The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
As of today, not even an insect or bacteria went farther than the Moon, which seems crazy!
Why wouldn't it be one of the first things to test whether Earth life is possible farther away from Earth and for example, considering the planned Mars mission in 2035, beyond Mars?
Humans (people at NASA, in Russia's space agency etc.) never even considered that life may be bound to a proximity to Earth, or a region around the Sun!
Humans (which includes top scientists) appear to naturally presume that life has a 'start' in time that is somehow relevant to life in its actuality. I.e., that life is something that an individual can possess because of it, and for example, something that one can take with him/her during space travel.
What would be the basis for the idea that life started at some point in time and is passed on like a fire?
Since there is no evidence for the origin of life, one is to make an assumption. From that perspective it seems logical to question whether it would be valid to assume that life is something independent from the Solar system. But for some reason, no one has done so until today (2021).
Is there at least one clue that life is independent from the Solar system?
It appears logical that the Sun may be the giver of life and the Neutrino particle or "Ghost Particle" may be the origin of life.
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
As it appears, philosophy has been increasingly suppressed to a level comparable with that of religions.
Some recent perspectives on philosophy by scientists at a forum of a University in England (Cambridge):
When science is practiced autonomously and it intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the 'knowing' of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it apparently is not.Naked Scientist forum wrote:Philosophy is bunk.
...
You may describe philosophy as a search for knowledge and truth. That is indeed vanity. Science is about the acquisition of knowledge, and most scientists avoid the use of "truth", preferring "repeatability" as more in line with our requisite humility in the face of observation.
...
Philosophers always pretend that their work is important and fundamental. It isn't even consistent. You can't build science on a rickety, shifting, arbitrary foundation. It is arguable that Judaeo-Christianity catalysed the development of science by insisting that there is a rational plan to the universe, but we left that idea behind a long time ago because there is no evidence for it.
...
Philosophy never provided a solution. But it has obstructed the march of science and the growth of understanding.
...
Philosophy is a retrospective discipline, trying to extract something that philosophers consider important from what scientists have done (not what scientists think - scientific writing is usually intellectually dishonest!). Science is a process, not a philosophy. Even the simplest linguistics confirms this: we "do" science, nobody "does" philosophy.
...
Science is no more or less than the application of the process of observe, hypothesise, test, repeat. There's no suggestion of belief, philosophy or validity, any more than there is in the rules of cricket or the instructions on a bottle of shampoo: it's what distinguishes cricket from football, and how we wash hair. The value of science is in its utility. Philosophy is something else.
...
Philosophers have indeed determined the best path forward for humanity. Every religion, communism, free market capitalism, Nazism, indeed every ism under the sun, all had their roots in philosophy, and have led to everlasting conflict and suffering. A philosopher can only make a living by disagreeing with everyone else, so what do you expect?
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 - We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
It shows the path that science has pursued as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy with as a consequence that the scope of evolution of ideas for research and exploration has increasingly been restricted to the 'empirical', with as a result that humans in 2021 assumed that they would suffice with some Earth / Moon based testing to conclude that they can safely explore the Solar system and are already investing trillions of USD for a mission to Mars in 2035.The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime - which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master" - what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.
...
in the end, however, one must learn caution even with regard to one's gratitude, and put a stop to the exaggeration with which the unselfing and depersonalizing of the spirit has recently been celebrated, as if it were the goal in itself, as if it were salvation and glorification - as is especially accustomed to happen in the pessimist school, which has also in its turn good reasons for paying the highest honours to "disinterested knowledge" The objective man, who no longer curses and scolds like the pessimist, the IDEAL man of learning in whom the scientific instinct blossoms forth fully after a thousand complete and partial failures, is assuredly one of the most costly instruments that exist, but his place is in the hand of one who is more powerful He is only an instrument, we may say, he is a MIRROR - he is no "purpose in himself"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
And there is no certainty, in practice, for a human, therefore philosophy is essential. QED.
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
Are you asking about "animals" or other living things. I do not think it crazy since we only want to know about humans , but generally what is good for us is also needed for other living things - conditions that pertain on the planet earth, which we know about without having to carry unnecessary animals or other living thing.
As to distances travelled. It is probably that bacteria were on Voyager and may still be on Voyager in a dormant form.
Dogs have made it to orbit, but as far as other thing are concerned only accidentallyviruses and bacteria may have been taken hither through the Solar system. Only time will tell.
