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.
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.