每日吃瓜

Gnarlwood wrote: It depends what you consider dead Leatherback.

Nope. It is not what I consider dead. You claimed it would not be dead, scientifically. And there is a very clear definition of dead or alive used in science.

As for phylosphically: You were jumping through hoops just there. You seem to mix "in existence" and "Being alive" as one and the same thing. They are not. The bonsai may be in existence, possibly in another morphological state. But it will be very much dead, unless you consider the philosphy of being alive through memory.

Hmmm this subject really eats at you.

I dont see what the big deal is.

Think of it this way, what is death? It's change. The plant breaks down and is reassimilated elsewhere. So in a sense it lives on, just not in the shape or form you remember.

this could be a standard philosofical thread.
and every time the subject 'dies'. (oh irony)

well i think that a part of a plant never dies, unless he suddenly gets killed, but assuming he will live for a certain time without trouble, it will make seeds/ways to reproduce and in general it will never die, the tree drops seeds, the seed grows and becomes a tree, again it drops it's seeds so a part of those trees will keep on living.

please, if you see a grammatical error, please tell me, i want my english to stay as good as i can.

You seem to get it pretty good.

You're english though: subject 'dies' you dont need apostrophes after subject or dies.

Gnarlwood wrote: You seem to get it pretty good.

You're english though: subject 'dies' you dont need apostrophes after subject or dies.

i ment to do that, because it cannot die and also it was ment to be a joke and ironic, that's why.

Don't fully agree. Yes, in a way it will not die, because of its seeds that become new trees. But that would be the same with people, a part of us (men: sperm, women: ovum, genetic material) will live when we die.

Do we say a part of us will be living forever, that's a no for me, but other people can think it in a different way. So I think when a tree dies, it will be gone, I agree with Gnarlwood that the tree will be broken down and used as 'material' for other living organisms, but I don't call that 'living', it's just how you see it and how you call it.

every thing is false AND right, i say. give me one example in which all humans agree with, not many, but that gives us philosophy and debate

but in any way about death and life, i think that the energy will always remain in balance, if not the nature will try to do so, in other words i see some things in ying yang, including this matter.

Nicely said Youri. This thread is getting too much for me. I simply consider it dead when it dies. Botanically, scientifically, what ever you want to call it, it is dead. Living does not have any scientific links to energy, and if you wish to think so, then yes it is still living. > just my 2 cents

MWid wrote: Nicely said Youri. This thread is getting too much for me. I simply consider it dead when it dies. Botanically, scientifically, what ever you want to call it, it is dead. Living does not have any scientific links to energy, and if you wish to think so, then yes it is still living. > just my 2 cents

nice purely scientific opinion here

It comes down to a universal life force that resides in living organisms. I have theories on that but I'm sure everyone would begin chewing on their bonsai out of pain after reading them. So I'll stop at that.


My next post will deal with 每日吃瓜 and the World Today

I'm hoping to discuss how this artform allows you to escape from the rather violent and turbulant world we're living in today.