Yes it does. Because it allows for a change in our perception of reality in one fundamental way. If, in fact consciousness was the basis for all there is, then it opens up the possibility for an existence beyond the grave.
Nothing. You mentioned Braden, I linked to a review of Braden's book.
Indeed, not if it knocked me unconscious.
Oh, I didn't say I would knock you out. Just hit you in the head.
So? Aren't you conscious now? Aren't you when I hit you with the brick?
David Swidler
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2005
- Messages
- 8,297
Goddammit, Claus! Watch where you throw that thing! There are other people in this thread besides you and Iacchus, you know!
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
Nothing? Well, since you mentioned review, here's a review of my book.
If I shot you with a gun would you bleed? Well, not if it was a squirt gun!
Of course.
Not if it hit me hard enough to where I didn't know what hit me. Hmm ...
Last edited:
If they get the source wrong, then yes I would call whatever show was broadcast on Public Television unreliable. Not everything on PBS is the standard of journalism excellence. As you yourself pointed out, there are some woo programs there. And if you think a collection of dictionary and encyclopedia entries is an "original source" you are sadly mistaken. I'm not attempting to refute it, I am demanding that YOU show that YOUR evidence was not made out of whole cloth.
In any case, want to discuss matter? Fine. Matter as far as anyone can tell is mostly empty space. There is a lot of space between electrons and the nucleus. When you touch something what you feel is not the matter, but the EM repulsion.
Last edited:
Of course I'm not denying that the "physical" sensations we experience are real, just that they originate from some other place than we think they do. Which is to say, there is "some-thing" on the other side of matter that holds things together.
Last edited:
What, do you want it straight from horse's mouth? I'm afraid I can't help you there. I already spent 2-3 hours trying to find a source. That's not good enough?
So, what is the relation between matter and energy then?
You don't think that the physical experience you felt by hitting with a brick came from matter?
Nope. Something that has a date and location, and maybe even the whole speech would be great. I don't know if this is a quote from Max Plank or from Max Power.
E=mc2
Does water have a tendency to turn into ice when it gets cold enough? So, what is matter then? Is it strictly matter or, the solidification of something else?
What are you talking about??
Answer the question: Did the pain come from matter, yes or no?
Well, perhaps we should let other folks decide? It is plastered all over the Internet you see and, you would think that if there was some great mistake about him ever having said this, then that would be there too. And thus far I have seen no such thing. So, if you would like to continue with this (whether or not he said it in his acceptance speech which, is the only real contention here), perhaps you would like to continue it in the other thread?
Yes, you have just defined (according to the symbolism) what energy is. So, what is matter in relation to energy then? Are you suggesting matter is but a subset of energy?
I did not continue in the other thread because you are again using the same quote in this one. Just because you create a new thread that does not mean your evidence somehow is no longer up for discussion.
Not in the slightest. Here:
m=E/c2
No, pain comes from the conscious ability to experience pain. So, before we ask what rocks and bricks can do, perhaps we should ask about what consciousness can do ... and, moreover, where is its source?
Last edited:
Well, it sounds to me like you have to decide which thread you wish to discuss it in then, because I see no point in discussing it further ... in this thread.
Yet you are merely dividing the energy in order to achieve the mass.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
We're going to have this conversation forever, aren't we?
The world is full of "stuff" that has various properties and attributes. It doesn't matter what you call the stuff. It doesn't even matter if you divide the stuff in two or more classes. The taxonomy of the stuff has no bearing on its properties and attributes.
Trying to decide what stuff actually is will prove even more frustrating than trying to define species.
Iacchus, if you want one sort of stuff, say thought, to be the fundamental stuff, and some other sort of stuff, say material, to be subordinate, you're going to have to find evidence for your belief or come up with a logical proof of it.
~~ Paul
The world is full of "stuff" that has various properties and attributes. It doesn't matter what you call the stuff. It doesn't even matter if you divide the stuff in two or more classes. The taxonomy of the stuff has no bearing on its properties and attributes.
Trying to decide what stuff actually is will prove even more frustrating than trying to define species.
Iacchus, if you want one sort of stuff, say thought, to be the fundamental stuff, and some other sort of stuff, say material, to be subordinate, you're going to have to find evidence for your belief or come up with a logical proof of it.
Really bad analogy.Iacchus said:
~~ Paul
Just to be perfectly clear, you have no reliable source for the quote. I'll consider the matter dropped now.
You noticed? Basic algebra.Yet you are merely dividing the energy in order to achieve the mass.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
So what's the point, Iacchus? Even if you were ever able to support this philosophical stance, the result would be, "Matter doesn't exist, but something else which has the exact same characteristics of matter does." You want to call matter something else? Fine. Have a good time trying to explain to others why you call it "conscioglop" or whatever you come up with. Has this philosophical exercise provided any useful insights on the real universe? A rose by any other name, Iacchus.
I don't know, are we?
What is stuff, other than the "stuff" that you are aware of? Thus far, we are only able to prove (to ourselves), that this is stuff is made up of consciousness.
So, why do we have all these physicists trying to study it?
What, do you mean like dreams and visions and out of the body experiences and "stuff" like that?
Tell that to the Titanic!
Now was it the ice that caused the Titanic to sink or, whaterever the ice was comprised of that caused the Titanic to sink? You can't have ice without water can you?
Oh, you don't find Thought to be self-evident. Hi, whatever-you-are. How do you find matter self-evident?