|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/25/2009 : 18:05:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
To state the obvious, CNN did not "do something stupid" by publishing that "tripe".
I wish PhreakaZoid would drop the cliches and rhetoric. He writes similar to a high-school gothie.
| "It's an awful, boring, tired old piece trumpeting..." |
Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
|
I'm rather fond of the beam in my eye, thank you. It seldom leads me as far astray as the motes in my Creationist brothers orbs.
But no matter, PZ is outspoken on creationism simply because, among other nonsense, they would have their myth system taught in science class and given equal time with the ToE. That raises my hackles, too.
THor:
Evolution is undeniable to anyone with functioning eyes and a cerebral cortex. But one doesn't have to be religious to believe in intelligent design.
Something must exist in order to change or be changed, act or be acted upon. If existence is required in order for change to occur, then cause and effect is a function of existence, not the reverse (creation). Bigbangers and creationists BOTH suffer from the WECIB complex (What Else Could It Be). There is an alternative perspective, one that does not diverge from common sense or sound scientific axiom.
http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/life.htm |
That's an interesting link, however metaphysics isn't really my bag. I consider it to be mostly hand-waving unsupported by evidence. "Intelligent Design" is a journey into metaphysics. And as for a soul, secular or otherwise, I'll accept that such a thing exists when, after I croak, I "see" them fluttering about.
Really, there is nothing to suggest that anything but natural process' is responsible for our existence nor indeed the existence of the universe. If someone should discover a "designer" and scientifically verifies it, I want to be among the first to know.
But thanks for the read, anyway.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 11:21:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
...snip...
THor:
Evolution is undeniable to anyone with functioning eyes and a cerebral cortex. But one doesn't have to be religious to believe in intelligent design.
Something must exist in order to change or be changed, act or be acted upon. If existence is required in order for change to occur, then cause and effect is a function of existence, not the reverse (creation). Bigbangers and creationists BOTH suffer from the WECIB complex (What Else Could It Be). There is an alternative perspective, one that does not diverge from common sense or sound scientific axiom.
http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/life.htm |
That's an interesting link, however metaphysics isn't really my bag. I consider it to be mostly hand-waving unsupported by evidence. "Intelligent Design" is a journey into metaphysics. And as for a soul, secular or otherwise, I'll accept that such a thing exists when, after I croak, I "see" them fluttering about.
Really, there is nothing to suggest that anything but natural process' is responsible for our existence nor indeed the existence of the universe. If someone should discover a "designer" and scientifically verifies it, I want to be among the first to know.
But thanks for the read, anyway.
|
Axiom: In order for something to experience, it must exist.
Axiom: Composites 'occur', they are not 'existences', they are collections of existences with a single label applied to them as a matter of convention. Those fundamental elements that comprise the composites 'exist'.
Axiom: Each existence has a defined location, volume, set of attributes and a singular history (set of experiences).
Given: You exist
Given: Your body is a composite of individual existences
Question: Which ONE are you? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 12:19:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Axiom: Composites 'occur', they are not 'existences', they are collections of existences with a single label applied to them as a matter of convention. Those fundamental elements that comprise the composites 'exist'. |
What's a "composite"? Or an "existence"? |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 12:43:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Axiom: In order for something to experience, it must exist.
Axiom: Composites 'occur', they are not 'existences', they are collections of existences with a single label applied to them as a matter of convention. Those fundamental elements that comprise the composites 'exist'.
Axiom: Each existence has a defined location, volume, set of attributes and a singular history (set of experiences).
Given: You exist
Given: Your body is a composite of individual existences
Question: Which ONE are you?
|
Does everything that exists experience?
What is the fundamental level at which something exists? Organ? Macromolecule? Molecule? Atom? Proton, neutron , electron? Quark? Something even more fundamental?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 13:26:53 [Permalink]
|
Lots of stuff "exists" and I suspect that we don't yet know the half of it. Heh, if String Theory proves out, existence itself night be questionable -- don't ask; I know squat about String Theory beyond reading of it. I find it confusing.
Which ONE am I? Why I'm the bearded, irascible old fart contemptuously spitting Black Maria at all intelligent design nonsense, and will continue to do so until someone names a/the designer, giving me a more specific target.
Hundreds of thousands, millions even, of words have been written on the topic of ID and not one of them has named the designer. This is known in gambling as hedging your bets and in this case is downright dishonest. To my knowledge, there is exactly no research into this, by Dembski nor anyone else. Like Creationism, it must be taken on faith. Me, I don't gots no faith.
