@Pathfinder,
OH boy...I was afraid that might happen . . . English problems again . . . OK Pathfinder, I'll try to see if I can word things differently so as to not cause so much confusion--
I mean, I do know well, that not all of us here are equally adapt to the English language; my bad, and I apologize for that.
Pathfinder;85308 wrote:
. . . but you do not know the brain's one most important task because you have not been able to put it under a microscope or poke it with your little pointy thang.
You do understand, I hope, Pathfinder, that by wording this as you have, you are simultaneously signifying that you have some knowledge which I do not, even if that knowledge is simply the knowledge of knowing that there is something I do not yet know about some '
most important task which the brain (something which you have very clearly shown to have almost no working knowledge of) has. In the event that you feel you have some knowledge about what the '
the most important task that the brain has' is, then please do explain that so that I may look it over and test it.
Pathfinder;85308 wrote:First of all, you say the life force of a thing is THAT which has to be working on a thing before it is alive instead of dead. Do you see what happens to a great intellect when they step out of their field. What kind of foolish blather is that? 'the life force of a thing is THAT which has to be working',,what the heck is THAT? if we could know what THAT is, we would all know the secret behind life wouldn't we.
Here is my precise wording again:
[indent]
KaseiJin;85274 wrote:And allow me to point out here, that
that which could be defined as 'life force,' or 'spark of life,' if you will [and an interesting note on this can be found
here],
is that which will have to be working on all living things--as opposed to non-living things. It is a fact that that aspect is not consciousness (as per general definition/description being used for the purpose of this thead), because even the neuron cells in the petri dish which inner connect and form a synapsed structure having been put in there, in no way give us consciousness--
yet they are most evidently full of the force of life (or life force, or spark of life) (
and of course, a spleen or even a heart, do not give us consciousness, nor memory).
(bold and color added)[/indent]
Firstly, in dealing with the blue bold clause. Here are some examples of this style:
[indent]
He had discovered that that which could be gathered in the mountain streams is that which his mother had used in the recipe.
No one had imagined that that which she had wanted to say had been that which could have saved their lives.
Let me point out that that which is hydrophobic is that which will have to be undissolvable in water [/indent]
You see, the word '
that,' is a pointer; kind of like an object pronoun. It is the reduced form (or 'fill in') similar to the word '
it' in the short phrase, '
It is time to start now..' There is nothing strange about this usage at all--although you may not be familiar with it so much. Anyway, as I said, I'll see if I can try to make less involved sentences (but it may be a bit hard . . . as in time consuming?)
Then, in looking over the green underline phrasal verb, '
work on,' we'll see that this usage is about the best we can use at the moment (in English). We have a 'force' or a 'spark,' as has been used even by you, yourself, Pathfinder. In English we can, and do, say that a force works on things, as in the following examples:
[indent]
The tides worked on the soft chalk rock face until the names which had been carved there so long ago, by lovers long forgotten, had been totally lost to even history.
Her love worked on the lives of all, and after years of effortless exhibits of altruism, changed the very fabric of society there Really, need I go on?[/indent]
Pathfinder;85308 wrote:Next you attempt to reveal what THAT is by declaring this THAT,( the secret behind life), is not consciouness because the cells in a petrie dish which are full of THAT have no consciousness. Full of THAT?
This is simply a careless mistake--
my students often fall victims of such. The only thing we have to do here, Pathfinder, is plug in the noun clause '
the force of life for every 'THAT.' Then we have:
[indent] Next you attempt to reveal what the force of life is by declaring this force of life,( the secret behind life), is not consciouness because the cells in a petrie [sic] dish which are full of the force of life have no consciousness. Full of the force of life? [/indent]
Pathfinder;85308 wrote:Finally you point out how the heart and spleen are not life forms.
How on earth . . . no, really, how in all possible parallel universes did you ever get that out of what I had written. Please, print out that post of mine, read over it more than twice, thinking carefully about phrasing and collocation of thoughts in paragraphing all along, and tell me if I didn't simply point out that :
[indent](1) The spleen is an organ.
(2) The heart is an organ.
(3) The brain is an organ.
(4) All organs have the force of life working on them, and thus are living tissue.
(5) The spleen does not result in consciousness, nor memory (as per brain).
(6) The heart does not result in conciousness, nor memory (as per brain).
(7) The brain does result in consciousness, and has memory (as relates to consciousness in cognition). [/indent]
I will, if need be, explain your further errors in another post, Pathfinder. For now, I at least entertain the hope that perhaps you just
may be able to catch a reflection of introspective-like meditation that will help in your being able to see where you have erred.
While I appreciate your having taken caution, in possibly insulting me in some way or another (and I'm being honest here, as always), trust me, I feel none--
for how can I, when it is simply error that is obstructing your linguistically embodied emotions? Although, once again, I'll see about trying to word things more simply. Thanks for your input. KJ
