|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/30/2009 : 14:06:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Dave W.
| A body is something you wear, not something you are. |
Correct. |
What's correct about that? Of course a body is something you are, not something you "wear." A body is not a suit that you can step out of. Your body is you. |
Hypothetically, your entire body could be replaced by machines, one cell at a time, and you should (hypothetically again) maintain consciousness. More realistically but still hypothetically, your entire body except the brain could be replaced by organs from other people (nerve connections are tricky, but not impossible). It's most-likely true that your brain may be you (and thus my "correct" was not wholly correct), but the rest of the meat seems to be replaceable.But there can be uncaused effects, such as fundamental particles popping into existence without a cause. | Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally. |
So existence would not appear to be a prerequisite for change on a subatomic scale. |
I've always been leery of labeling those sorts of things as "uncaused." Clearly they occur, but I'm not so sure that they aren't the effects of some interaction between the several fields which pervade the universe with non-zero values at all locations. If that's true, then the causes exist without question (well, in our reality, not in THoR's).| And right here we see THoR's primary problem: he insists on applying the rules of the macro world to the world of the subatomic. Even when investigations of reality demonstrate his assumptions to be in error, he faults all of science for getting it wrong rather than accept that his "axioms" are not universally true. |
He doesn't just fault science, he rages against it.| We have a name for people like that: cranks. |
Oh, yeah. I haven't been keeping exact track, but I have noticed that THoR has lots of points on The Crackpot Index. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2009 : 15:39:55 [Permalink]
|
Well, I've done four out of THoR's nine pages, but I'll just summarize the rest:Subdimensions: Two-, one- or even zero-dimensional interfaces between box-shaped fundamental entities may have something to do with something like thermodynamics, gravity, mass, motion, Special Relativity and might even resolve the "illegal" mathematics of taking the square roots of negative numbers, but there's no way to really tell because the author's speculation is wild and unconnected. Bonus points for suggesting that E=mc2 is "incomplete" after correctly stating that it is simplified, and more bonus points for using the null-set symbol when subtracting equal temperatures.
Nothing: Claims that the null set is a "natural equilibrium," and that it is the "ultimate neutrality" as if it were somehow poised between positive and negative forces or numbers. This may just be confusion between the set-theory symbol for a null set and the symbol used for the number zero. No matter, this page basically says nothing.
Infinity: Claims that infinity "defies logical analysis," yet he attempts to use it to further his thesis. He also denies the existence of spacetime, and insists upon a strictly three-dimensional Newtonian universe of infinite size (I suppose time doesn't exist, but see below).
Space: The author engages in massive psychological projection to get the reader to agree that space is mysterious and weird. Then he uses words like "ethereal" and "material" and "space" and "matter" in ways that few physicists would, and really ends up going nowhere with any of the ideas.
Time: Here, the author demonstrates his ignorance of what a "dimension" is by insulting anyone who thinks that time isn't one. He also appears to grudgingly accept the notions of Relativistic time dilation, but obviously doesn't understand what they mean with regard to spacetime. Oh, he's also got a forum of his own. I mean that literally:We have 1 registered members.
The newest member is THoR. He's also got a links page with some good stuff, some Relativity denial, and some dead links.
[Corrected spelling] |
- 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 - 12/13/2009 : 12:59:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Originally posted by THoR
But the present condition of any element existence is built upon an eternity of experience and each experience has engraved some form of change upon it. |
This sounds suspiciously like cosmic homeopathy.
|
I AM NOT A HOMEO...I'd tell you to just ask my wife, but she's in the hospital with prostate problems.
|
Yuk Yuk 
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "the present condition of any element existence is built upon an eternity of experience and each experience has engraved some form of change upon it"?
|
The concept of logical progression is rather obvious, don't you think?
To get from point 'A' to point 'B' one must pass through all the points in between - unless you hit a space wrinkle and become a unicorn.
|
Do you have any positive evidence to support your contention that "existences" (or anything for that matter) are "eternal"?
Do you have any positive evidence to support your contention that "each experience has engraved some form of change upon" said existence?
To this point I have seen nothing but conjecture.
|
Axiom: before something can change - act or be acted upon - it must exist.
This means change/cause and effect is derived from existence.