I don't recall anyone studying it saying that the "Big Bang" was anything but a strong hypothesis. The current evidence points toward that event but is not quite conclusive -- who can say; it might go in a different direction yet. The universe is vast beyond our puny comprehension, therefore it follows that the possibilities are as well.
And hey, if one designer, why not two? Or ten or a hundred, or a whole seething population of inter-galactic geeks, pumping up the process of evolution everywhere whilst waiting for the mating season?
Metaphysics is a crock unless supported by empirical evidence -- then it's not metaphysics any more, is it?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 19:19:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Axiom: In order for something to experience, it must exist.
Axiom: Composites 'occur', they are not 'existences', they are collections of existences with a single label applied to them as a matter of convention. Those fundamental elements that comprise the composites 'exist'.
Axiom: Each existence has a defined location, volume, set of attributes and a singular history (set of experiences).
Given: You exist
Given: Your body is a composite of individual existences
Question: Which ONE are you? |
The question seems to ignore the existence of emergent phenomena, in which case "I" am a phenomenon that emerges from the interactions of trillions of interdependent existences.
Oh, wait: the question doesn't seem to ignore emergent phenomena, axiom 2 instead tries to actively deny the possibility that any emergent phenomena is an "existence" through defining it away. An attempt to make college freshman dorm-room philosophy appear "deep" via a cheap rhetorical trick.
But it's easy to see that axiom 2 is simply false. No atom (or subatomic particle) in a can of paint on its own has any "paint-like" experiences. The quality of "being paint" is one that can only be applied to a "composite," and not any of the individual constituents of that composite. Axioms 1 and 3 still apply to the paint, however. So we can see that axiom 2 is just a ruse, to make the question "where do the atoms in paint get their paint-like qualities?" appear to be a mystery.
There's no mystery here. Physics, optics and chemistry explain how a bunch of atoms become paint. Add a whole bunch more sciences in (including biology, neurology, etc.) and we're on the road to explaining consciousness as an emergent phenomena of brains.
By the way, axiom 3 fails to apply generally to sub-atomic particles. So only one out of your three axioms is correct in principle. Not doing too well, there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2009 : 19:59:39 [Permalink]
|
| I keep it fairly simple - what you see is what you get. Yes, I'm a strict materialist. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 09:05:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
That isn't at all obvious. Why do you support journalists who give a platform and air of legitimacy to anti-science creationists? The output of the Discovery Institute is most definitely "tripe" by any definition.
Baxter, if you think ID is intellectually defensible, I'm sure many here would be happy to disabuse you of that notion. But PZ is only stating what intelligent people are already well aware of. Substanceless bitching on your part isn't going to change any minds.
|
Whether it's tripe is irrelevant to whether it should be published.
I don't accept "intelligent," and I don't accept "design". That disparages any modern idea of God.
Originally posted by filthy
I'm rather fond of the beam in my eye, thank you. It seldom leads me as far astray as the motes in my Creationist brothers orbs.
But no matter, PZ is outspoken on creationism simply because, among other nonsense, they would have their myth system taught in science class and given equal time with the ToE. That raises my hackles, too.
|
I was referring to Dr. PanZee, specifically his poorly written atheist blog, which contains too much immature teenage angst for my liking. Why should creationism get your panties in a wad? It provides me with a lot of entertainment, that's for sure.
|
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 09:24:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by THoR
Axiom: Composites 'occur', they are not 'existences', they are collections of existences with a single label applied to them as a matter of convention. Those fundamental elements that comprise the composites 'exist'. |
What's a "composite"? Or an "existence"?
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Does everything that exists experience?
What is the fundamental level at which something exists? Organ? Macromolecule? Molecule? Atom? Proton, neutron , electron? Quark? Something even more fundamental? |
To cite a passage from my 'metaphysical' hypothesis:
"Since the time of Democritus of Abdera it has been postulated the Universe is comprised of particles which - though they may be profoundly minute in nature - are not infinitely divisible. It is inherently logical that before the smallest non-empty set can be assembled, there must exist an individual element with which the set may be populated, a singular existence that is not composed of independent parts - an 'entity'."
Ordinately, before you can have '2' you must first have '1'.
