Am I right in thinking that all living beings are light's energy in a different form?
Plants grow via photosynthesis, buy converting the energy from light into fuel. And animals then eat plants, converting the energy from plants into fuel etc.
Is anything added to the conversion? Or are all living beings light's energy?
There are some bacteria that don't use the Sun's energy, for example around volcanic vents in the deep ocean. So the food chains based on them (basically worms that graze on the bacterial mats) get all their energy from the internal heat of the Earth (a combination of the residual heat of its formation topped up with radioactive decay.)
Also consider the fact that all the stuff/matter of life/the Earth etc is formed within and then distributed via dying stars. So not only is 99% of life a result of our own suns actions but all the matter that constitutes our planet is the result of previous stars death throes.
It's no surprise that sun worship was and arguably still is (dependent on your interpretations of certain religious texts) an intrinsic part of the greater human psyche.
>>3448 It's been used ironically several times before, and so it was this time, can I be unbanned now? I don't think anyone who uses 'intensive purposes' legitimately would know that life on earth originates from the sun's energy...
>>3450 Well that's all a bit philosophical and semantic really. Personally I would say that yes, it's surely pretty clear that life isn't separate from the universe. How could it be? It exists and is spawned within it.
I'd also agree that it's fair to say it's an extension of it, but when you get into words like "expression" it starts to muddy the waters a bit and maybe implies some sort of underlying consciousness or will. Maybe you didn't mean that at all though which is why I mentioned the semantic aspect of it.
I do think it's quite a nice way to look at things though, that we are the universes sense organs, a way for it to perceive itself etc etc. That is all pretty well trodden metaphysical ground though, even Bill Hicks had a bloody bit about it.
Anyway, I'm sure there are probably some more rationally minded materialist scientifically inclined headbods who would take issue with that line of thinking.
For myself I think it's a nice way to look at things but it's easy to fall into lazy new age thinking that way and I'm inclined to always keep a sceptical eye on my own thought processes. I think when you get into these sorts of areas then they're not really scientific questions anyway.
Would like to hear other people's perspectives though. Sorry for the ramble, I've had a glass of red and a valium.