No phenomenon can be the result of its own subordinate derivative, so existence is not a function of change/cause and effect/aka time.
There are three ways something can change:
Qualitatively - change in condition
Quantitatively - change in volume/density or intensity of properties
Spatially - change in configuration of location relative to the rest of the cosmos.
Just the fact that something has acted upon another 'thing' changes the status of that 'thing' within the universe. Whether the result is profound or negligible, to act is to change. Every action or reaction changes the cosmos in its entirety. The condition of the universe as a whole before an action is different from the state of the universe afterward...it will never be exactly the same again.
You may push a chair across the room - then push it back. But in the interim, jets have travelled hundreds of feet, wind has blown, socialist tyrants have been burned at the stake...a vast amount of change has taken place and though the chair is again in relatively the same position within the room, the universe around it is significantly different.
There is no change - no matter how insignificant - that doesn't make some kind of difference, else it would not be 'change'.
|
Again no evidence.
This is trivial. So the universe changes every second! Surprise! So I move a chair across the room. How does this affect my existence a billion years from now? What evidence do you have that my existence will still exist in a billion years?
|
The evidence that you will exist a trillion years from now? You exist now. And existence is not a function of time - in fact just the opposite is true: time (aka change) is a function of existence.
Proof? Put your Hadron Collider away and just consider:
Something must exist before it can change or be changed.
This means change is a function of existence...not the reverse (creation)
When is the last time you saw something conjured? Every thing in the universe changes in condition, but does not cease to exist (it's against law of conservation - you could get arrested.)
|
I guess your idea of evidence is not the same as the rest of the rational world. You're simply claiming that conciousness suvives death. Get back to me in about a trillion years on that.
|
I guess you don't remember...you said to 'get back to you in a trillion years' over a trillion years ago. Of course we were on a different thread on a different planet orbiting a different sol in a different galaxy...guess it slipped your mind, but here I am...getting back to you. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 13:03:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Okay, let's read Existence Ex Nihilo...| Cause and effect seems to govern everything - even the realm of thought, itself - so the premise that the cosmos was coaxed into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. Conventional wisdom has concluded that the physical presence of the Universe was spawned by some omnificent spontaneous process that transformed the cosmos from a state of non-existence into its present condition of substance and tangibility. |
No, that's a ludicrous straw man caricature of modern cosmology.| The flaws in that intuitive reasoning are readily apparent. |
Of course they are. No cosmologist thinks any such thing, because it's so flawed.| Before something can change or be changed - before something can act or be acted upon, it must first exist. Existence is not a condition or a 'state of being', it is being, itself - the most fundamental of all phenomenon. |
So you say. This is a redefinition of the word "existence" from common usage.| If existence is required in order for change to occur, then the process of cause and effect is derived from the phenomenon of existence - NOT visa versa. |
This is a non-sequitor, but no matter. Regular logic agrees with THoR-logic here, in that all things that are causes or effects need to exist (normal sense of the word, not THoR-sense).| No phenomenon can be derived from its own subordinate derivative, so existence cannot be the product of cause and effect and any premise of creation is obviously contrary to logic. |
Okay. So what?| FLAW #1: Cause and effect is derived from existence, not visa versa. |
Who claims that existence is derived from cause and effect? This is probably a straw man of something, but I can't say what.| The process of change involves two basic elements: a cause and an effect. You can't have one without the other, so if the cosmos was created, it must have been caused by something. But the presence of a creator violates the contention that nothing pre-existed creation. |
Ah, this old creationist canard (that modern cosmology states that the universe poofed into existence from nothing). Nothing new to see here, just a failure to understand cosmology before pontificating about it.| And even if you ignore this glaring discrepancy, if everything that exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been the product of some predecessor, which, in turn, must have been predated by an eternal procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy that results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning. |
So what? If that's the way reality is, then that's the way it is, however inconvenient it is to think about. Of course, you're ignoring the possibility that whatever created our universe is eternal (whatever the heck it might be), but no matter.| Flaw #2: The premise of creation resolves into an endless redundancy. |
Only if you ignore anything which might be eternal. And who cares about redundancy, even endless redundancy? It's not like we are compelled to find a primary source, and lacking one will suffer brainlock. So what if reality is turtles all the way down? The only people that's a real problem for are monotheists.| There are, of course, those who would suggest that whatever created the cosmos wasn't subject to the laws of nature. Theologians profess an omnipotent deity created the heavens and the Earth in an act of divine inspiration. |
Irrelevant.| Contemporary cosmologists tout the progressive red-shift of light from distant galaxies as proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the canons of physics as we know them today. |
A completely false picture of modern cosmology.You may freely choose to repeal the laws of nature in favor of whatever belief system you might wish to embrace, but thereafter and forevermore don't try to claim that your argument is logical. Once the laws of nature have been suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one exemption can be conceded, so can others - without limit.