We probably wouldn't recognize an entity even if we encountered it. They cannot be isolated. Entities are always completely immersed in something - material or ethereal (space). Often it's dificult to determine where one stops and the other begins.
We go to great lengths to study the material universe, but remember, mass is only a condition (can be swapped for another condition called energy per Uncle Al). There is no conclusive empirical evidence that fundamental elements are structureless, homogeneous 'billiard ball' constructs (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/existence.htm). Such may be the conventional wisdom, but frequently the conventional wisdom is wrong...and the universe may NOT be flat.
What prohibits an 'entity' from having both the property of mass and non-material properties within its domain? Could the phenomenon of mass be the result of interaction within an entity or between two entities - indeed, energy is the result of the interaction between two subcritical masses?
Originally posted by Dave W
The question seems to ignore the existence of emergent phenomena, in which case "I" am a phenomenon that emerges from the interactions of trillions of interdependent existences.
Oh, wait: the question doesn't seem to ignore emergent phenomena, axiom 2 instead tries to actively deny the possibility that any emergent phenomena is an "existence" through defining it away. An attempt to make college freshman dorm-room philosophy appear "deep" via a cheap rhetorical trick.
But it's easy to see that axiom 2 is simply false. No atom (or subatomic particle) in a can of paint on its own has any "paint-like" experiences. The quality of "being paint" is one that can only be applied to a "composite," and not any of the individual constituents of that composite. Axioms 1 and 3 still apply to the paint, however. So we can see that axiom 2 is just a ruse, to make the question "where do the atoms in paint get their paint-like qualities?" appear to be a mystery.
There's no mystery here. Physics, optics and chemistry explain how a bunch of atoms become paint. Add a whole bunch more sciences in (including biology, neurology, etc.) and we're on the road to explaining consciousness as an emergent phenomena of brains.
By the way, axiom 3 fails to apply generally to sub-atomic particles. So only one out of your three axioms is correct in principle. Not doing too well, there. |
Again, to cite the hypothesis:
You experience a singular existence (even schizos experience one at a time), but your corpse is a plurality.
"In order to reconcile this disparity, scholarly pundits with alphabet soup after their names profess that if you toss just the right combination of terrestrial ingredients into a primordial cauldron and stir it really, really hard for a very long time, you can produce a composite that thinks, propagates and experiences a unique existence as a single identity. That may sound silly (I call it the Pinocchio hypothesis) but which lowly layman in his right mind would dare contradict an entire horde of scholarly pundits, especially when they are immersed in alphabet soup. So, with an eye of newt and wing of bat, a pinch of this and a dash of that, the pundits dub this egregious departure from logic the 'phenomenon of emergent properties' and they credit it with the creation of all life on Earth. Regrettably, they seem unable to fully explain the mechanics of this miraculous process that transforms 8x10^27 atoms into a single existence with an individual identity.
Hogwarts! If this is science, then Harry Potter is the next Isaac Newton."
Yes, emergent properties are behaviors of composites when a multitude of 'entities' are cast into proximity with each other. But each 'entity' retains its identity and no new existences are conjured in the process - the composite is still only an arrangement of individual particles with a single label for the sake of convenience and convention.
Proponents of 'emergent properties' being the essence of human identity and experience bandy about the word 'integration' like a magician proclaiming the encantation "abra cadabra".
If you want to believe it, fine. I see no rationale to back it up. And science is based on rationale.
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 11/28/2009 09:37:15 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 09:33:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
Originally posted by H. Humbert
That isn't at all obvious. Why do you support journalists who give a platform and air of legitimacy to anti-science creationists? The output of the Discovery Institute is most definitely "tripe" by any definition.
Baxter, if you think ID is intellectually defensible, I'm sure many here would be happy to disabuse you of that notion. But PZ is only stating what intelligent people are already well aware of. Substanceless bitching on your part isn't going to change any minds.
|
Whether it's tripe is irrelevant to whether it should be published.
I don't accept "intelligent," and I don't accept "design". That disparages any modern idea of God.
Originally posted by filthy
I'm rather fond of the beam in my eye, thank you. It seldom leads me as far astray as the motes in my Creationist brothers orbs.
But no matter, PZ is outspoken on creationism simply because, among other nonsense, they would have their myth system taught in science class and given equal time with the ToE. That raises my hackles, too.
|
I was referring to Dr. PanZee, specifically his poorly written atheist blog, which contains too much immature teenage angst for my liking. Why should creationism get your panties in a wad? It provides me with a lot of entertainment, that's for sure.
|
"Dr. PanZee" actually has a very good, well written blog that a lot of science can be gleaned from. You might not like his style, but it's hard to argue with his science.
