.

Many different parts have to be integrated in a certain way to be a computer.

The fallacy of composition is when you ignore this, and simply look at the parts seperated and conclude that since the parts by themselves are limited in some way, the whole is limited in the same way.

Likewise with life, no particle/energy packet by itself that composes life makes something alive, but these particles and energy functioning and integerated in a certain way can.

[nemafakei]

Oh, I see what you mean by it, now. Apologies; I misunderstood.