3 ms·
The thing is, people don't realize this argument fully. If you are to accept that life could take countless forms, most which we could never recognize or begin
by Rury 4y ago
The thing is, people don't realize this argument fully. If you are to accept that life could take countless forms, most which we could never recognize or begin to understand, then it's quite possible rocks are lifeforms, as we don't recognize them as life now nor understand how they could be living. Since most people seemingly don't like the argument that rocks are living, then this shows that this argument (along with others) is flawed with very definition that they want "life" to have.
- andsoitis 4y ago> quite possible rocks are lifeforms Humans are closer to fungi than rocks are to life.
- Rury 4y agoThis statement has nothing to do with what I am saying.
- andsoitis 4y agoTo posit that rocks are quite possibly life forms takes the meaning out of what we mean when we say “life”.
- Rury 4y agoThat's my point, and by extension, to say that life could take forms that we don't even understand, is flawed, because what life means is whatever definition we want to give it. Do we not understand our own definitions?
- andsoitis 4y agoRight. I’m doubling down on your point. We’re singing in chorus.
- cogs 4y agoWe managed to recognise stromatolites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite
- bufferoverflow 4y agoHave you ever seen rocks do anything interesting? I don't mean outside forces acting on rocks, but rocks themselves?