The nature of things

[paximperium]

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.

 

[LTABN]

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!

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?

 

[paximperium]

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.

 

[godless dave]

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.

 

[LTABN]

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?

 

[LTABN]

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.

 

[iknownothing]

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?

 

[Complexity]

I protest to being generalized.

Then quit behaving like a fundie.

May I have the links to these previous discussions? I am after all, here to learn through discourse.

No and no.

 

[LTABN]

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?

 

[LTABN]

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.

 

[paximperium]

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?

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.

 

[paximperium]

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.

 

[LTABN]

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?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
One word. Lobotomy.

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?

 

[paximperium]

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.

 

[Complexity]

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.

 

[godless dave]

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?

 

[LTABN]

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.

 

[LTABN]

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.

 

[LTABN]

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.