Creationists only wish they could have an effect on my underwear. I too, have a lot of fun with them, as you can see from some of my screevings -- look in the Articles section of the Skeptic's Summery, on the home page. And one of the minor amusements in my life is dragging one of AiG's articles into here and shredding it like a cabbage. It's really too easy, but fun never the less. I only wish they would come here and defend their nonsense.
It's actually their political programs that make me turn ugly. Religion has no place in either government or science.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 10:06:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Yes, emergent properties are behaviors of composites when a multitude of 'entities' are cast into proximity with each other. But each 'entity' retains its identity and no new existences are conjured in the process - the composite is still only an arrangement of individual particles with a single label for the sake of convenience and convention. |
Yes, I understand that you are denying that composites experience anything. I disagree with that assessment. Surely you can show me which subatomic particle experiences "paint" in a gallon of it, and demonstrate that your axiom is true.| Proponents of 'emergent properties' being the essence of human identity and experience bandy about the word 'integration' like a magician proclaiming the encantation "abra cadabra". |
And you're waving away the fact that it appears to be correct by inventing an axiom which denies reality. If you don't like the paint example, then show me the subatomic particle in a tuning fork which experiences resonance. Or pick your own example where a single particle experiences everything that looks like (but isn't, according to you) an emergent phenomenon.| If you want to believe it, fine. I see no rationale to back it up. And science is based on rationale. |
And I'm asking you to rationally and logically support your assertion that axiom 2 is true. If it's not true, then your conclusion doesn't hold. It isn't rational to simply state that it is an axiom as if that magically makes it be true. Saying "axiom: 3 equals 5" is simply a false statement, as I have concluded, rationally, that your axiom 2 is false.
And your third axiom is also false. You have two false axioms, and you have done nothing to support either one but insult scientists, and act as if your incredulity is somehow evidence for your argument. You're not acting rationally, even though you know it is the basis of science and rationality seems important to you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 12:06:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
Yes, emergent properties are behaviors of composites when a multitude of 'entities' are cast into proximity with each other. But each 'entity' retains its identity and no new existences are conjured in the process - the composite is still only an arrangement of individual particles with a single label for the sake of convenience and convention. |
Yes, I understand that you are denying that composites experience anything. I disagree with that assessment. Surely you can show me which subatomic particle experiences "paint" in a gallon of it, and demonstrate that your axiom is true. |
The only thing an 'entity' can experience is itself and its own reaction or change in condition precipitated by those elements with which it comes into contact (they do share a common two-dimensional 'area' at their periphery - one side has the properties of one entity and the other side has the properties of the other and there is no distance between the two sides). A particle in the can doesn't experience paint - YOU, by tactile and optical transmission, experience the 'paintness' of the collective assembly of all the particles you observe. YOU are experiencing the effect of a composite of elements.| Proponents of 'emergent properties' being the essence of human identity and experience bandy about the word 'integration' like a magician proclaiming the encantation "abra cadabra". |
And you're waving away the fact that it appears to be correct by inventing an axiom which denies reality. If you don't like the paint example, then show me the subatomic particle in a tuning fork which experiences resonance. Or pick your own example where a single particle experiences everything that looks like (but isn't, according to you) an emergent phenomenon. |
The phenomenon of emergent properties occurs when elements in a composite act in concert with others 'AS IF' they were a unit. 'AS IF' is not the same as 'IS'. I can be part of a football squad. I can even play every position on the team, but not simultaneously - I cannot BE the entire squad.| If you want to believe it, fine. I see no rationale to back it up. And science is based on rationale. |
And I'm asking you to rationally and logically support your assertion that axiom 2 is true. If it's not true, then your conclusion doesn't hold. It isn't rational to simply state that it is an axiom as if that magically makes it be true. Saying "axiom: 3 equals 5" is simply a false statement, as I have concluded, rationally, that your axiom 2 is false. |
Axiom 2: Composites 'occur', they are not 'existences', they are collections of existences with a single label applied to them as a matter of convention. Those fundamental elements that comprise the composites 'exist'.