It would be a bad test. Insects need food, water and air. It is easier to simulate Mars' atmosphere and conditions to test living things her on earth, that to take them all the way there, which would be absurdly expensive.
Why wouldn't it be one of the first things to test whether Earth life is possible farther away from Earth and for example, considering the planned Mars mission in 2035, beyond Mars?
I hope that answers your question.
Yes they have, They even have a pet name for it. They call the biozone the Goldilock's zone; not too hot; not too cold.
Humans (people at NASA, in Russia's space agency etc.) never even considered that life may be bound to a proximity to Earth, or a region around the Sun!
Puzzled why you don't like this idea.Humans (which includes top scientists) appear to naturally presume that life has a 'start' in time that is somehow relevant to life in its actuality. I.e., that life is something that an individual can possess because of it, and for example, something that one can take with him/her during space travel.
Possibly because it does not make much sense. When you use a metaphor it's usually a good idea to rather say what you actually mean.
What would be the basis for the idea that life started at some point in time and is passed on like a fire?
The existence of life on earth is evidence that it had a beginning. Things work like that. The fact that you have a coffee cup nearby is evidence that the cup was formed at some point in the past.
Since there is no evidence for the origin of life, one is to make an assumption.
People have been thinking about this for a long time. SETI project; Drake Equation. Science Fiction has been speculating on this for 150 years
From that perspective it seems logical to question whether it would be valid to assume that life is something independent from the Solar system. But for some reason, no one has done so until today (2021).
All the evidence of life ATM is reserved to the planet earth.
Is there at least one clue that life is independent from the Solar system?
It appears logical that the Sun may be the giver of life and the Neutrino particle or "Ghost Particle" may be the origin of life.
No. Except that all matter in the Solar system had the same origin. The Sun can only hand out death, not life.
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
The question is of course regarding the distance from Earth as part of a scientific test, to know whether Earth life is able to 'stay alive' at a further distance from Earth, and for example, beyond Mars.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2021, 8:22 amAre you asking about "animals" or other living things. I do not think it crazy since we only want to know about humans , but generally what is good for us is also needed for other living things - conditions that pertain on the planet earth, which we know about without having to carry unnecessary animals or other living thing.
As to distances travelled. It is probably that bacteria were on Voyager and may still be on Voyager in a dormant form.
Dogs have made it to orbit, but as far as other thing are concerned only accidentallyviruses and bacteria may have been taken hither through the Solar system. Only time will tell.
What has become evident from the replies on diverse fora, including Quora, is that not even a bacteria went farther than the Moon (as part of a test).
From a philosophical perspective it may be of interest.
What is the reason that until 2021, people (including top scientists) appear to be convinced without doubt that they 'own' life on an individual level and can take it with them, for example for deep space travel, or at least to live on Mars by 2035?
Did the people behind movies such as Star Trek and Star Wars ever consider the question whether it is plausible to assume that Earth life is independent from the Solar system? It may be interesting to discover an answer to that question for the future of humanity / philosophical advancement (especially regarding its potential for improvement).
Then, why wasn't it tested in 90 years time (since 1934, the first man in space)?
What is the reason that one can justifiably believe that Earth life would suffice with food, water and air, i.e. that life is like a fire that just needs to be fed? What is the origin of that idea and why is it accepted as if it would be nonsensical to consider anything else?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2021, 8:22 am It would be a bad test. Insects need food, water and air. It is easier to simulate Mars' atmosphere and conditions to test living things her on earth, that to take them all the way there, which would be absurdly expensive.
I hope that answers your question.
A test with a satellite wouldn't need to be difficult or costly. A square space can create a dream environment for many bacteria and 🕷. The satellite can even return to Earth to provide the animals with the opportunity to live healthily.
Yes, but that merely regards temperature. When it concerns the origin of life, it appears that no one considered that the origin of life may be bound to a region around the Sun.
Well, that would not matter. Perhaps the idea is valid. At question is why one would assume it as if it is nonsensical to consider otherwise.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2021, 8:22 amPuzzled why you don't like this idea.Humans (which includes top scientists) appear to naturally presume that life has a 'start' in time that is somehow relevant to life in its actuality. I.e., that life is something that an individual can possess because of it, and for example, something that one can take with him/her during space travel.
As for a reason why the idea may not be plausible.
The idea that life is like a fire that just requires some 'food, water and air' and that it is something that one can take with him/her on space travel, would imply that life would be like a physical property or bound to a context of causality in which it would need to find independence (i.e. have a physical origin), which is absurd.
