• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The nature of things

Hardly. Unless you think that dehumanizing is humorous?
I find parsing your claims to be humorous since you seem to rely on logical fallacies to make your "arguments".
Incorrect. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm maintaining that the self is separate from influences of any type.
Except that you have yet to define the "self", the "mind", "energy" or anything else that you seem to be talking about. You make a lot of assumptions which many here to do not automatically agree with.
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.
Since you don't have any evidence to support any of your baseless conjecture and basis seems to be the logical fallacy of arguing from incredulity, your conjecture can be easily dismissed.
 
Sound. :)
Nice.


Spoiler up front: No- I have been hearing good things about the forum, and I'm a jumps in two feet first sort of guy. They call us Airborne! Hi! I'm Luke.

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.

Energy may just mean capacity to do work in it's most commonly used sense. I attempt to deviate from this use in my discussion as all forces etc. which enable matter to interact. Well, that's only partially; more of a 'everything which, unless constrained by matter, would have endless expression' sort of way, but I know that's vague. I could actually really use a hand deriving a more conscience explanation; I didn't put too much into it because- as you see, the meaning of the word changes once we get to the 'everything is made from energy' part of our play. When I speak of 'higher orders' I am trying to express the process by which energy becomes matter. I'm not so certain it's a simple light switch on/off <POOF> energy is now matter.

You are reasoning from analog-
.

Absolutely!

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.

Fair. But it dose not mean there is not either. If, indeed, matter is just a more complex version of energy, then why should their not be a categorical division of 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-

Physically speaking, that is correct. Chemically, however, not so. Living matter has the capacity to create energy. Not just in a reactive fission/chemical sense (though the methods are used) but in a continued sense. Life creates energy to enable itself to create more energy. A being may die, but the drives of life attempt to continue the process beyond that single being with progeny. There is a DRIVE in living matter that s not in inert.

my body will suffer the same damage when dropped from an airplane whether it is alive or dead.

Pull your reserve! Feet and knees together! :covereyes



And there is no such thing as living light.

Probably not. I'm offering it up as a possibility when plugged into the grind of eternally running time with the back drop that matter is energy, and matter created life.

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.

Respectfully? Too limiting.

Again: This is a philosophy. Analogy cannot generate new DATA certainly. It can easily create new information. After all, from whence would you credit the birth of democracy without it?
 
Physically speaking, that is correct. Chemically, however, not so. Living matter has the capacity to create energy. Not just in a reactive fission/chemical sense (though the methods are used) but in a continued sense. Life creates energy to enable itself to create more energy. A being may die, but the drives of life attempt to continue the process beyond that single being with progeny. There is a DRIVE in living matter that s not in inert.
No.
There isn't much to say about that.
You cannot make up your own rules about things that are already known. Do you have any basic scientific knowledge especially on physics because what you are claiming is already covered in Middle school and High School.

Again: This is a philosophy. Analogy cannot generate new DATA certainly. It can easily create new information. After all, from whence would you credit the birth of democracy without it?
Philosophy without logic is not philosophy.
 
Sound. :)
Energy may just mean capacity to do work in it's most commonly used sense. I attempt to deviate from this use in my discussion as all forces etc. which enable matter to interact. Well, that's only partially; more of a 'everything which, unless constrained by matter, would have endless expression' sort of way, but I know that's vague.

If you are using the word "energy" to mean something different, then the principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed no longer holds.


Physically speaking, that is correct. Chemically, however, not so. Living matter has the capacity to create energy. Not just in a reactive fission/chemical sense (though the methods are used) but in a continued sense. Life creates energy to enable itself to create more energy. A being may die, but the drives of life attempt to continue the process beyond that single being with progeny. There is a DRIVE in living matter that s not in inert.

That sounds a lot like vitalism, a long-abandoned philosophical idea.

Using the standard definition of energy, living matter does not have the capacity to create energy.
 
ooohhh, I see what's hapening here!

I find parsing your claims to be humorous since you seem to rely on logical fallacies to make your "arguments".

Please, be more specific. I will gladly address your concerns.


Except that you have yet to define the "self", the "mind", "energy" or anything else that you seem to be talking about. You make a lot of assumptions which many here to do not automatically agree with.