With what do you disagree? Are composites not collections? Are they not produced by the forces of cause and effect (occur)? The English vernacular serves us poorly when it applies the term 'exist' to both object entities and conditions. I would say conditions 'OCCUR' and they are shaped by the properties of the entities that EXIST within the domain of the condition that is being defined.
(Corpses are composites, temporary collections of ingredients cast into a condition recognizeable as a 'body')| And your third axiom is also false. You have two false axioms, and you have done nothing to support either one but insult scientists, and act as if your incredulity is somehow evidence for your argument. You're not acting rationally, even though you know it is the basis of science and rationality seems important to you. |
Axiom 3: Each existence has a defined location, volume, set of attributes and a singular history (set of experiences).
OK, let's get specific.
Which of the following does an existence (as opposed to a collection of multiple existences) NOT have:
1) Location
2) Volume
3) Attributes
4) History
?????????????????????
Quite simply, I am stating that
1) Something must exist in order to experience
2) Each existence has a unique history and set of experiences.
3) Putting elements into proximity with each other does not magically forge them into a single existence - Pinocchio hypothesis
AND
4) 8X10^27 does not equal 1.
I have heard nothing yet that would lead me to believe otherwise |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 11/28/2009 12:16:32 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 12:36:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
I was referring to Dr. PanZee, specifically his poorly written atheist blog, which contains too much immature teenage angst for my liking. Why should creationism get your panties in a wad? It provides me with a lot of entertainment, that's for sure. |
And your obviously homophobic (and laughably misplaced) slur is what, if not merely contemptable bigotry for ad hom purposes? Or is it because PZ Myers' support for gay rights makes you feel somehow uncomfortable. You know, a little confused and unsure of yourself, with a need to prove how very masculine you can be by being a dick to others?
Someone call the fire brigade! I think I hear the faint sound of crackling flames from the closet! |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/28/2009 12:39:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 12:49:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
The only thing an 'entity' can experience is itself and its own reaction or change in condition precipitated by those elements with which it comes into contact (they do share a common two-dimensional 'area' at their periphery - one side has the properties of one entity and the other side has the properties of the other and there is no distance between the two sides). A particle in the can doesn't experience paint... |
No, the collection of particles experiences paintness.| ...YOU, by tactile and optical transmission, experience the 'paintness' of the collective assembly of all the particles you observe. YOU are experiencing the effect of a composite of elements. |
So if I stop observing the paint in this room, it'll slide off the walls and evaporate into a bunch of independent particles? No. The paint itself experiences paintness, in that it behaves like paint even when I'm not "experiencing" it.| The phenomenon of emergent properties occurs when elements in a composite act in concert with others 'AS IF' they were a unit. 'AS IF' is not the same as 'IS'. I can be part of a football squad. I can even play every position on the team, but not simultaneously - I cannot BE the entire squad. |
No, that's my point. You are not the team. The team isn't you. The team is an emergent phenomenon of a bunch of interdependent players. The team wins or loses the game, not any individual player.Axiom 2: Composites 'occur', they are not 'existences', they are collections of existences with a single label applied to them as a matter of convention. Those fundamental elements that comprise the composites 'exist'.
With what do you disagree? Are composites not collections? Are they not produced by the forces of cause and effect (occur)? The English vernacular serves us poorly when it applies the term 'exist' to both object entities and conditions. I would say conditions 'OCCUR' and they are shaped by the properties of the entities that EXIST within the domain of the condition that is being defined. |
I disagree that composites don't "experience" anything. They clearly do, and they clearly experience things differently depending upon how they are arranged internally. A bucket of sand with a block of silver buried in the middle of it is one composite of the same elements one can find in a mirror. Limiting "experience" to non-emergent phenomena means that a mirror shouldn't behave differently from said bucket.
What properties of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms predict the properties of water?| (Corpses are composites, temporary collections of ingredients cast into a condition recognizeable as a 'body') |
Do you think that corpses don't "experience" anything?
Axiom 3: Each existence has a defined location, volume, set of attributes and a singular history (set of experiences).
OK, let's get specific.
Which of the following does an existence (as opposed to a collection of multiple existences) NOT have:
1) Location
2) Volume
3) Attributes
4) History
????????????????????? |
Photons and other subatomic particles have no well-defined locations or volumes, only probabilistic ones.Quite simply, I am stating that
1) Something must exist in order to experience
2) Each existence has a unique history and set of experiences.
