• 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

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.
 
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.
 
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! :eek:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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! :eek:

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'.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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".
 
...

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.
 
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.

Looks like another Knight Of Wooful Countenance.
 
Ya know, we really shouldn't be too harsh on folks who have "heavy thoughts". I had a few doozies in my youth. One I rembember when I was just embracing atheism, but didn't want to cut ties to the church, was that Jesus had come from the future. Hell, it explained everything! I mean, the virgin (implanted) birth, the miracles, the prophesies, the transportation from the tomb... Really I thought I was on to something. I was smashed flat by my girlfriend (who was Christian, but who I was trying to impress with how I'd thought things out) who told me that my ideas were an abomonation before the Lord. I was pretty crushed.

So I ask my fellow skeptics not to lean to hard on an idea that has been thrown into the ring, even if it falls a little short of either science or logic. Remember that this is the James Randi Educational Foundation. And while being smacked down by people with more knowledge and experience might be "educational", it doesn't exactly engender fond feelings toward the educators.

I am willing to accept that LTABN is truly wanting sincere feedback on his ideas, and while there's nothing wrong with pointing out what's wrong, it doesn't have to come with a sneer. That kind of "teaching" teaches people not to open up to skeptics for fear of being ridiculed.
 
Last edited:
Ya know, we really shouldn't be too harsh on folks who have "heavy thoughts". I had a few doozies in my youth. One I rembember when I was just embracing atheism, but didn't want to cut ties to the church, was that Jesus had come from the future. Hell, it explained everything! I mean, the virgin (implanted) birth, the miracles, the prophesies, the transportation from the tomb... Really I thought I was on to something. I was smashed flat by my girlfriend (who was Christian, but who I was trying to impress with how I'd thought things out) who told me that my ideas were an abomonation before the Lord. I was pretty crushed.

So I ask my fellow skeptics not to lean to hard on an idea that has been thrown into the ring, even if it falls a little short of either science or logic. Remember that this is the James Randi Educational Foundation. And while being smacked down by people with more knowledge and experience might be "educational", it doesn't exactly engender fond feelings toward the educators.

I am willing to accept that LTABN is truly wanting sincere feedback on his ideas, and while there's nothing wrong with pointing out what's wrong, it doesn't have to come with a sneer. That kind of "teaching" teaches people not to open up to skeptics for fear of being ridiculed.

Great story. I am really bad at math, but I love to play with numbers in my head when I'm trying to get to sleep. I came up with what to me was an amazing discovery, namely the following:

Take any two adjacent numbers, square each, subtract the smaller from the larger. The result is always equal to the sum of the two original numbers.

In other words

(x+1)2 - x2 = x + (x+1)

To a non mathematician, it is kind of remarkable that this should be true, and I set about to try to figure out why this should be the case. I wasn't sure what an explanation should look like, but I kept thinking about it and finally the answer was so trivial that I felt pretty silly.

Well, somewhere in this time frame I was at a party of retired mathematicians, the wife of one happened to be a good friend of my wife's. One guy was explaining something about the Golden Ratio to me, and I was transfixed by his eloquence....I couldn't believe I was actually understanding this. After quite a while, and several glasses of wine, I said, "Oh, by the way, I just thought up a strange thing with numbers, have you ever heard of this one?" And I laid my genius idea on him. "That's an identity." I suddenly realized that to him, he thought I was asking him for a term to describe it, not for his reaction of how brilliant it was. I sat back, and he started on another of his pet mathematical monologues. I learned a very valuable lesson that evening. Experts are a lot of fun, don't try to be clever in their midst, and you'll do just fine.
 
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.
[hiding from Tricky]
Psst: Well actually it is 'energy' all the time, everywhere and every moment. The most accurate description of the behavior of particle all the time is the waveform, they are accurately characterized as waveform before , during and after all interactions.

Certain subsets of interaction may be classified as 'matter' i.e. 'scattering', 'collisions', 'inability to interpenetrate', 'persistence of motion', 'mass', 'inertia'. And yet every one of those appearances and descriptions is actually a property of an energy waveform...

Oh Hi Tricky, no I am playing cards here... I am certainly not disagreeing with you...
eeek ... Help ... please don't turn the Flame-O-Ray onto me, please stop!

ZORCH

:humorously lampooned pile of poster dust:
 
Which continues to seek more. That's what I think is so interesting, how it is a system of endlessly taking in more.

It takes in energy.

It expends the energy it takes in.

It takes in more energy.

That is no more inexplicable than the fact that you must refuel your car on occassion.

That's why I qualify it differently then non living matter which merely reacts. Perhaps submits is a better word.

Living matter merely reacts as well, just in a more complex manner. It makes sense that it behaves this way, because it tends to have a more complex structure.

Don't believe me? Put out the sun, and watch life react. Or perhaps submit is a better word.
 