FLAW #3: Suspending the laws of nature is contrary to logic. |
Hey, I agree with this. Let's see where THoR goes with it...| So how do you explain the physical presence of the cosmos? |
Lambda-CDM theory is the best explanation we've got right now. Just sayin'.| Cause and effect (change) is a process. Processes are governed by principles. If cause and effect is derived from existence, it logically follows that the nature of existence - the most fundamental of all phenomena - must be based upon a principle, NOT a process. |
Conflation of "derived from" and "governed by," and so it does not follow. Besides, since when is cause-and-effect a "process?" It's a law of nature. We've simply never observed any effect preceding its cause, nor any uncaused effects.| Such a principle does exist. It is a prevailing dynamic that governs the basic nature of the cosmos. It rules over the process of change. It is found at the heart and soul of every equation. It is a familiar axiom, universally known and accepted. Its influence is ubiquitous, yet since the advent of scientific inquiry, its real significance has been overlooked and undiscovered. Ironically, the answer to the enigma of existence lies hidden in plain sight. |
Drama. Hey, the next page!| There is an obvious but often ignored element of equilibrium that courses throughout the entire fabric of the Universe. For every left there exists a right. For every to there is a fro. For every up there is a down. For every measure of distance point 'A' is separated from point 'B', point 'B' is an equal and opposite distance from point 'A'. For every positive numeric value there is a negative equivalent and for every spatial direction in our three-dimensional world there exists a diametric opposite. It's not by mere coincidence that the language of science - mathematics - encodes its logic into a device called an equation; which requires its elements to be equivalent on opposite sides of the argument. Newton captured the essence of natural balance when he codified the law of physics that states every action precipitates an equal and opposite reaction. And while quantum theory seems to challenge certain aspects of Newtonian relativity, it does so by the use of mathematically balanced equations. |
Hey, I've been reading about the ancient Greek notions of "balance" lately. Pity they were ad hoc attempts at finding order in a chaotic human experience.| From simple addition to particle physics, reciprocal balance is a prevailing dynamic that even the rules of cause and effect must obey. |
If you mean that for every cause there is an effect and vice versa, then sure. Trivially true.| The way things act and react reflects their nature, the inherent properties of their being. If the realm of cause and effect is universally governed by natural balance, then the source of that equilibrium must reside within the very architecture of existence - within the composition of the elements, themselves. |
This is anthropomorphizing. Cause-and-effect isn't governed by anything. Things occur that way, but there is no "law giver" to keep everything balanced. Even the Greeks understood this, even if they metaphorically attributed balancing "acts" to "gods." The Greek intellectuals didn't take their gods all that seriously.| It is obvious that there exists an opposite equivalent for every conceivable quantitative value and a reciprocal for every vector in our three-dimensional world. If the same common law of natural balance covertly applies to the realm of qualitative values as it overtly does to the quantitative and spatial aspects of existence, then for every qualitative value there should exist an opposite. |
There isn't. There is no negative gravity, no negative wavelength of light, no negative mass. Likewise, there is no opposite of red (there is a complementary color, but not an opposing color).| Since the time of Democritus of Abdera (460-370 BC) it has been postulated the Universe is comprised of particles which - though they may be profoundly minute in nature - are not infinitely divisible. |
Background.| 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 unique existence that is not composed of independent parts, a singular physical manifestation which consists only of itself, an elemental identity called an 'entity'. |
It's logical that such a thing (or many of them) might exist, but not that one might call it that.| Contemporary physics does; indeed, portray the material world as paired sets of fundamental particles and anti-particles, fungible and structureless building blocks that include a handful of quarks and leptons and a small assortment of force carriers. |
You'll notice that the force carriers aren't paired. No "balance" there.| But there seems to be a lot more matter than anti-matter floating around the cosmos and, in fact, particles and anti-particles aren't opposite existences, they are only elements in opposing condition, materials that react to each other by changing state and converting into energy on contact. |
