The nature of things

[godless dave]

If life and sentience are indeed continuations of a series of patterns, inevitable in a single subsistence system, then how can we project the (also inevitable) next stage?

I don't buy your premise, so I can't answer.

What arguments may be made against a single source intelligence if all intelligence is nothing more then a result of a reoccurring pattern in a closed system?

Intelligence is a product of brains that evolved on planet earth. The available evidence strongly suggests that each individual intelligence is contained in its own physical body. Life preceded intelligence by at least a billion years, depending on how you define "intelligence". There was certainly life without central nervous systems for quite a long time.

Should all matter and energy be interrelated related because of direct causality, to what can we ascribe the first cause?

It's not clear that it's all interrelated because of direct causality. Many events among fundamental particles seem to be uncaused.

How might we harness the rudiment of the qualities critical to the separation of inert and living matter from sentience to induce life or sentience?

First of all, the separation of inert and living matter is not clear-cut. Viruses are not inert, but they're not entirely alive either. Various shell-bearing organisms have inert matter as part of their bodies.

Would this intelligence actually be artificial, or simply the process used?

That question reveals the semantic limitations of the words "artificial" and "natural". The fact that it was created by humans would mean that it was "artificial", as far as that goes.

To what could we ascribe any moral or ethical values of such created life or intelligence?

It would be up to it to come up with its own values.

Why does any individual have value?

Value is subjective. Personally, I ascribe value to each individual as a matter of self-interest. I want other people to value me, and I can't imagine I'd be able to get along in society if I didn't value others but expected them to value me.

 

[godless dave]

Any number or mathematical equation you can randomly pull from the air.

For verification purposes, I motion to engineering.

I think numbers and equations describe the behavior of the reality we observe. They are only real inasmuch as we use those concepts to describe reality.

 

[Tricky]

Excellent! So you're prepared to accept the premises that matter and energy are the same thing as a valid premise?

That is a completely invalid premise. Even though one can be converted to the other, they are not, by any stretch of the imagination "the same thing", just as a piece of graphite and a diamond are not "the same thing" and uranium and lead are not "the same thing".

Even if all matter (or even matter and energy) is composed of the same fundemental parts, it is the arrangement of the parts that give a thing its characteristics. There is nothing mystical about this. In fact, there's a logical fallacy called "The fallacy of composition" that addresses your basic premise, and the fallacy therein.

ETA: I'm having Franko flashbacks!

 

[LTABN]

Two reasons: 1) Taxonomic nomenclature is merely an artifact of the manner in which humans think. It doesn't objectively exist. So, the "catagorical division" wouldn't be real, it would just be a constraint created by language. Imagine dividing all the pencils in the world into "stubby," "medium" and "long." Now imagine dividing them just into "stubby" and "long." Suddenly, some of the medium pencils end up in the long category. But does that mean the medium pencils were long the whole time? Of course not. Why? Because these categories only exist to the observer.

2) Logically, you are saying: If some A has property X, then all A has property X. "If some energy-matter (the matter part) can be divided into types, then all energy-matter can be divided into types." This is a logical fallacy. There is no logical reason why the properties of some members of a group should apply to the entire group.

A good point, except in your example- there are thing other than pencils. In my example, there is not. In my example, it's more like saying "Energy which follows a system" is inherently divided from "energy which does not follow a system" or built into matter.

The division would then be- that which acts upon like only, that which acts upon unlike only, and that which acts upon either. I hear what you're saying, but I don't see it as correct- if only for my own fault of explanation. I'll get on that.

You are completely wrong.

Please, how so? Do I not understand mitochondria now either?

No, it can't. All analogy can do is help people who understand something explain it to people who don't. That is the absolute sum of the usefulness of analogy.

Reactionary on my part. Was thinking - ... I don't even know! Wasn't thinking? Analysis maybe? Might have been considering how, in the process of explaining something, you gain insight by the questions raised from approaching an accepted known in a different manner, but I'm pretty sure I was just dead wrong on this one.

I would credit urbanization, fluidity in individual wealth, and improvements in communication. I wouldn't credit analogy. I wouldn't even know how to credit analogy.

Analogy... analysis... crud, what was I even LOOKING for here.

Consideration of those things which can not be proven, specifically the value of the individual and moral uprightness of autonomy; being my accreditation for democracy.

oh, that's easy. "I understood things better because of good analogy"
Credited. I suppose I see analogy as being critical to understanding base things like human rights and the self which have no physical counter part, so you must make situational comparisons in order to ferret out the truth. Not sure where I was going with this one either honestly.

Is this an admission that you've already formed your opinions and are now here only to Socratically lead us to agree with you?

Not quite. It's more of an appeal to have more input.