I find it curious that when start with this, I am called out for it being too simple and out of date, and when I try to lead the discussion to taking those implications to different understandings, I'm expected to- what- hand feed you all the answers which I myself am asking? How about a little participation here?

I apologize if I stepped too quickly. Where are you having disconnects?

Please bare in mind that, in some instances, I can only broadly define things such as 'the self' as this was intended as a discussion to narrow that definition- not defend my personnel views regarding it. Hence- I started with the basis that matter is energy.

Since you don't have any evidence to support any of your baseless conjecture and basis seems to be the logical fallacy of arguing from incredulity, your conjecture can be easily dismissed.

Perhaps they can! You are arguing when I seek discourse. I hope you realize this and can perhaps contribute some time soon.

Also, what aspect do you find to be baseless? That matter is built from energy? I believe you pointed me to Wikipedia RE: Albert Einstein for this... perhaps you would like to start there as well? :p
 
I knew it.

Another damned fundie.

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

I protest to being generalized.

May I have the links to these previous discussions? I am after all, here to learn through discourse.
 
Ketamine-I just turned off your "self".
Lobotomy, frontal lobe stroke- I just made you a hypersexual mentally retarded person.
What "self" again?

And if the "self" is some kind of disembodied supernatural aspect if you which is unaffected by your physical brain, and all the accumulated experiences which affect the brain, then what good is it? Why would I care if there is some higher "self" out there that is totally unrelated to me and the experiences that shaped me?

What about someone who suffers brain damage at birth -- would their true "self" be locked away for their entire life just because their brain did not develop the way it otherwise would have?
 
Ketamine-I just turned off your "self".
Lobotomy, frontal lobe stroke- I just made you a hypersexual mentally retarded person.
What "self" again?

I would have to say-
That which defines you as a being separate from all the rest of existence, but it's a fairly rough understanding.

I think that, if we are matter constructed from energy, with greater degrees of the properties of energy being used the closer to the self the chain of cognition goes (from simply bone-muscle-blood-skin, to nerve tissue, to brain tissue, each with a higher degree of electro sensitivity then the last) that... this is where it get's fuzzy for me, and where I was hoping to ask the questions of you guys.

Is it conceivable that their is self of pure energy? If so, how would it interact with the physical world? would the electrons firing in our brains actually be the process of thinking, or could they also facilitate a sort of burst transmission to and from a separate pure energy state- limited to interaction with the material (by not wanting to be consumed by it) through a series of... well- let's say resistors, to enable to intent to be carried out, without directly interacting with the matter?
 
Then quit behaving like a fundie.

No and no.

Please specify.

If this discussion has already been had, I would think you would want me to read it if only to save a great deal of time from re-stating ponts already made.

Even if not the case? Well- then, thanks for being helpful to the new guy.
 
Please, be more specific. I will gladly address your concerns.
Let's make things simple.
Do you understand what's a Logical Fallacy and how it invalidates an argument/claim?
I find it curious that when start with this, I am called out for it being too simple and out of date, and when I try to lead the discussion to taking those implications to different understandings, I'm expected to- what- hand feed you all the answers which I myself am asking? How about a little participation here?
The simple answer is that you are making claims. How do you expect people to know what the hell you are talking about when you won't define things appropriately?
You've already stated that you're using a definition of "energy" that apparently no one else use.
What do you want others to do? Assume things? What if I assume the concept of the "self" was according to Jung or an old Greek philosopher? Buddha?
I apologize if I stepped too quickly. Where are you having disconnects?
You are making broad generalizations of concepts without proper definitions and making claims on things that are very well understood by modern science. Claiming that it is a "philosophical discussion" in an attempt to disconnect your discussion with science is basically an attempt to disconnect your claims from reality and known knowledge.
Please bare in mind that, in some instances, I can only broadly define things such as 'the self' as this was intended as a discussion to narrow that definition- not defend my personnel views regarding it. Hence- I started with the basis that matter is energy.
Then you need to be very careful. Philosophical discussions are about exact meaning. Words are an inexact way of conveying this meaning and if you can't or won't define things, the discussion can never move forward.
Perhaps they can! You are arguing when I seek discourse. I hope you realize this and can perhaps contribute some time soon.