As my footnote indicates, if life would have such an origin, there would be no reason to exist. Anything that life 'could' become within the scope of causality would have to have been known beforehand so that there is no reason to even start.
The metaphor indicates that the idea that life's actuality originates from an 'event in time' may be less logical than one had thought. When one is to consider life as a fire with a start in time, one could wonder how such a concept could logically result in ones human conscious experience. Would a fire like concept truly be capable of explaining such a phenomenon?
On the outlook, it may be more logical that life requires an 'actual' origin, and perhaps a very powerful one.
Then one could ask the question: is there at least one clue that life is independent from the Solar system (meaning: that one can 'take' life with him/her, for example for space travel?)
Based on this consideration, it appears logical to at least include the Sun, or perhaps even the core of the Earth, as potential origin of life until proven otherwise, and thus, to test whether Earth life can remain 'alive' further away from Earth.
No, that is not a sound assumption when it concerns life's actuality. Causality as a concept can be made evident but I do not see any logical ground that causality can explain conscious experience, and thus life's actuality.
That remains to be seen.
It is estimated that 10 trillion Neutrinos fly through every square centimeter of space per second, this includes underground and on the dark side of Earth. From that perspective, the Neutrino-biological cell theory of mind / life may be plausible.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
This does not change what I said.arjand wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2021, 3:20 pmThe question is of course regarding the distance from Earth as part of a scientific test, to know whether Earth life is able to 'stay alive' at a further distance from Earth, and for example, beyond Mars.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2021, 8:22 amAre you asking about "animals" or other living things. I do not think it crazy since we only want to know about humans , but generally what is good for us is also needed for other living things - conditions that pertain on the planet earth, which we know about without having to carry unnecessary animals or other living thing.
As to distances travelled. It is probably that bacteria were on Voyager and may still be on Voyager in a dormant form.
Dogs have made it to orbit, but as far as other thing are concerned only accidentallyviruses and bacteria may have been taken hither through the Solar system. Only time will tell.
This does not change what I said. Since we can more easily provide the condition of anywhere in the Solar system in laboratoiry conditions
What has become evident from the replies on diverse fora, including Quora, is that not even a bacteria went farther than the Moon (as part of a test).
Who says they "own" life. Please cite!
From a philosophical perspective it may be of interest.
What is the reason that until 2021, people (including top scientists) appear to be convinced without doubt that they 'own' life on an individual level and can take it with them, for example for deep space travel, or at least to live on Mars by 2035?
I do not think this relavant, yet it is obvious that they did. Most writers of Sci-fi do that. Even the makers of that awful Star Wars had ETs in their scripts
Did the people behind movies such as Star Trek and Star Wars ever consider the question whether it is plausible to assume that Earth life is independent from the Solar system?
Most scientists think that life exists somehwere else in the UNiverse based on it massive size.It may be interesting to discover an answer to that question for the future of humanity / philosophical advancement (especially regarding its potential for improvement).
The first man in space was not 1934. I would suggest that before you bring these questions to a forum, you might be better served doing some basic research yourself. I find it puzzling how such a simple error of fact could be held by any person on earth. Uri Gagarin (1961) was the first man in space; Leika was the first dog(1957) Valentina Tereshkova (1963) was the first woman in space. Numerous experiments on living things have been carried out on living things in Space Stations orbiting the earth.
No.
Try and live without shelter and water in Death Valley for a few days
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
Your argument is that bacteria and viruses may 'accidentally' have been taken hither through the Solar system, and that they may provide answers in the future when they return to Earth. Further, you argue that humans will only need to know whether humans can travel in space.
The question is essentially: why wasn't it tested?
As it appears, the empirical nature of Science has resulted in a dogma that is so strong that humans in 2021 didn't even consider to test whether Earth life is possible at a further distance from Earth.
The Big Bang theory for example is 'religiously protected'. I was almost banned on forums.space.com for addressing the subject that the Big Bang theory is considered a religion by an increasing amount of scientists.
The Big Bang theory appears to be a highly sensitive subject in the space community that results in 'suppression' attempts.
There were already many serious replies that addressed the content.Sabine Hossenfelder wrote:Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics: You will find the three main problems of the Big Bang theory religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.
One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?
I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.
There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.
The post was deleted for 'religious content'.moderator wrote:This thread has runs its course. Thank you to those who contributed. Closing now.
My post did not contain religious content. Thread: Big Bang theory a religion?
