>>18268322
>is composed of non-life
Explain.

>>18268325
Are carbon atoms alive, anon?

>>18268334
Is the body nothing but carbon atoms?

>>18268351
no, its made up of many other atoms, all of which indeed seems "dead"

>>18268322
>>is composed of non-life
He has a soul which is not made of non-life.

>>18268357
So you can combine a bunch of these atoms together and make a living person?

>>18268357
it's even more bizarre then that a bunch of dead atoms can make music and create other art, or commit hideous acts of evil as well. some atoms I say

>>18268378
>>18268379
yes, multiple different smaller, simpler things can come together to form a more complex larger system above that is greater than the sum of its parts, you see this with basically everything in life
"life" is just a specific stage of that complexity

these very letters and digital bits only have meaning when arranged in a particular pattern to form a sentence

>>18268386
>that is greater than the sum of its parts
How is that possible on a materialist view?

>>18268386
it is never greater than the sum of its parts if it is not alive, it is exactly the sum of it parts, no more, no less

>>18268393
Trivially so.

>>18268396
Opinion discarded.

>>18268393
because arranging things around doesnt add new physical things in the world, it merely creates a new pattern from that arrangement that itself has meaning
>>18268396
my letters to sentence example proved you wrong already

>>18268334
and who told you you are the body?

>>18268402
>my letters to sentence example proved you wrong already
Is a sentence more than the letters it is composed of?

>>18268410
yes, its a writing system that conways meaningful information that only works when the letters are arranged in a specific pattern

>>18268402
>my letters to sentence example proved you wrong already

you sentence existed before the letters and was not created by letters and can exist without the letters, but you are too retarded and autistic to understand that

>>18268448
>you sentence existed before the letters and was not created by letters and can exist without the letters
my specific instance of a sentence that transmitted meaning to you in my comment literally did need the letters in order to do so.

and even the real life sounds a mouth would make to form words instead of symbols like letters follows the same principle of making smaller things come together in a pattern to create a more complex system above

>but you are too retarded and autistic
its quite ironic that you equivocated and misunderstood basic grammar either on purpose or by accident, failing to understand basic human interaction we had there with the category error you made, you know, something that is common with autists
and then failed to understand that even if we take the mouth sounds instead of letters, my point is the same, something only a retard would not see.

>>18268474
you are stupid. your sentence exists only while I am reading it, and that makes me a part of the sum of its parts, and that's quite a bit more than letters on the screen

>>18268440
I didn't ask if you personally felt like the combination of letters was meaningful. I asked whether or not a sentence was composed of more than just letters.

>>18268483
i already said you are not creating physically more things from nothing and definied what life is then
>>18268357
>>18268386

>>18268500
So a living body is more than the physical things of which it is made up?

>>18268502
do you really not understand that there are multiple things and descriptions a single thing can be depending on the context of what is being asked? ill lay it out again
PHYSICALLY humans do seem to be made up of physical material only that on the smallest levels of molecules and below are simple enough that WE classify them as "dead"

when enough of those "dead" simple things come together, they form a larger system above them that exibits more complex behaviour which we chose to call "life" to differentiate it against other things we see that dont have such complex constant chemical behaviour like a "dead" rock on the ground

the extra thing that gets created is not a physical thing itself, its a pattern of new behaviour of that larger system exibits that comes from a particular arrangement of the smaller things in the system, making the system "greater" than the sum of its parts in what it can do without adding more physical matter

>>18268528
>behaviour of that larger system exibits
*that that larger system exibits

>>18268528
>PHYSICALLY humans do seem to be made up of physical material only
So you could theoretically combine physical matter in such a way as to create a living human body, without adding anything non-physical to it?

>>18268535
>So you could theoretically combine physical matter in such a way as to create a living human body, without adding anything non-physical to it?
it seems so
the steel man argument against this would be the hard problem of consciousness, which in in my opinion will also be, for all intents and purposes, solved by AI showcasing that "consciousness" is also simply an emergent behaviour or high enough complexity neuron connections that ultimately come to bring a higher level self awareness that in my opinion is the consciousness

i say for all intents and purposes because one could always simply say that AI is "not really" conscious, but this is also an unfalsifiable assertion that can never be proven, meaning that we have to look at the results, and the results of AI consciousness will be something that can functionally mimic a human completely and then some. meaning that for all intents and purposes its as consciouss as much as any other person in this world who you also dont have direct access into to know and truly prove that they are also "truly" consciouss.

>>18268555
So if I brought you a dead human body, you would be able to bring it to life? Are you a necromancer?

>>18268562
i answered the question that began with
>So you could theoretically

now you are asking about it practically. no, obviously we dont have the technology currently to revive all dead

>>18268566
>obviously we dont have the technology currently to revive all dead
But at some point in the future we will be able to do so, without adding anything, since there is no physical difference between a dead body and a living body?

>>18268583
the dead body loses energy and material so we would need to add things back and cant just rearrange a carcass
and one's brain would lose information inside it like memories very quickly basically permanently, without being able to scan every atom within a specific 3d space or something like that and save a snapshot of someone's exact brain, that person would be lost forever anyway

and of course even if we could do that, and also bring every atom back perfectly afterwards, that wouldnt be the exact same person, it would be a clone, given that the chain of conscious experience was broken

>>18268600
>the dead body loses energy and material so we would need to add things back
So if you added exactly the same amount of lost energy and material to a dead body with some future technology, you could transform it into a living body?

>>18268379
>look the trees bro

>>18268613
if you could perfectly add everything back in the exact amount in the exact locations, yes

>>18268623
So what is the difference between a dead body that has everything a living body would have, and a living body?

>>18268629
a "dead body that literally has everything a living body has", is literally the same thing as and would be called a living body