zsars wrote:
> mark wrote:
>> Noon-Air wrote:
>>> "Midwinter" <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9A99EA9496588CCYPMNDEXHBCJOIU@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> zsars <zsars@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
<snip>
>> And anarchists all want to destroy anything resembling a government,
and
>> Jews eat Christian babiies.
>>
>> Do you *religiously* believe in gravity? The burden of proof is on the
>> believer to give an unbiased person a reason to believe in something
that
>> they have no physical proof for.
>>
>> Personally, I'm what you might call a fundamentalist Pagan... I'm a
>> Lovelockian. (Researching the Lovelock Hypothesis is left as an
exercise
>> for the student.) To me, from what we know scientifically, it's pretty
>> close to a point of view, like the pictures ("is it a woman in front of
a
>> mirror, or a skull? Is it a goblet, or two people facing each other?).
I
>> chose Lovelock's view. That, of course, makes me a true polytheist,
since
>> every planet in the universe with a biosphere has its own deity.
>>
> Interesting. But, to me it seems flawed. If an organism reacts to
> another organism or it's surroundings in a way natural to it (which is
> most likely), that doesn't make the interaction itself an organism.
Ah, this is not the same. Remember that in a closed system, and the
Earth's
biosphere is a mostly closed system (except for sunlight), everything
doesn't merely interact, but is biochemically interdependent.
> Companies have been studied for the way they 'grow' and 'evolve' and how
> they can mimic a living group, but it doesn't make the company itself
> alive, even with all the living members that comprise the company. It
Hey, the law in the US calls 'em "artifical persons",
> does, however, show that there is a way of interaction that would
> indicate life. So, any place that exhibits these traits, probably has
> life in it.
Except for what's between the ears of Republicans.....
mark
|