The Big Bang theory lays at the root of the idea that life is something that can be explained within the scope of causality.
Space movies such as Star Trek are also based on the assumption that life is something that can be 'owned' on an individual level, for example to allow deep space travel.
At question in this topic:
What is the origin of the idea that life is like a fire that is 'owned' on an individual level and why isn't that idea officially questioned to such an extent that it would have resulted in a test whether Earth life is possible further away from Earth?
I do not agree that that idea is valid.
When humans believe that they can take life with them, for example for deep space travel or to live on Mars, then essentially they believe that they 'own' life on an individual level.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 24th, 2021, 5:12 amWho says they "own" life. Please cite!From a philosophical perspective it may be of interest.
What is the reason that until 2021, people (including top scientists) appear to be convinced without doubt that they 'own' life on an individual level and can take it with them, for example for deep space travel, or at least to live on Mars by 2035?
At question would be: what is the origin of that idea?
What about life's actuality? Do you believe that life's actuality is based on a cause in time? If so, what is the basis for that idea?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 24th, 2021, 5:12 amMost scientists think that life exists somehwere else in the UNiverse based on it massive size.It may be interesting to discover an answer to that question for the future of humanity / philosophical advancement (especially regarding its potential for improvement).
Yes, you are correct. 1934 is the birth date of Yuri Gagarin who visited space in 1961 (I made a mistake by copying the date displayed in Google search ).Sculptor1 wrote: ↑June 24th, 2021, 5:12 am The first man in space was not 1934. I would suggest that before you bring these questions to a forum, you might be better served doing some basic research yourself. I find it puzzling how such a simple error of fact could be held by any person on earth. Uri Gagarin (1961) was the first man in space; Leika was the first dog(1957) Valentina Tereshkova (1963) was the first woman in space. Numerous experiments on living things have been carried out on living things in Space Stations orbiting the earth.
Thus: no one has figured to test whether Earth life is possible at a further distance from Earth in 60 years time, which is still a considerable amount of time.
Equally one can argue: look at plants and the oxygen that they produce, by which the human can breathe. A recent study has shown that rocks on earth developed the first photosynthesis by which the earth obtained oxygen that enabled life to arise. It started hundreds of millions of years before the first organic life forms existed.
(2021) Non-classical photosynthesis by earth's inorganic semiconducting minerals
Our work in this new research field on the mechanisms of interaction between light, minerals, and life reveals that minerals and organisms are actually inseparable. ... producing hydrogen and oxygen from water
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-non-class ... cting.html
The origin of oxygen and life enabling processes on early Earth is the Sun.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
I am not making either of these arguments.arjand wrote: ↑June 24th, 2021, 9:49 amYour argument is that bacteria and viruses may 'accidentally' have been taken hither through the Solar system, and that they may provide answers in the future when they return to Earth. Further, you argue that humans will only need to know whether humans can travel in space.
As I said, you really need to understand space explorations better. None of this stuff is returning, except orbital missions.
The essential question is what is the "it" in your sentence.
The question is essentially: why wasn't it tested?
Where does this appear. Please cite
As it appears, the empirical nature of Science has resulted in a dogma that is so strong that humans in 2021 didn't even consider to test whether Earth life is possible at a further distance from Earth.
Why not?
What is the origin of the idea that life is like a fire that is 'owned' on an individual level and why isn't that idea officially questioned to such an extent that it would have resulted in a test whether Earth life is possible further away from Earth?
I do not agree that that idea is valid.
I have no idea what you are driving at here.
What's your point?
Equally one can argue: look at plants and the oxygen that they produce, by which the human can breathe. A recent study has shown that rocks on earth developed the first photosynthesis by which the earth obtained oxygen that enabled life to arise. It started hundreds of millions of years before the first organic life forms existed.
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
Then, why was it never tested whether Earth life can remain alive at a further distance from Earth, and for example deeper within the Solar system?
it = whether Earth life is able to remain alive at a further distance from Earth, and for example deeper within the Solar system.
At question is: why wouldn't it be one of the first things to test?
Philosophy may have had a key role in this since (most likely) the reason that it was never tested is to be found in the general perspective on life and the idea that life is like a fire that is 'owned' on an individual level.
It is merely an assumption. What else could explain that it was never tested?
Well, for one, the idea that life is like a fire that is owned on an individual level (if that would be the reason why it was never tested) would imply that causality would need to find its origin on an individual level and a human life would need to be predetermined towards its environment, which is absurd.