Ya know, we really shouldn't be too harsh on folks who have "heavy thoughts". I had a few doozies in my youth. One I rembember when I was just embracing atheism, but didn't want to cut ties to the church, was that Jesus had come from the future. Hell, it explained everything! I mean, the virgin (implanted) birth, the miracles, the prophesies, the transportation from the tomb... Really I thought I was on to something. I was smashed flat by my girlfriend (who was Christian, but who I was trying to impress with how I'd thought things out) who told me that my ideas were an abomonation before the Lord. I was pretty crushed.

So I ask my fellow skeptics not to lean to hard on an idea that has been thrown into the ring, even if it falls a little short of either science or logic. Remember that this is the James Randi Educational Foundation. And while being smacked down by people with more knowledge and experience might be "educational", it doesn't exactly engender fond feelings toward the educators.

I am willing to accept that LTABN is truly wanting sincere feedback on his ideas, and while there's nothing wrong with pointing out what's wrong, it doesn't have to come with a sneer. That kind of "teaching" teaches people not to open up to skeptics for fear of being ridiculed.

We all have our own styles.

If someone runs off because their feeling were hurt then I then I think they weren't very sincere about learning anything but were here to preach.
 
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.
It's not a fallacy, it depends on what one is comparing. You arbitrarily chose different aspects to compare.
 
[hiding from Tricky]
Psst: Well actually it is 'energy' all the time, everywhere and every moment. The most accurate description of the behavior of particle all the time is the waveform, they are accurately characterized as waveform before , during and after all interactions.

Certain subsets of interaction may be classified as 'matter' i.e. 'scattering', 'collisions', 'inability to interpenetrate', 'persistence of motion', 'mass', 'inertia'. And yet every one of those appearances and descriptions is actually a property of an energy waveform...

...
I am fascinated by the quantum properties of matter. This sounds like string theory. Is it something more certain than string theory?
 
I am fascinated by the quantum properties of matter. This sounds like string theory. Is it something more certain than string theory?

Yep, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field theory to be more specific or just Quantum Elecotrodynamics (QED). if you don't want to get into all those other forces (weak and strong). Very well tested. Certainly it "sounds like string theory" as it is the basis of string theory. Which is trying to unify gravity with those other forces (two now combined as Electroweak theory ). The strong force is now modeled similar to QED as QCD (also a quantum field theory), so gravity is all that is missing from the unification at this time. Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Well, somewhere in this time frame I was at a party of retired mathematicians, the wife of one happened to be a good friend of my wife's. One guy was explaining something about the Golden Ratio to me, and I was transfixed by his eloquence....I couldn't believe I was actually understanding this. After quite a while, and several glasses of wine, I said, "Oh, by the way, I just thought up a strange thing with numbers, have you ever heard of this one?" And I laid my genius idea on him. "That's an identity." I suddenly realized that to him, he thought I was asking him for a term to describe it, not for his reaction of how brilliant it was. I sat back, and he started on another of his pet mathematical monologues. I learned a very valuable lesson that evening. Experts are a lot of fun, don't try to be clever in their midst, and you'll do just fine.

I had a similar experience here on the JREF forums. I started a thread where I asked about this extraordinary paradox I had dreamed up having to do with special relativity. It turned out that I was simply stating the Twins Paradox.

The embarrassing thing is that I had heard of the Twins Paradox, and thought I had understood it. But I hadn't. That's why I thought MY new idea was something new and different.

All in all, the responders to my OP were pretty patient and gracious about it.
 
I am fascinated by the quantum properties of matter. This sounds like string theory. Is it something more certain than string theory?

Wow, and I could not even list all the cool things about QM, perhaps the most famous is the Double-slit experimentWP or Youngs experiment, but it is pervasive in all of physics and answeres questions like "If Coulomb's lawWP states that protons will be repeled from each other at the inverse square of the distance between them, how they heck do they fuse together in the sun?"

The history of the development of QM is facinating.

I also like Bose–Einstein condensateWP demonstrated here: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/
 
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.

That's pretty spot on- though I don't know about the therefore God part.

If there are things which exist an things which don't exist, what is it that prevents those things from existing? Is it because they simply aren't possible? That's where I start to get confused, on why things can't be possible. We may be limited conceptually in what we can create or reproduce, even with umpteen thousand years more of scientific advancement, but what about the rules of the universe prevents raw energy from forming in ways which would be seemingly inconsistent with the rest of the universe? Or, have they simply not occurred yet?

I don't know, but trying to boil down some identifiable properties or patterns that were consistent not only at the most basic level, but through out the chain of creation seemed a good place to begin a string of theories, or even simple SWAGs off of.

The step from matter to life is certainly a big one- but (might) occurs far more frequently (maybe?) then the step from life to sentient life. At any event, the step to sentient life is a big one, and it seemed reasonable at the time to try and accredit it to what seemed the process of adding complexity to energy via the concurrently (by necessity) developing matter.
 
We all have our own styles.

If someone runs off because their feeling were hurt then I then I think they weren't very sincere about learning anything but were here to preach.

No way man, just living life. Don't expect to see me more then two or three times a week.
 

Back
Top Bottom