None of this follows from any previous statements. The standard model of particle physics doesn't posit the particles as being what you call "entities." Unless you wish to reject energy as a part of the "material world."| If two independent particles were truly opposite existences they would mutually annihilate on contact. |
Yup, there's the No True Scotsman fallacy. The fact is that physicists define the terms differently than you do, so you're free to make up whatever the hell claims you want to. Physicists aren't going to take them seriously, of course.| No mass or energy would remain. |
No negative mass or energy exists. (Actually, since you call both mass and energy "conditions," then neither one has any existence at any quantification.)| Instead of simply changing state from mass to energy, all of their properties would physically negate each other and they would totally disappear - cease to exist without a trace. |
Again, given your non-physicist definitions, sure.| Just as every entity has a front and a back, a left and a right, a top and a bottom... |
What is the front of a sphere? What is the left of an electron? These attributes are granted to objects by convention, not by any physics.| ...just as we would expect every action to be offset by an equal and opposite reaction within the physical boundary of a process... |
What, exactly, does "within the physical boundary of a process" add to this sentence other than sciencey-sounding redundancy?| ...we should also expect qualitative symmetry to reside within the physical boundary of an entity... |
Why? If any entity is loud, why should we expect some part of it to be quiet? If an entity is beautiful, why should we expect some part of it to be ugly? Not just ugly, but ugly in precisely the same "amount" that it is beautiful?| ...not be disbursed between two or more separate existences as independent particles and anti-particles. |
This doesn't make any thematic sense at all. The idea of qualities being "disbursed" across multiple "existences" doesn't appear anywhere in any of the preceding paragraphs.| We wouldn't normally be able to tell a quality from its anti-quality by just looking at it... |
So what are "qualities," then? You've presented no examples so far, and we're left to guess what you mean....but with the use of a little color coding I will attempt to illustrate how it may be possible for reciprocal qualitative values to exist within the physical boundaries of a single independent entity:
Assume BLACK represents a null color value. |
Why?| Within the realm of subtractive colors, the opposite (negative) of the color quality MAGENTA is GREEN. Equivalent proportions of MAGENTA and GREEN produce BLACK. But GREEN is, itself, an equal mixture of the colors CYAN and YELLOW. |
Actually, they're called complementary colors, not "opposite" or "negative." Magenta filters out green, and vice versa, so laying the two down together would (in a perfect world) filter out all reflected light. Not because they are "opposed" to one another, but because together, they eliminate all visible wavelengths.| Just as the quantitative value of Ø is equivalent to two opposing numbers (+1) + (-1), the qualitative value of BLACK is equivalent to three opposing colors MAGENTA + CYAN + YELLOW. All of the opposing sub-elements must be present in precisely equal proportion in order to reciprocally balance each other and maintain a neutral value. |
But that's not the way it works. Magenta fails to reflect some wavelengths of light, cyan fails to reflect others, and yellow fails to reflect the rest. If you use less cyan, then some light is reflected, not because of any fanciful notions about reciprocal balance, but because there's more reflectivity of magenta and yellow if there's less cyan. Plus, laying down a tiny bit of all three colors doesn't make black, it makes a light gray (assuming one is using a white surface), so not only do the three tones need to be in the same amounts, there has to be lots of all three to make black. How does that fit in with your analogy? Not very well by the looks of things.| Of course the number of opposing sub-elements within a fundamental particle may not be limited in scope to two - or three - or any other finite number. |
You meant "qualities," not "sub-elements" there. There are no "sub-elements" within an elemental entity, by definition.| The concept of reciprocal balance requires every instance of being within an entity to have an opposite equivalent... |
But you've yet to explain why anyone should buy into the very idea of reciprocal balance. Physicists don't. Why should we lay people?| ...but instead of each point of existence having a diametric opposite (two defined points offsetting each other), the opposing sub-qualities of any given portion of an element may be disbursed throughout the remainder of the entity. |