From this perspective, it is most logical in my opinion that the idea that life is like a fire is ought to be questioned to such an extent that it would have been resulted in a test as soon as humans were capable of accessing space (and especially when humans became capable of launching +100,000 satellites for diverse tests).
There are two options:
1) life has a 'start' in time by which it derives actuality
2) life derives 'actuality' from an external factor (outside the scope of the individual)
With life's actuality is meant 'conscious experience'.
As my logic has indicated regarding causality requiring an origin on the individual level with option 1, by which life would need to be predetermined toward the environment, which would be absurd, option 2 appears to be most logical.
In the case of option 2, life cannot originate on the level of an individual. This is difficult to comprehend but it is most logical in my opinion.
That life may not be as 'accidental' as it may appear and that the Sun has played a big part in making Earth a livable place.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
You do realise, I hope, that humans have been to the moon? The rest of space is no different. It is dangerous. The sum produces dangerous emissions that risk the life of all space travellers.
Something they did not realise until they went to the moon, Astronuats experienced radiation,
As I said, you really need to understand space explorations better.
As long as you have life support, it gets safer the further you are from the sun. But the further out you travel the colder it gets. No planet can sustain human life without life support.
This is all public knoweldge.
As I said, you really need to understand space explorations better.
At question is: why wouldn't it be one of the first things to test?
This makes no sense to me.
Philosophy may have had a key role in this since (most likely) the reason that it was never tested is to be found in the general perspective on life and the idea that life is like a fire that is 'owned' on an individual level.
Are you reading me?.... Over!
It is merely an assumption. What else could explain that it was never tested?
This makes no sense to me.
Well, for one, the idea that life is like a fire that is owned on an individual level (if that would be the reason why it was never tested) would imply that causality would need to find its origin on an individual level and a human life would need to be predetermined towards its environment, which is absurd.
This makes no sense to me.
From this perspective, it is most logical in my opinion that the idea that life is like a fire is ought to be questioned to such an extent that it would have been resulted in a test as soon as humans were capable of accessing space (and especially when humans became capable of launching +100,000 satellites for diverse tests).
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
What is the fundamental theory of the idea that humans would explore the Universe as is displayed in the series Star Trek and Star Wars?
It is the idea that life is like a fire that is 'owned' on an individual level so that one can take life with him/her during space travel.
Some scientists are wondering: why is Earth and its Solar system not crowded with alien visitors?
As of today (2021), the farthest distance that an animal, insect or bacteria has traveled in space is the Moon and meanwhile trillions of USD are already invested for a manned mission to Mars in 2030.
The whole endeavor is based on the idea that life is like a fire that humans just take with them wherever they go.
Science it’s dogmatic influence has resulted in a such a repression that it was never considered that Earth life may be bound to a region around the Sun.
The post-war era is considered to be an ‘anti-philosophy’ era in which philosophy was increasingly placed on a level comparable with that of religions. In a sense, while science originates from philosophy, science has attempted to overcome philosophy and intended to rid itself of any influence of philosophy, which includes morality.
Philosophy naturally would have posed the following questions:
- Is there at least one clue that Earth life is independent from the Solar system?
- On what basis is it valid to consider that life is like a fire that one can take with him/her during space travel?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7096
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
No. Life is not fire.psyreporter wrote: ↑August 28th, 2021, 5:50 amWhat is the fundamental theory of the idea that humans would explore the Universe as is displayed in the series Star Trek and Star Wars?
It is the idea that life is like a fire that is 'owned' on an individual level so that one can take life with him/her during space travel.
Fire is fire. It is destructive. Life is constructive. It could not be more different
- psyreporter
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
For example, to live on Mars. What is the basis for the idea that Earth life can maintain itself without a problem on Mars?
Or one step further (since Mars is relatively close to Earth): to visit the Kuiper Belt with a space ship to do research. What is the basis for the idea that that is possible when it concerns 'life'?
- Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD
- Posts: 230
- Joined: December 14th, 2023, 6:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA
- Location: Zürich, Switzerland
- Contact:
Re: The idea that life is passed on like a 🔥 fire
In my scientific opinion: Life is a sexually transmitted fatal disease.psyreporter wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2021, 2:04 am
What would be the basis for the idea that life started at some point in time and is passed on like a fire?
Dr. Bernardo Kastrup — “Materialism is baloney!!!”
Youtube. com/watch?v=FcPyTgLILqA
Dr. Jonathan Österman, Ph.D., ETH Zürich, Switzerland
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023