The nature of things

[paximperium]

Define "energy" as you are using it. It has a very specific definition in physics.
While you're at it, what is the "mind"?

 

[Complexity]

I knew it.

Another damned fundie.

Possibly someone we've encountered before, or someone using the same talking points.

 

[paximperium]

Thank you for your feed back and positive contribution to the discussion.

I did not claim to be the creator of the concept, only toying with it. Are we not allowed to revisit the works of others and reconsider them? My apologies, I did not realize that everyone here was so on top of their game as to be the tip of the spear of forward thinking- and that every lesson from our past has been fully learned and agreed upon.

My personal B.

If you are not familiar with the decades and untold billions of dollars already spent on this concept that you are "toying with" how are you suppose to "revisit the works" or even "reconsider them"?

 

[paximperium]

I knew it.

Another damned fundie.

Possibly someone we've encountered before, or someone using the same talking points.

He does sound very familiar but I'm willing to give this fella the benefit of the doubt...for now.

 

[LTABN]

Considering that distance is factored into all of our calculations about the interactions of matter and energy, ignoring space altogether is problematic.

It really is. I think I may have misrepresented my intent. When I wish to side table space - at this point in the discussion, I mean that endless eternal extension beyond even the furthest reaching speck of light; that which is beyond the influence of the material world or influencing it. I'm not entirely certain to what degree the space within the affected area plays- but I also don't want to try and negate it or push it off as unimportant.

The atom after all, is mostly space. I'm certain that in the system of expression of energy being 'built up' into matter, space is VERY important, but how or to what degree, I'd only be guessing.

 

[paximperium]

It would help to understand the bridge between the mind and the body. If the self (something I still have yet to receive good argument to convince me is somehow a physical thing) simply uses the body- that may make the meaning of life a question a little narrower in its scope.

Ketamine-I just turned off your "self".
Lobotomy, frontal lobe stroke- I just made you a hypersexual mentally retarded person.
What "self" again?

 

[tsig]

TLDR

snip

A nice homemade blue cheese dressing would go well with this.

 

[LTABN]

None-sequiter.
Argument from Consequence.
One word. Lobotomy.

Hardly. Unless you think that dehumanizing is humorous?

Incorrect. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm maintaining that the self is separate from influences of any type.

Having the ability to account for yourself removed, and the tool by which you use to communicate (mainly the body) damaged does not destroy your self. It may lock it away, never to interact with the world again- but I can't see it as destroying it. Even death seems a poor argument. If you were to kill me, would I not be who I was? Would you have somehow unmade me? The reason for starting so painfully low with the premise of 'all is energy' is that because if the self is energy, then it can never be destroyed.

 

[Loss Leader]

Instead of having simple matter, we have now matter with a higher degree of the expression of energy in it- locomotion and exothermic for example -

That seems wrong. There are no "higher degrees" of energy. Energy just means "the capacity to do work." There are no degrees of it at all. It's all exactly the same.

Well, then it seems that there should be higher and greater degrees to which the properties of energy may be interjected into matter. That just as life is more complex then inert material, that their would be a next step beyond biological which is even more complex, enabling a higher retention of the original pure energies properties. Possibly. I'm wondering along the lines of - say- living light. Sentient electricity.

You are reasoning from analogy. Just because we have created a taxonomy by which we catagorize some typed of matter, does not necessarily mean that there is a corresponding taxonomy for energy.

Just because we call some matter "life" does not mean that the qualities of that matter are any different from the qualities of non-living matter. As far as physics is concerned, my body will suffer the same damage when dropped from an airplane whether it is alive or dead.

The very act of sorting matter into different categories is done for our convenience when discussing them, not because those categories in any way objectively exist. The universe would recognize no difference between mammals and reptiles if humans had not been around to delineate them for the purposes of our own study.

There is no such thing as "more complex" energy. And there is no such thing as living light.

Analogy cannot generate new information and is grossly inferior to scientific investigation. I urge you to abandon your attempt to get at the nature of the universe by deductive reasoning. Do some research on energy, instead.

I agree with Complexity. You sound familiar. Have we had this talk about living light before?

 

[godless dave]

The reason for starting so painfully low with the premise of 'all is energy' is that because if the self is energy, then it can never be destroyed.

How do you propose to show that the self is energy?

 

[Complexity]

LTABN - You are wrong.

Read some good science book after emptying your brain of debris.

 

[LTABN]

This sounds familiar.

You sound familiar.

You wouldn't by any change be religious and here to try to persuade us that your religious views are correct, would you?

I am a philosopher. I have no shame in admitting to belief beyond the observable, as not all things are observer-able. I absolutely love meta-physics and meta-ethics; and am posting under the philosophy string of the forum. I have studied several religions, certainly, and have taken away my own understandings from them. I know that discussion of unobservable often alude to God and creation, and subjects that are worthy of discourse usually reserved for theology- and sometimes that's a good thing and delightful in and of itself- but I assure you, I couldn't care less what you believe or don't believe for the purpose of religion.

 

[tsig]

Hardly. Unless you think that dehumanizing is humorous?

Incorrect. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm maintaining that the self is separate from influences of any type.

Having the ability to account for yourself removed, and the tool by which you use to communicate (mainly the body) damaged does not destroy your self. It may lock it away, never to interact with the world again- but I can't see it as destroying it. Even death seems a poor argument. If you were to kill me, would I not be who I was? Would you have somehow unmade me? The reason for starting so painfully low with the premise of 'all is energy' is that because if the self is energy, then it can never be destroyed.

If pigs could fly there would be bacon in the treetops.

 

[LTABN]

He does sound very familiar but I'm willing to give this fella the benefit of the doubt...for now.

Much obliged

 

[LTABN]

A nice homemade blue cheese dressing would go well with this.

I did warn you.

 

[godless dave]

I am a philosopher. I have no shame in admitting to belief beyond the observable, as not all things are observer-able.

If you can't observe them, then how do you know they are there?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

1. Yes, The energy of mater broken down by force equals its mass times the speed of light squared. Does this in any way negate the theory proposed that energy is contained within matter, if anything, it seems to suggest it.

Learn something about science knows about matter/energy equivalence.

2. Contribute or don't- but don't make assumptions. One might construe this as an insult or personnel attack of character, which I'm sure the moderators would be interested to know about.

Your speculation is jejune.

3. This is not a posting in physics and mathematics, I believe it is well situated in philosophy as a metaphysical discussion, and I am a philosopher. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Post it in Humor if you wish. It will not remove what you have to say from the realm of reality.

 

[tsig]

How do you propose to show that the self is energy?

Probably by self-imploding.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

TLDR?

You mean TLOP.

Obey TLOP.

 

[Complexity]

I am a philosopher. I have no shame in admitting to belief beyond the observable, as not all things are observer-able. I absolutely love meta-physics and meta-ethics; and am posting under the philosophy string of the forum. I have studied several religions, certainly, and have taken away my own understandings from them. I know that discussion of unobservable often alude to God and creation, and subjects that are worthy of discourse usually reserved for theology- and sometimes that's a good thing and delightful in and of itself- but I assure you, I couldn't care less what you believe or don't believe for the purpose of religion.

My cats are also philosophers, and they haven't embarrassed themselves yet by making silly statements.

It is fortunate that you've started this thread in the Religion and Philosophy forum.

Your views have not captured my interest.