Also, what aspect do you find to be baseless? That matter is built from energy? I believe you pointed me to Wikipedia RE: Albert Einstein for this... perhaps you would like to start there as well? :p
Sign. Reread what I wrote. You are making baseless claims. A page back, you didn't even know about Einstein what E=mc2 meant so please spare me the attitude.
 
I would have to say-
That which defines you as a being separate from all the rest of existence, but it's a fairly rough understanding.

I think that, if we are matter constructed from energy, with greater degrees of the properties of energy being used the closer to the self the chain of cognition goes (from simply bone-muscle-blood-skin, to nerve tissue, to brain tissue, each with a higher degree of electro sensitivity then the last) that... this is where it get's fuzzy for me, and where I was hoping to ask the questions of you guys.

Is it conceivable that their is self of pure energy? If so, how would it interact with the physical world? would the electrons firing in our brains actually be the process of thinking, or could they also facilitate a sort of burst transmission to and from a separate pure energy state- limited to interaction with the material (by not wanting to be consumed by it) through a series of... well- let's say resistors, to enable to intent to be carried out, without directly interacting with the matter?
Nope.
Neuronal signals are causal and follow chemical processes and physics. There is no "other" unless you want to listen to the "psychic" proponents who claim otherwise using bad data and crappy research.
 
And if the "self" is some kind of disembodied supernatural aspect if you which is unaffected by your physical brain, and all the accumulated experiences which affect the brain, then what good is it? Why would I care if there is some higher "self" out there that is totally unrelated to me and the experiences that shaped me?

What about someone who suffers brain damage at birth -- would their true "self" be locked away for their entire life just because their brain did not develop the way it otherwise would have?

I think that, sadly, it would. I don't know to what degree, and they are certainly entitled to the dignity we provide to all those born of human parents. But, if there is a separate self from the body, then it gives question to why it is attached to the body, the reason behind 'inhabiting' a physical thing, if you will.

I'm not entirely sure why we should care any more then I'm sure why we should care about morality, or social theory, or any sort of purely human phenomenon other then because perhaps it helps us better understand ourselves and others. There seems enough conflict and distention in the world to make this a worth while goal.

No?
Well, if not for that- then we can start to open up the field a little. Tentatively, let us say that, instead of being the drive behind all your actions, the self is merely an observer, a recorder. Or, perhaps it is the provider of will and drive? A good question. What could a self- separate from the world, provide?
 
I think he was asking a logic question. If brain damage can cause a religious experience, should all religious experiences be considered the result of brain damage?
Nope since that is an obvious logical fallacy.
I don't see much formal logical being used in his arguments. It seems to be a mishmash of random not-very well developed thoughts.
 
Please specify.

If this discussion has already been had, I would think you would want me to read it if only to save a great deal of time from re-stating ponts already made.

Even if not the case? Well- then, thanks for being helpful to the new guy.


I'm not interested in playing games.

You will make whatever points you are intent on making regardless of what the rest of us do.

I won't encourage or enable your activities.

These forums are full of your type of posts - learn to search.
 
Well, if not for that- then we can start to open up the field a little. Tentatively, let us say that, instead of being the drive behind all your actions, the self is merely an observer, a recorder. Or, perhaps it is the provider of will and drive? A good question. What could a self- separate from the world, provide?

Before we ask that, let's ask this. Do you have any evidence that a self separate from the world exists?
 
Let's make things simple.
Do you understand what's a Logical Fallacy and how it invalidates an argument/claim?
The simple answer is that you are making claims. How do you expect people to know what the hell you are talking about when you won't define things appropriately?
You've already stated that you're using a definition of "energy" that apparently no one else use.
What do you want others to do? Assume things? What if I assume the concept of the "self" was according to Jung or an old Greek philosopher? Buddha?
You are making broad generalizations of concepts without proper definitions and making claims on things that are very well understood by modern science. Claiming that it is a "philosophical discussion" in an attempt to disconnect your discussion with science is basically an attempt to disconnect your claims from reality and known knowledge.
Then you need to be very careful. Philosophical discussions are about exact meaning. Words are an inexact way of conveying this meaning and if you can't or won't define things, the discussion can never move forward.
Sign. Reread what I wrote. You are making baseless claims. A page back, you didn't even know about Einstein what E=mc2 meant so please spare me the attitude.