Two areas: 1) The basic premises from which you are proceeding are, in many cases, wrong. 2) The conclusions you are reaching are not logically connected to your premises even if they were correct.

Matter is not built from energy. Matter and energy are the same thing.

Hey, what do you want me to tell you? Everyone seemed ready to jump aboard the 'you're a hundred years late, get to the point' train. I started with the premises in order to discuss the premises, I'm still happy to do so now.

I've obviously done a poor job of stating the premise.

Not that I'm saying otherwise, but I've separated the two by way of expression of qualities.

Wrong in absolutely every regard.

I can just say "no" too. You provide no information or counterpoint. Please note the speculative aspect of the statement and realize you can't actually proclaim it to be wrong. That's like

Statement: If gravity was reverse, things would repel and we would be flung from the earth

Response: Wrong in absolutely every regard.

It's an attempt to describe the system by which I'm trying to explain how this conception of energy might still be integrated into the physical world and connect it to a self of the same energy beyond it.

No. Energy is the capacity to do work. The "self" is not a capacity.

Not by the definition I am using sense the premise in order to make allowances for how non tangibles might, nevertheless, have an influence on the physical world.

Now, I remember. LightCreatedLife. That's who we went around in circles with. FWIW, I don't think LTABN is LCL.

Thanks, now I know what previous conversations to look up to try and understand what it is I've been saying that's basically held up next to high heresy around here.

 

[LTABN]

That is a completely invalid premise. Even though one can be converted to the other, they are not, by any stretch of the imagination "the same thing", just as a piece of graphite and a diamond are not "the same thing" and uranium and lead are not "the same thing".

Even if all matter (or even matter and energy) is composed of the same fundemental parts, it is the arrangement of the parts that give a thing its characteristics. There is nothing mystical about this. In fact, there's a logical fallacy called "The fallacy of composition" that addresses your basic premise, and the fallacy therein.

ETA: I'm having Franko flashbacks!

You are spot on in that they have aspects of particular. I was hoping to explore that in the concept of the self.

I was told however, that it was a middle school level understanding and I ought to get to the point beyond it.

I'm trying to use the word energy AS the fundamental beneath everything else in this... I guess we'll use the word 'discussion'.

 

[the PC apeman]

Any number or mathematical equation you can randomly pull from the air.

For verification purposes, I motion to engineering.

How does engineering verify the ontology of numbers or mathematical equations? How is any ontological stance verifiable at all? Isn't that the whole problem with ontology and, more generally, metaphysics? It's all a leap of faith. (Yes, even materialism or any other ontological monism.)

 

[Tricky]

You are spot on in that they have aspects of particular. I was hoping to explore that in the concept of the self.

I was told however, that it was a middle school level understanding and I ought to get to the point beyond it.

I'm trying to use the word energy AS the fundamental beneath everything else in this... I guess we'll use the word 'discussion'.

Then it appears you are trying to mix science and philosophy. This is not the way energy is defined in science, and any discussion that hinges on using non-standard definitions is probably bound to accumulate a lot of sarcasm.

We had a user here once who tried to define the basis of the universe as "gravitons". He had his own definitions and everything. As you can expect, he was the butt of many jokes.

I'm not trying to be harsh here, but we've seen so much metaphysical claptrap here that we are hypesensitive to it. Show us that this is not metaphysical claptrap and things will go a lot more smoothly. Be aware though that there are many scientists here who will catch you if you start making up definitions.

Best of luck.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

I am so tired of this never-ending stream of people wanting to have the same old conversations without learning from a search that this was done to death years ago.

And yet here you are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is a completely invalid premise. Even though one can be converted to the other, they are not, by any stretch of the imagination "the same thing", just as a piece of graphite and a diamond are not "the same thing" and uranium and lead are not "the same thing".

Well some of us non-physicists would say they are different forms of the same thing. I would hope you'd cut us lay-folk some slack there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Please, how so? Do I not understand mitochondria now either?

It is the definition of "creating energy" you do not understand. Using energy and creating energy are not the same thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've obviously done a poor job of stating the premise. .

It isn't how you've stated your premises, it's that the underlying premises that you've based your pondering on are wrong.

 

[A Lurker]

LTABN, perhaps the reason why people are so crabby with you is because what you have tried to argue as the basic first steps of your philosophy is simply a long understood psychological condition called "synaesthesia"; that is, the ability of the brain to pair two normally disconnected realms of experience together, and experience it as if there were a genuine join between the two.

