Franko Memorial thread!

[Upchurch]

Takes a lot of forms, anyway, & within uncertainty limits is neither created nor destroyed, yup. What is Gravity? Do you ever wonder?

Oh, baby, have I ever! Spent two semesters in college on Gravity alone. The short answer is that gravity is a fourth dimensional warping of spacetime by mass and energy.

{Or, conversely, are F (&W) totally insane? }

Whatever they are, they don't know actual science.

A meaningful question once you have concluded "matter makes life". But again, that is The Question we are discussing, isn't it?

Great, but where did it go? Are you suggesting that life is conserved, and if so how, or that life can be distroyed? I'm suggesting the latter since there is no evidence that it goes anywhere.

This is another try at The Question, isn't it?

Actually, it is another try at the question, "What do you know of that is more quintessentially 'energetic' than life?"

I guess I need some clarification. When you said, "'Life'is also interesting to contemplate: it seems to me it is more akin to 'energy' than 'matter'" and then asked the question above, I assumed that you considered life to something that is directly comparable to energy. Indeed, you asked me to compare it to something else that has energy.

What properties, exactly, do you think energy and life have in common?

I only point out that "necessary" is not "sufficient", and I foresee a never-ending god-of-the-gaps problem for science. And, we are yet far far away from that point.

So... why call the god-of-the-gaps (i.e. God is that which science hasn't explained yet) "God" at all? Why not just call it the "yet unknown" and continue the pursuit? This is the position I take as an atheist. Really, the only thing I take on blind faith is not the doctorine that everything that is knowable can be known and that which isn't knowable (e.g. the Uncertainty Principle) is at least understandable. Or, in other words, there are know unsolvable mysteries, only unsolved ones.

But I digress. My appologies.

 

[hammegk]

Oh, baby, have I ever! Spent two semesters in college on Gravity alone. The short answer is that gravity is a fourth dimensional warping of spacetime by mass and energy.

A mathematically elegant theory. That we agree on.

Great, but where did it go? Are you suggesting that life is conserved, and if so how, or that life can be distroyed? I'm suggesting the latter since there is no evidence that it goes anywhere.

And I look at the alternative -- given the correct "perceived physical attributes & structure", and correct environment -- why does live choose to appear?

What properties, exactly, do you think energy and life have in common?

Will & intent to continue "beingness" would be one way to phrase it.

Really, the only thing I take on blind faith is not the doctorine that everything that is knowable can be known and that which isn't knowable (e.g. the Uncertainty Principle) is at least understandable. Or, in other words, there are know unsolvable mysteries, only unsolved ones.

Er, what did you mean to say?

 

[Loki]

hammegk,

Choose Mind as the monism, and at human-consciousness-level hpc is solved, as is -- though only potentially -- lib. free will.

Don't wish to interrupt you and Upchurch, and this is only a small point, but I'd question just how solved HPC and LFW are under such a proposal. I'd suggest :

"Choose Mind as the monism, and at human-consciousness-level hpc is defined as unknowable, as is -- though only potentially -- lib. free will."

Really, there is no "solution" here, only an assertion that these concepts are beyond physical explanation and mechanism. I have trouble calling that "solved".

 

[hammegk]

hammegk,


Don't wish to interrupt you and Upchurch, and this is only a small point, but I'd question just how solved HPC and LFW are under such a proposal.

HPC, solved in that no dichotomy in cause-effect exists.

LFW, ditto, but monism of mind may also have rules as strict as science has defined for perceivable "matter/energy", and therefore, still no LFW.

 

[Loki]

hammegk,

HPC, solved in that no dichotomy in cause-effect exists.

I must be missing your point - can you expand on this? What do you mean by "dicotomy in cause-effect"?

 

[hammegk]

I must be missing your point - can you expand on this? What do you mean by "dicotomy in cause-effect"?

Materialist/atheist answer: HPC doesn't exist, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)

Dualist answer: Matter exists (objectively), Spirit exists also(Consciousness, basically, although I'd say life); problem, how can "non-physical" effect/affect "physical"?

Mental monism: Consciousness/life is all there "really" is: i.e consciousness/life/energy/dynamic-force creates static "matter-the stuff materialists believe is objective".

Capische?

 

[Tricky]

Materialist/atheist answer: HPC doesn't exist, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)

Dualist answer: Matter exists (objectively), Spirit exists also(Consciousness, basically, although I'd say life); problem, how can "non-physical" effect/affect "physical"?

Mental monism: Consciousness/life is all there "really" is: i.e consciousness/life/energy/dynamic-force creates static "matter-the stuff materialists believe is objective".

Capische?

Um... no. A dichotomy is a two-way branching, a yes/no answer or an either/or (with only one "or") scenario. What you done here is summarize three philosophies, and you would probably admit there are many more. The last two do not even address cause and effect/affect with Dualism not being able to answer the question and Mental Monism postulating some strange phenomena like "dynamic-force" and equating it with life, energy and consciousness.

I cannot see that you have answered Loki's question at all, and another nagging question remains: Can consciousness exist in the absence of matter? If so, how?