You're right. I'm sorry for the attitude. I tried to bring up a series of what I considered reasonable considerations, and I let the cross examining affect me emotionally because of the manner in which it was done, and my own frustrations built upon expectations. When the first response I have is along the lines of "Get an education", yeah- it pushes my back towards the wall a little. I don't handle being belittled very well; I'll grow thicker skin. I apologize.

Okay!

That being said. There are many types of logical fallacies. One type involves using a premise which is not valid, to produce a conclusion which is true. One involves using an incorrect process, deriving an incorrect assumption, or the inability to terminate an assumption. One involves proper claims, proper processes, but an untrue conclusion. I could be introducing information and holding it up as a tautology, or self inherent truth when it is not. Yes- I am aware of the laws of logic. If I was aware of the misstep, it would not have been made. I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm trying to address your issue.

Yes, I do need a few steps of assumption to occur. If you want to use a separate sense of self then what I am aiming for, I would actually be very happy to hear it and discuss. I make claims to hear counter claims.

I'll regret this, because as soon as you define a thing you're limited to it: I'll- at this point and time: Define Energy- That which enables change.

Yes. You are correct. I am trying to deviate from known things into speculation about unknown things. I am trying to have a philosophical discussion; under the philosophical thread. Why does this seem to surprise everyone?

I'm very sorry. That's true. Everyone seemed... annoyed, as if I was starting too simply and too far back when did the "matter is energy" step. Yes, I assumed everyone knew what I was speaking about, because everyone seemingly indicated that they did.

You were right, I was wrong. You are Smart, I was dumb. You are handsome, I am not attractive.

Friends?

I'd really like this discussion to start.
 
Before we ask that, let's ask this. Do you have any evidence that a self separate from the world exists?

...?
No more then you can show me a 'Three', or 'Truth'.

You wish me to provide, within the world, evidence of something - beyond the world? Doesn't that seem a little problematic?

It's a conceptual. It's why I wanted to start the discussion with energy being the bases of everything- because it's a non tangible that's observable.
 
I'm not interested in playing games.

You will make whatever points you are intent on making regardless of what the rest of us do.

I won't encourage or enable your activities.

These forums are full of your type of posts - learn to search.

Although in general I disagree, because I like to have fun, I assure you I am not 'trolling' nor looking to poke fun nor cause any sort of discourse for amusement, which is what I assume you mean.


I was told this was a form of open thought for debate and consideration. Am I really THAT far off the party line that you have an active distaste for my even trying?

As you say. I simply believed that, because you were familiar with what you were speaking of in particular, you might save me the time of wading through a small ocean of post. No rope to a drowning man eh?

I'm a little disheartened that I would so quickly earn your ire by... just being me. I love philosophy man, didn't mean anything personnel by it.
 
...?
No more then you can show me a 'Three', or 'Truth'.

Those don't exist beyond the world. They exist only inside human brains.

You wish me to provide, within the world, evidence of something - beyond the world? Doesn't that seem a little problematic?

Yes. That's exactly my point. If we can't get evidence of it, why would we even think it exists? Why would we think that anything "beyond the world" exists?
 
@LTABN,
Here is the essential problem.

You are playing around with very well known and discussed concepts in physics and philosophy without much background knowledge of either. Your philosophical ideas are thousands of years old, the Greek and Chinese philosophers have been considering before there was Jesus fella. The 1800s are the best times where alot of these were already torn apart. Your concepts about energy-matter are over a hundred years out of date.

If you have questions, people here are happy to answer them but I will be blunt. Your concepts and thoughts are not very interesting to many here. They have been argued and written about by many well known philosophers hundreds of years ago.

You may want to actually educate yourself on some of these concepts which you can learn in a basic philosophy and logic courses. A basic understanding of physics and science may also help.

If you are young and haven't been to college yet, taking some of these courses may be useful. If you are older and working, a basic trip to a library to pick up some books on logic or a basic overview of philosophy may be useful.
 
Last edited:
Life creates energy to enable itself to create more energy.

More accurately, life BORROWS energy from outside processes. What is borrows is an extremely tiny subset of the whole. Only a tiny percentage of the sun's energy actually reaches the earth, for instance. Of that, only a portion is actually absorbed by the earth. Of that, only another tiny percentage is used to drive all life on earth.