This experience occurs for most people in dreaming (I see a shoe... I have experienced fear... I am suddenly in this dream terrified of that pair of shoes!) but deliberate altering of the waking state (Meditation, drug usage) or accidental damage (people have mentioned brain trauma) can also bring it about... as can intellectual laziness. And I don't mean that as an insult, but to describe a certain philosophical approach. If you are prepared to allow your brain to act on the unconscious, uncontrolled level it can apply the perception of worth, meaning, emotion onto just about any concept it can conceive of... but it doesn't mean it's discovered any genuine meaning, or travelled the astral plane to the far sides of the universe. Let me illustrate why;

You argue that all matter is energy, and thus of the same stuff. This does not however imply there's any connection or causation between differing arrangements of stuff. In my hands now, I hold a ball of blue-tack. I want you to imagine what I'm doing with it... I'm squeezing it, pummelling it, stretching it as long as I can until it snaps... Ok, this ball of blue-tack is made of energy. You are made of energy. Is there any point in time where my mistreatment of this discrete set of energy will affect you in any way?

What if I really, really imagine it's you? This is LTABN, it is, it is. Can my mind, which is energy, affect this ball, which is energy, with my hate which is also energy, and make it you? *pummel pummel PUMMEL*. Are you feeling pummelled yet? If not, why not?

Do you see what I mean? It doesn't matter whether all energy is ultimately the same or not; just like it doesn't matter that every water molecule is the same, because we also need to look at how the river flows, what physical processes, what laws of nature or physics controls their interaction... or not. What something "is" is not just what it's made of, but it's place in space, time and motion... or what ever.

And your "mind" will not necessarily survive the transformation into every part of energy everywhere in the universe either. If it did, my blue-tack ball analogy would have to be correct, which it's clearly not. I can imagine you could be that ball, but it requires a lazy imagination to do so... just as it's equally lazy to imagine that you in turn really could be every part of matter in the universe, because for some reason people never really imagine being someone else's poop... or the death of a deer as a truck hits it... or the virus that is attacking their body... or the billions of other existences which would be hell if the human mind actually went there. If you did, you wouldn't long remain unchanged...

No, the real question is why you personally think you've something wonderful in what you're building up too... where as most people here are just rushing straight to the real conclusion which is "You feel like saying 'Wow man!' when you think about it, but that's a trait of your personality/drugs/experiences, not something that's objectively true, sorry." And they're doing that because, as they've mentioned, they've had a hundred amateur philosophers (or people who've just got stoned and listened to too much Bill Hicks, and forgotten he's just well-rehearsed comedy sketches, honed through years of touring, tweaking and repetition and not in fact "opening the doors of perception" onto anything real) turn up and, in most cases, get frustrated, angry and flame out...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can just say "no" too. You provide no information or counterpoint....

The problem here is you've gotten basic physics and biology wrong. You cannot expect us to provide you with a basic education.

That differs from a discussion where different conclusions are drawn and people should be supporting their positions.

 

[Tricky]

Well some of us non-physicists would say they are different forms of the same thing. I would hope you'd cut us lay-folk some slack there.

I'm not a physicist myself, but the point is that just because the basic building blocks are the same does not mean they are the same. That is the Fallacy of Composition.

Now if you want to say the fundemental parts are the same, fine, but those parts behave very differently under different configurations. It would be wrong to say that just because one thing can be converted to another that they are the same.

But I'll allow that in general terms, we are all made of star stuff.

 

[Loss Leader]

Okay, I think I've got a handle on this.

I believe LTABN is arguing thus:

1. All matter grows more and more complex - from atoms, to molecules, to life, to sentient beings.
2. Matter and energy are the same.
3. Thus, energy grows more and more complex until it results in a sentient being.
4. That sentient being of pure energy is coextensive with what we would expect from God.
5. Therefore, God.
6. Also, some brain/mind duality stuff that shows that we're all spirits inhabiting bodies and that's also a lot like what's in the Bible so, yeah, that too.

 

[paximperium]

That's deep dude.

 

[Olowkow]

That's deep dude.

Now can we have pie?

 

[lionking]

Okay, I think I've got a handle on this.

I believe LTABN is arguing thus:

1. All matter grows more and more complex - from atoms, to molecules, to life, to sentient beings.
2. Matter and energy are the same.
3. Thus, energy grows more and more complex until it results in a sentient being.
4. That sentient being of pure energy is coextensive with what we would expect from God.
5. Therefore, God.
6. Also, some brain/mind duality stuff that shows that we're all spirits inhabiting bodies and that's also a lot like what's in the Bible so, yeah, that too.

Nailed it, although I'm sure you will get a response which will boil down to "just asking questions".

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Nailed it, although I'm sure you will get a response which will boil down to "just asking questions".

Actually one of the two tags on this thread is "Just having some fun" and the other does not seem to apply.

 

[I Ratant]

...

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.

.
Most people can't get excited about the metaphysical, preferring reality, not bandying about words about the insubstantial nontangible vagaries of the mind.
There may be tenure involved in pursuing these angels and their pinheads, but more-grounded folk can't take this seriously.