These entities are so small that they cannot be sub-divided, but yet they have "portions" and "remainders?"| Just as in the illustration above, if any fraction of the color wheel is removed, the sum of the remaining colors would not be 'perfectly black', its value would be something other than neutral and a law of nature would be broken. |
Whoa, whoa, whoa. On what basis have you suddenly promoted reciprocal balance to being a "law of nature?" None that I can find. A law of nature is something which is never not observed. But you haven't even defined "entities" and "qualities" in such a way that they could be observed at all, even in principle. Maybe you do so, later.| The substructure of a fundamental particle is not comprised of independent elements that could exist separately on their own. |
This conflicts with your earlier definition of an entity. Whether or not something can be placed in a set by itself has no bearing on whether or not it can exist alone. Even if elephants are always found with lollipops in nature, they're still two "entities" from a set-theoretic point-of-view.| The very existence of each point within the entity is co-dependent upon the existence of the remainder of the parcel. |
So what?| Every physical instance within the element is an interdependent contributor to its neutrality. It is this symmetrical balance - and not structureless homogeneity - that defines it as a single existence, an element comprised only of itself. It is a unique integral of null value. |
This makes sense only if these "entities" must have their "qualities" in "reciprocal balance," but you've done nothing so far to demonstrate this.| There is a basic law of physics that states two things cannot simultaneously occupy the same space. But two points of existence within a fundamental particle are not two things, they are mutually co-dependent instances of the same element - two parts of the same identity. The rules of conduct within an entity may be very different from those that govern the interaction between two entities. Internally, an entity's sub-qualities have the ability to morph or blend like the illustration above to produce a spectrum of different conditions or states of being - a limitless variety of shades and colors. |
But so what? You have yet to demonstrate that any of these things are real. So far, it's just rambling, without pedagogical substance.| Fundamental particles must be truly 'in-dividual'. They are not comprised of independent components, so no portion of an elementary entity could ever be separated from the remainder. When a composite is severed, as in slicing a loaf of bread or tearing a piece of paper, electromagnetic forces holding independent particles in proximity to each other are overcome by the force of the device used to separate the material. But the field of existence within an entity is continuous. To cleave a fundamental particle, something must be inserted between two of its continuous points. Two independent existences cannot occupy the same space, so the point you are attempting to cleave would simply move. To sever an entity at a point within its domain would require the point of separation to physically cease to exist, and if change is a function of existence, then before the most infinitesimal point of being could be annihilated, it would lose its ability to change or be changed. |
This would all be fine, if you could show that such entities exist.| Natural balance defines an entity - not homogeneity. |
You keep saying this, but it doesn't map to reality without empiricism. When are we going to see any of that?| Unlike those simplistic examples of structureless and fungible particles touted by the Standard Model of Particle Physics... |
They're not fungible. Not at all. What makes you think that they are?| ...reciprocal symmetry suggests a limitless spectrum of dynamic elements both material and ethereal in nature, a wondrous cosmic fabric of infinite variety. |
Just more rhetoric without substance.Theory of Reciprocity
For every value V( + ) there exists an equal and opposite value or set of values V( - ) such that:
EV(u)=0 [Sorry for the lack of nifty mathematical symbols - that 'E' is a summation]
Every set of values in the Universe is neutrally balanced |
So you say. Where is the evidence? I mean, there is no force in nature which makes me print cyan and yellow every time I print magenta.| That necessary but indefinite primordial element we call "nothing" is simply an abstract interpretation of the neutral balance that pervades the structure of the Universe. It's existence is uniquely self-justified and intrinsically logical. It is, in fact, the common essence of every element in the cosmic spectrum and it is the fulcrum of an eternally balanced perpetual system. |
Well, that paragraph is just a word salad. What the hell is a "cosmic spectrum?" Am I supposed to know that already? A quick Google suggests that it's a new term you've made up.