The processes of life waste a huge amount of energy, but that's not a problem because there's plenty more where that came from.
 
There's more hostility in this thread than is called for. Arguments about the 'soul is not light' may well have come before, but that's no reason to be rude to a new forum member who may be investigating something similar.

And while one does wish schools would do a better job of teaching basic physics along with reading and basic math, we all know most schools don't do such a 'good job'.
...What's curious to me, is the way in which matter and energy interact. I am toying with the idea that matter is actually nothing more than a compressed, orderly, systematic expression of energy.
As you've hopefully figured out by now, matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. We know this because when we make matter disappear, energy appears and when new matter is formed, energy disappears.

... We have our memories, our ability to reason, our ability to learn, and our ability to cognize, ... The temptation to simply assign the self to the brain is very evident, but this causes other points of conflict in my current understandings.
It might cause you conflict, but for people who are familiar with the evidence, there is simply no 'self' outside the brain and body. Consciousness is a fascinating thing, but not incomprehensible as a physical 'thing' produced by a physical brain.

.... IF (all caps if) it were found- could it be removed? Could it be transplanted? To what effect? I can only speculate.
This is kind of like a god of the gaps argument. As long as you don't understand the mechanism of consciousness, you hypothesize about the 'mechanism' with fantasy. The problem with that is, we have more than enough real data, real evidence to support the conclusion consciousness emanates from the physical brain and nowhere else. Your fantasy hypothesis is unsupportable while the hypothesis, 'self' is the physical self and nothing more' is a supportable hypothesis.

Now, I'll grant, in the absence of the human mind- physics [snipped a lot of rambling thoughts]
Sorry, there was nothing there to reply to given it was based the false underlying premises you have about the nature of mind, body, matter and energy.

... All the fuzzy math that occurs at the quantum level [snipped ramblings also based on a lack of understanding]
The problem with this kind of speculation is it starts from a a lack of knowledge so it ends up being meaningless, regardless of how meaningful it seems to you.

LTABN said:
life and self-awareness - seem nothing more then a different way of mixing the energy together.
This is an interesting concept, but we have evidence against 'self awareness' being something that exists within energy and matter as you are contemplating. There are indeed many exotic properties of energy and matter, but a sense of 'self' existing independently of the brain is just not likely one of them.

And one more quick point, you are using a definition of 'unobservable' that is inaccurate. Things before the Big Bang and outside the Universe are unobservable by definition. Things like dark matter and dark energy are indirectly observable, they are not unobservable. The spaces between quantum particles and quantum waves may also be indirectly observable or not observed yet, but they are not 'unobservable'.

Something fictional that a person makes up is unobservable, and also does not exist just because someone made it up. God myths and myths of self floating around in quantum space do not pop into existence by someone thinking it up. We know that because we have an understanding of fiction and human imagination.

-
 
There's more hostility in this thread than is called for. Arguments about the 'soul is not light' may well have come before, but that's no reason to be rude to a new forum member who may be investigating something similar.


You are welcome to interact with this person as you wish.

Others are not obliged to follow your lead.

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.
 
I would have to say-
That which defines you as a being separate from all the rest of existence, but it's a fairly rough understanding.

I think that, if we are matter constructed from energy, with greater degrees of the properties of energy being used the closer to the self the chain of cognition goes (from simply bone-muscle-blood-skin, to nerve tissue, to brain tissue, each with a higher degree of electro sensitivity then the last) that... this is where it get's fuzzy for me, and where I was hoping to ask the questions of you guys.

Is it conceivable that their is self of pure energy? If so, how would it interact with the physical world? would the electrons firing in our brains actually be the process of thinking, or could they also facilitate a sort of burst transmission to and from a separate pure energy state- limited to interaction with the material (by not wanting to be consumed by it) through a series of... well- let's say resistors, to enable to intent to be carried out, without directly interacting with the matter?

The problem you're facing in trying to get a discussion is that for most of your ifs, the average member of this board will go "No, sorry, that contradicts existing science." Which leaves your final question dangling in the air.

