The nature of things

[godless dave]

...?
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?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I have no shame in admitting to belief beyond the observable, as not all things are observer-able.

Can you give an example of something that is verifiably real but is not observable?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

LTABN,

Spinoza is a good place to start.

 

[paximperium]

@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 Your concepts about energy-matter are over a hundred years out of date.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.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

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.

-

 

[Complexity]

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.

 

[bjornart]

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.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Look like I am on ignore already. Sniff. And I was only trying to be helpful.

 

[Her Dark Star]

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

 

[bjornart]

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.

 

[Complexity]

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.

 

[LTABN]

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.

 

[Loss Leader]

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]

Can you give an example of something that is verifiably real but is not observable?

Any number or mathematical equation you can randomly pull from the air.

For verification purposes, I motion to engineering.

 

[LTABN]

LTABN,

Spinoza is a good place to start.

He is an excellent read.



What in particular do you like of his?

 

[LTABN]

@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?

 

[LTABN]

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.

 

[godless dave]

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"?

 

[Resume]

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?