 

[Loki]

hammegk,

Capische?

Perhaps. I can't seem to find anything in your post that directly relates to explaining what "dichotomy of cause-effect" meant. I assume you were aiming for a "poetic" phrase to encapsulate the three metaphysical positions and what they infer regarding consciousness? Consciousness is the cause, matter is the effect, or vice versa?

Materialist/atheist answer: HPC doesn't exist, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)

This will do for the sake of keeping things simple, but I'd probably perfer to say "Materialist/atheist answer: HPC isn't what it intuitively appears to be, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)".

Mental monism: Consciousness/life is all there "really" is: i.e consciousness/life/energy/dynamic-force creates static "matter-the stuff materialists believe is objective".

But how does this "solve" HPC? Simplifying (almost to the point of losing meaning), HPC says "consciousness appears to have two elements, one fairly obviously affected by and affecting the physical, and one (qualia) that appears 'different'".

1. Materialism says "It's all physical, the 'diffence' will be explained eventually".

2. Mental Monism says "It's all mental, the 'difference' is just the way it works".

How does #2 solve or explain anything better than #1? If you answer is that "well, Mental monism posits that, despite the appearance of two types of "conscious element", it's all really the same thing", then that's pretty much what materialism says also. Materialism goes on to say "and we'll eventually dissect and comprehend this apparent difference". Mental Monism says "That's it. No further information is possible". Again, it seems to me that Mental Monisn doesn't "solve" HPC, it just defines it as being "the way it is".

And as (another) aside, you seem to use"consciousness" and "life" quite freely, basically treating them as interchangeable terms. This is probably a topic requiring it's own thread, but what *exactly* is your perspective of this? Are 'life' and 'consciousness' just different terms for the same thing? Does life require consciousness? Does consciousness require life? Are both derived from something more fundamental? I'm not asking you to *prove* anything here, just trying to understand how you (currently) see the relationship

 

[CWL]

I cannot see that you have answered Loki's question at all, and another nagging question remains: Can consciousness exist in the absence of matter? If so, how?

Indeed.

I think there is also another signifigant problem with mental monism. Assuming that consciousness is in reality "all there is" leads to the question why one should assume the existence of other "consciousnesses". If it is reasonable to assume that the "matter" I perceive is nothing but a construct in my mind, it is equally reasonable to assume that so are the other "minds" which I perceive.

I thus fail to see how a reasonable epistemology can be constructed on the basis of mental monism, as it undoubtedly leads to solipsism.

Mental monism also seems to be a rather conceited point of departure - rather like assuming that the Earth is the center of the Universe because we happen to live on it. The progress of science has taught us better...

 

[hammegk]

hammegk,


Perhaps. I can't seem to find anything in your post that directly relates to explaining what "dichotomy of cause-effect" meant. I assume you were aiming for a "poetic" phrase to encapsulate the three metaphysical positions and what they infer regarding consciousness? Consciousness is the cause, matter is the effect, or vice versa?

Poetic? Not me. Simplistic, I'd go for.

This will do for the sake of keeping things simple, but I'd probably perfer to say "Materialist/atheist answer: HPC isn't what it intuitively appears to be, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)".

ok

But how does this "solve" HPC? Simplifying (almost to the point of losing meaning), HPC says "consciousness appears to have two elements, one fairly obviously affected by and affecting the physical, and one (qualia) that appears 'different'".

1. Materialism says "It's all physical, the 'diffence' will be explained eventually".

2. Mental Monism says "It's all mental, the 'difference' is just the way it works".

How does #2 solve or explain anything better than #1? If you answer is that "well, Mental monism posits that, despite the appearance of two types of "conscious element", it's all really the same thing", then that's pretty much what materialism says also. Materialism goes on to say "and we'll eventually dissect and comprehend this apparent difference". Mental Monism says "That's it. No further information is possible". Again, it seems to me that Mental Monisn doesn't "solve" HPC, it just defines it as being "the way it is".

Solved in the sense that *I* do think, and so do you. Our prime datum.

And as (another) aside, you seem to use"consciousness" and "life" quite freely, basically treating them as interchangeable terms. This is probably a topic requiring it's own thread, but what *exactly* is your perspective of this? Are 'life' and 'consciousness' just different terms for the same thing? Does life require consciousness? Does consciousness require life? Are both derived from something more fundamental? I'm not asking you to *prove* anything here, just trying to understand how you (currently) see the relationship

I'd say life v. non-life is the problem for materialism. Again, say you synthesize -- let's start with quarks -- a bacterium structure, and it is exhibits life. Did you & structure "create" the "life", or does "what-is" use the perceived physical structure to manifest itself? Is a quark "alive"? Why not? Energy?

I thus fail to see how a reasonable epistemology can be constructed on the basis of mental monism, as it undoubtedly leads to solipsism.

At human level, we depend on the gentlemens agreement, *I* think, and fully believe you do too. Materialists must grapple with human hpc (and lbf) -- and do not do so successfully imo.

But the real point has nothing to do with human perception -- the end of the evolutionary chain on Earth at the moment -- life is the real question. And again, the closer science looks at "matter" the less of it there is -- only the expression in one from or another of dynamic "energy". Matter appears to be inert, and static.