3) Putting elements into proximity with each other does not magically forge them into a single existence - Pinocchio hypothesis
AND
4) 8X10^27 does not equal 1. |
Actually, nobody disagrees with number 3. The problem with #3 is that you're misunderstanding what an emergent phenomenon is. It's not a merging of a bunch of existences into one, it's a wholly new existence with different properties than any of its constituent parts. #4 is nothing more than a straw-man caricature of what "emergent phenomenon" means.| I have heard nothing yet that would lead me to believe otherwise |
So what? You still haven't supported your position with evidence, just more rhetorical attempts to dismiss counterarguments.
Two Hydrogen atoms and an Oxygen atom, independent on one another, don't behave as if they were a water molecule. A water molecule has attributes and a history different from those of its constituent atoms. What parts of this do you disagree with? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2009 : 12:55:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Quite simply, I am stating that
1) Something must exist in order to experience |
You seem to be using the word "experience" to mean "record of existence" in some senses and "feel, know, remember" in others. Yes, minimally something must first exist before it can "experience" anything in the sense of being aware that it exists. But not everything that exists has a conscious experience. That requires a brain. So then how can such statements as this be justified?
| When you eventually die, it may well be a familiar state to whatever level of consciousness you experience. You may even vaguely remember past death states - probably more as an instinct than as the vivid sounds and images generated by your living "mind's eye". Your condition in death is vastly different from your condition while alive. |
Who says fundamental particles experience any "level" of consciousness? Jack McNally graciously allows that "It seems consciousness, as we know it, only occurs when you are wrapped within your corporal shell," but he seems dubious that brains are the whole story. He's certain that human souls will be detectable by future technology, and asks such fantasy-laden questions as "How many souls are there in the region of Earth? Are others arriving? Do some leave?" This is religious magical thinking, not science or logic.
| Life is a transient state of being - followed, of course, by another condition called Death. Your "existence" didn't begin with your birth, nor will it end upon your demise. Existence is eternal, states of being are temporary. |
My existence certainly did begin with my birth and subsequent the development of my brain. The particles which comprise my body don't have independent consciousness because they lack the necessary apparatuses for higher thought. "I" am my body. There is no "me" apart from my body. It isn't merely a meat shell housing some immortal soul.
Back to your list:
| 2) Each existence has a unique history and set of experiences. |
But not necessarily conscious experience. A rock has a history, but it doesn't "experience" anything. The "logic" McNally uses to justify souls and past lives is particularly specious:
| Conscious thought is played back upon the senses - this feedback is often called the "mind's eye". You no longer have the same brain or nervous system to call upon to replay the events of a past life. The impressions of previous events are not ingrained upon your present body and the corpse you currently inhabit may be somewhat different in its architecture. Memory seems to be a call on demand feature inherent to our nature. When you are awake, you tend to recall those memories which best serve the processes of your waking consciousness. You are more likely to remember your dreams while you are still in a semi-dream state and unless you make a conscious effort to record or 'bookmark' them, you often can't recall them after you are fully awake - even when you know you definitely experienced a dream. Even waking memories tend to decay over time unless they are reinforced periodically. This doesn't mean you may not still have soul memories from past lives, but they may not be retrievable by your consciousness. They would be dim, you would have to have some reason to summon their recall and the effort required to retrieve and decode them may not be worth the trouble. |
The fact that our waking minds are bad at recalling dreams is not evidence that we have forgotten memories from previous "states of being" because it ignores the evidence that brains are required for consciousness. The nervous system isn't just required for "playing back" memories, but for forming them in the first place.
| 3) Putting elements into proximity with each other does not magically forge them into a single existence - Pinocchio hypothesis |
So you don't believe in molecular bonding? Putting elements into proximity with each other does forge them into something new. You can't "unglue" them without an atom smasher. Matter is not just a heap of fundamental particles like a pile of marbles. Atoms interact and bond with one another in unique patterns with unique properties not found it in them individually. They don't behave like individual football players on a field. That's the point. Whether or not they have a single "existence" is irrelevant. They have a different existence than they would have otherwise had, indeed could possibly have had, individually.
| I have heard nothing yet that would lead me to believe otherwise |
Maybe because your ideas seem to be largely formed by people writing and thinking 3000 years ago. Science has made great strides since the days of Plato and Aristotle. Dualism is pretty much dead. It has been considered and rejected. If you wish to resurrect it, you first need to address the outstanding objections against it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/28/2009 13:00:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution vs. ID: 6 Bones of Contention