"if we are matter constructed from energy, with greater degrees of the properties of energy being used the closer to the self the chain of cognition goes"

Yes, matter and energy are sort of equivalent, but there's no hierarchy of energy and cognition as you postulate. Which means that most people here thinks you went fuzzy a sentence or two before you think, and that the answer to "Is it conceivable that their is self of pure energy?" is pretty much "no". And discussions on how this non-existent "pure energy" interacts with the rest of the universe becomes uninteresting philosophical wankery.

Looks to me like you're trying to build a sort of hybrid materialistic/dualistic view of the universe, with scientific support. But you are mangling science to do so, and wont find many supporters around here. We've looked at the evidence, and it keeps coming up materialism.
 
It might help if you spell out the line of reasoning a bit more clearly, as far as I can see at the moment it goes
Premise 1 - Matter is a form of energy.
Premise 2 - Matter has different forms of complexity
Conclusion - Therefore energy must have different forms of complexity one of which you think could be a separate self, an identity unrelated to the physical brain.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise, so your missing a few steps for the conclusion to seem worth pursuing.
Of course the concept of an identity separate from the physical brain is rather old (its kind of what most religions and many philosophies are based on) and has been discussed many times in many different ways. I think the ire that you have incurred is as a result of the fact that most of the people here have already discussed this to death (no pun intended).
I may have your intentions wrong, please correct me if I have, I'm always up for bizarre discussions but at the moment your premise appears to have been so well covered that it's difficult to see where we can take the discussion.
Welcome to the forum :)

Edit - well in the time it took me to write the reply several people covered it better than me lol
 
Last edited:
You are welcome to interact with this person as you wish.

Others are not obliged to follow your lead.

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.

Then why are you participating in this thread? Sure, it's an old conversation, but no-one is forcing you to be a part of it, and for the majority of humanity, knowledge comes more easily through conversation than through reading. Assuming knowledgeable conversation partners, and an actual willingness to listen.

I'm so tired of this never-ending stream of people wanting to prove their superiority by "participating" in threads on topics they're unwilling to discuss civilly and rationally.
 
Then why are you participating in this thread? Sure, it's an old conversation, but no-one is forcing you to be a part of it, and for the majority of humanity, knowledge comes more easily through conversation than through reading. Assuming knowledgeable conversation partners, and an actual willingness to listen.

I'm so tired of this never-ending stream of people wanting to prove their superiority by "participating" in threads on topics they're unwilling to discuss civilly and rationally.


You're right about some things.

I no longer have the patience to participate in discussions on this and similar topics. Since I'm unlikely to be able to refrain from responding to some of posts in this thread, I'll stop reading it.

I've recently started avoiding posts and threads started by several members - I don't want to let things like that into my head.
 
Those don't exist beyond the world. They exist only inside human brains.

Yes. That's exactly my point. If we can't get evidence of it, why would we even think it exists? Why would we think that anything "beyond the world" exists?

I would say they are conceived by human brains. There are no numbers jammed in our gray matter, and if another creature gained higher reasoning, they would be able to understand these concepts as well. Nothing can exist outside the world, but we see we are able to use them none the less. It's a weird way of thinking of it, but it's almost like saying 'just because something dosen't exist, dosen't mean it's not real'. The experience of your dreams, for example- completely false data, most likely, but your perception of them is no less real.

I wouldn't say that anything beyond the world exist, because I think of existence as being within the world. That's entirely besides the point. If you mean exist as in if there is something that someways acts upon the world, or possibly is acted upon by it, without being a part of it, then yes- I think that is exactly how the self does exist. Perhaps experiences shape it, but I can not put much stock in that. I think it would be worth pursuing an understanding of, both in nature and quality, to help us understand our own nature. The source of the will, the division form the rest of the universe- the process of reason; I don't know what all it might entail, and that is why I am curious.
 
If, indeed, matter is just a more complex version of energy, then why should their not be a categorical division of energy?


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 catagories 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.


Life creates energy to enable itself to create more energy.


You are completely wrong.


Again: This is a philosophy. Analogy cannot generate new DATA certainly. It can easily create new information.


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.


After all, from whence would you credit the birth of democracy without it?


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.


I'm expected to- what- hand feed you all the answers which I myself am asking?


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


Where are you having disconnects?


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.