So emergent property of matter, or thing-in-itself? This position has no quarrel with scientific analysis and prediction, and offers a reason for QM nuttiness. If M-theory is correct, is a string matter, or energy? Where does Higgs fit in?

 

[Dancing David]

I think that Higgs fits in the Higgs pocket.

Higgs particles or vibrations would be a likely candidate for the dark energy.
They may not be nessecary however, what if the vacum energy creates inertia/gravity and it is the production of virtual particles that givesthings mass, then you don't need Higgs.

In strings Higgs would be one of the ealier strings to form .

Peace
dancing david

 

[hammegk]

In strings Higgs would be one of the earlier strings to form .

Ummm, and would they be forming from -- energy perhaps??

Or are we back to the string as The Material A-tom?

 

[Tricky]

At human level, we depend on the gentlemens agreement, *I* think, and fully believe you do too. Materialists must grapple with human hpc (and lbf) -- and do not do so successfully imo.

IMO, most materialists do not grapple with the HPC, simply because it is not in any way a problem. HPC, like "souls" and "qualia" and even "the mind" are simply concepts created in our rather remarkable brain. Non-materialists seem to think that there must be a problem, so they invent all sorts of imaginary solutions to an imaginary problem, none of which can ever be tested. Materialists simple recognize that this is a complete waste of time and spend their time grappling with real problems which have possible, testable solutions.

 

[hammegk]

Materialists simple recognize that this is a complete waste of time and spend their time grappling with real problems which have possible, testable solutions.

Yeah, I'd agree materialists/atheists have no time to waste on imponderables like ethics & morals. Good chance for your book deal here: Scientific Ethics and Morality by, ta-da, "Tricky"!

You are correct about your only logically sustainable position on hpc and lbf: answer -- neither exists.

 

[Tricky]

Yeah, I'd agree materialists/atheists have no time to waste on imponderables like ethics & morals. Good chance for your book deal here: Scientific Ethics and Morality by, ta-da, "Tricky"!

You are correct about your only logically sustainable position on hpc and lbf: answer -- neither exists.

Ethics and morals demonstrably exist and can be easily studied, including their sources, reasons and effects. This is in stark contrast to HPC. I would have a much easier time gathering data for that sort of book than you would for your tome, "The I in Me".

 

[CWL]

At human level, we depend on the gentlemens agreement, *I* think, and fully believe you do too. Materialists must grapple with human hpc (and lbf) -- and do not do so successfully imo.

I am not sure that a gentlemens' agreement is a sound basis for an epistemology. I would rather say that the only reasonable starting point is that the world we perceive is out there - and that we are a part of it.

But the real point has nothing to do with human perception -- the end of the evolutionary chain on Earth at the moment -- life is the real question. And again, the closer science looks at "matter" the less of it there is -- only the expression in one from or another of dynamic "energy". Matter appears to be inert, and static.

So emergent property of matter, or thing-in-itself? This position has no quarrel with scientific analysis and prediction, and offers a reason for QM nuttiness. If M-theory is correct, is a string matter, or energy? Where does Higgs fit in?

Why introduce this "X-thing-in-itself"? Do we have any reason to assume that life is not an emergent property of matter (and/or energy)?

 

[hammegk]

Ethics and morals demonstrably exist and can be easily studied, including their sources, reasons and effects. This is in stark contrast to HPC.

Demonstrably exist? Easily studied? You must be joking.

I would have a much easier time gathering data for that sort of book than you would for your tome, "The I in Me".

I do have one incontrovertible-to-me data point. *I* think -- that is hpc.

For the sake of discussion I'll even agree you do also.

 

[hammegk]

I am not sure that a gentlemens' agreement is a sound basis for an epistemology. I would rather say that the only reasonable starting point is that the world we perceive is out there - and that we are a part of it.

I know you would. Unfortunately that is called begging the question, iirc.

Why introduce this "X-thing-in-itself"? Do we have any reason to assume that life is not an emergent property of matter (and/or energy)?

You are the person postulating: i.e. matter being a thing-in-itself. My postulate is that *I* think, and am not a figment of something else's imagination. Which is closest to "reality"?

 

[CWL]

I know you would. Unfortunately that is called begging the question, iirc.

Saying "my perceptions derive from a reality which exists individually of myself " is no more begging the question than postulating that "I think therefore I am". Any epistemology needs an axiom, the question is whether or not the axiom is reasonabe.

You are the person postulating: i.e. matter being a thing-in-itself. My postulate is that *I* think, and am not a figment of something else's imagination. Which is closest to "reality"?

Where does this "figment" thingy enter into it again?

 

[whitefork]

There are problems with Cogito Ergo Sum.

It's not an argument.
The I that thinks is simply identified with the I that is.
Descartes is not really allowed to say anything more than "there is thought" - the conclusion that thought requires a thinker is an unjustified leap. The further conclusion that a thinker has a (non-material, non-extended) substantial basis is another leap.

Next lesson - the role of the pineal gland.