Also, what aspect do you find to be baseless? That matter is built from energy?


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


I think that, if we are matter constructed from energy, with greater degrees of the properties of energy being used the closer to the self the chain of cognition goes (from simply bone-muscle-blood-skin, to nerve tissue, to brain tissue, each with a higher degree of electro sensitivity then the last)


Wrong in absolutely every regard.


Is it conceivable that their is self of pure energy?


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


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

You are playing around with very well known and discussed concepts in physics and philosophy without much background knowledge of either. Your philosophical ideas are thousands of years old, the Greek and Chinese philosophers have been considering before there was Jesus fella. The 1800s are the best times where alot of these were already torn apart. Your concepts about energy-matter are over a hundred years out of date.

If you have questions, people here are happy to answer them but I will be blunt. Your concepts and thoughts are not very interesting to many here. They have been argued and written about by many well known philosophers hundreds of years ago.

You may want to actually educate yourself on some of these concepts which you can learn in a basic philosophy and logic courses. A basic understanding of physics and science may also help.

If you are young and haven't been to college yet, taking some of these courses may be useful. If you are older and working, a basic trip to a library to pick up some books on logic or a basic overview of philosophy may be useful.

So,

That's it? It's a closed discussion because it's already been talked about?

That's really rather sad to me.

The question of my current understanding aside, I've yet to actually read any actual counter points. Attacks, sure- demands for clarification, more information, but no one has yet to actually say anything with, what are arguably well accepted premise- to discuss an - admittedly- well traveled road. SO! Straight to the point? Fine.

Then here are my questions

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?

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?

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

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? Would this intelligence actually be artificial, or simply the process used? To what could we ascribe any moral or ethical values of such created life or intelligence?

Why does any individual have value?
 
More accurately, life BORROWS energy from outside processes. What is borrows is an extremely tiny subset of the whole. Only a tiny percentage of the sun's energy actually reaches the earth, for instance. Of that, only a portion is actually absorbed by the earth. Of that, only another tiny percentage is used to drive all life on earth.

The processes of life waste a huge amount of energy, but that's not a problem because there's plenty more where that came from.

Which continues to seek more. That's what I think is so interesting, how it is a system of endlessly taking in more. That's why I qualify it differently then non living matter which merely reacts. Perhaps submits is a better word.
 
I would say they are conceived by human brains. There are no numbers jammed in our gray matter, and if another creature gained higher reasoning, they would be able to understand these concepts as well. Nothing can exist outside the world, but we see we are able to use them none the less. It's a weird way of thinking of it, but it's almost like saying 'just because something dosen't exist, dosen't mean it's not real'. The experience of your dreams, for example- completely false data, most likely, but your perception of them is no less real.

There are no numbers crammed in our gray matter, but there are chemicals that store our concepts of those numbers. Our perception of our dreams is real, and our perception is made of neurons receiving signals from other parts of the brain.

I wouldn't say that anything beyond the world exist, because I think of existence as being within the world. That's entirely besides the point. If you mean exist as in if there is something that someways acts upon the world, or possibly is acted upon by it, without being a part of it, then yes- I think that is exactly how the self does exist.

So we're back to evidence.

Perhaps experiences shape it, but I can not put much stock in that.

Why not?

I think it would be worth pursuing an understanding of, both in nature and quality, to help us understand our own nature. The source of the will, the division form the rest of the universe- the process of reason; I don't know what all it might entail, and that is why I am curious.

It is certainly worth pursuing, and scientists in various fields of biology are pursuing it.

What do you mean by "division from the rest of the universe"?
 
So,

That's it? It's a closed discussion because it's already been talked about?

That's really rather sad to me.

The question of my current understanding aside, I've yet to actually read any actual counter points. Attacks, sure- demands for clarification, more information, but no one has yet to actually say anything with, what are arguably well accepted premise- to discuss an - admittedly- well traveled road. SO! Straight to the point? Fine.

Then here are my questions

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?

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?

Should all matter and energy be interrelated related because of direct causality, to what can we ascribe the first cause?
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? Would this intelligence actually be artificial, or simply the process used? To what could we ascribe any moral or ethical values of such created life or intelligence?

Why does any individual have value?

Are going to drop the other shoe soon?
 

Back
Top Bottom