Oh, look, a new page!| Though particle physicists cannot claim with certainty to have isolated a truly elemental particle, I personally believe that I am more than qualified to speak with profound authority on the subject - because I am one. And so are you. |
Okay, no hints yet at what a "cosmic spectrum" is or why any of this should be thought of as true, just a seeming detour into consciousness.| "Cogito ergo sum." I think, therefore I am. One must exist in order to experience, and the fact that you experience is convincing proof you exist. |
There are many critiques of this simplistic interpretation of Descartes. It looks like Descartes didn't even like it all that much.| You probably consider yourself to be a single being, which is why you call yourself 'I' instead of 'we'. Your body; however, is a plurality - a collection of billions of separate elements or fundamental particles, each with its own individual properties. |
Yeah, so?| Each basic particle pre-existed your birth and will ultimately survive your demise. |
Not by a long shot. Unless, of course, you wish to ignore particle decays and energy (again).| Each has a unique history, a separate location and physical domain. Logically this presents a conundrum. How can you be a single existence if that physical manifestation which you consider to be 'yourself' is a collection of multiple existences? |
Easily. This isn't a conundrum, either physically or logically. This collection of molecules I'm sitting at act in concert as a single table.| Indeed, one existence will always have a single set of experiences and a collection of existences will always have separate, individual sets of experience equal to the number of elements in the set. If you were simply a collection of elements, 'you' would have multiple separate experiences and an equivalent number of individual identities. |
So you say, but you haven't demonstrated any such thing (an assertion of fact is not a proof). I think your fundamental problem is with the term "individual," as if the multiple entities that make up my body are not interdependent. They certainly aren't independent. Every sub-atomic particle may have its own unique history and experiences, but that doesn't mean that they are not constrained by their neighbors to only perform in certain ways. Hell, if all the particles were independent, we couldn't have hair, much less brains.| 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. |
Not according to your definitions, they don't. It's mighty convenient to be able to swap definitions out at a whim like you're doing, isn't it, THoR? Pity that sort of rhetorical game doesn't stand up to the least bit of inquiry.| That may sound silly (I call it the Pinocchio hypothesis)... |
Of course it sounds silly, it's a straw man you invented with which you insult the scientists and play anti-intellectual games.| ...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. |
Geez, it's not even a different insult. You used the same insult twice in the same paragraph. Can't you get a bit more original?
(On a side note, did you vote for McCain/Palin because they're not elites?)| 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. |
Wow, now you've got a whole army of straw men to vanquish, and then you can pat yourself on the back for a job well done.| Regrettably, they seem unable to fully explain the mechanics of this miraculous process that transforms 8x1027 atoms into a single existence with an individual identity. |
Yeah, it's a real shame that there's no deities around to just reveal that knowledge to us, and instead we've got to go through the all-too-human and time-consuming process of "doing science" in order to learn about our own minds. | Hogwarts! If this is science, then Harry Potter is the next Isaac Newton. |
Hey, a new insult. It's a good thing, though, that your straw man isn't "science," because yes, it would be mighty silly.| If you believe you are the corporal product of emergent properties then you are claiming that you are a composite - an occurrence, not an existence. I have a major problem with that reasoning. |
Yes, but will you ever state what that problem is?Only you know, so far.| To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous character Sherlock Holmes in Chapter 6 of 'The Sign of Four', "…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." |
Brilliant! Argument by fictional character created by a guy who believed in fairies. As should be obvious, the logical hole (which is big enough to drive a proverbial truck through) in Holmes' assertion is that it denies even the merest possibility that "you" haven't thought of everything. As such, it is a celebration of the arrogance of ignorance, and nothing more.| By rote and repetition you have been trained since birth to think you are that thing you see in the mirror - hair, eyes, nose, skin, and appendages. You have developed the self-image that your body is YOU. But if you cut off your arm, your arm will suddenly be over there, yet you will still experience your same identity. You will probably still have feeling in a 'phantom arm' that isn't there. Just because your arm was held onto your corpse by molecular bond didn't make it YOU. |
No argument here.| Two independent elements cannot share their existence or experience a common identity any more than they could simultaneously occupy the same space. |
Or here, either, given (for the sake of argument) your definitions so far.| It is not possible to 'be' more than (or less than) a single existence, so the identity you experience must be that of a single element - or entity - hidden within the assemblage of your body. |
This does not follow logically from what's already been asserted. There has been no demonstration that consciousness is an "element" (you really should clean that up to avoid confusion - you should use "entity" throughout).| A body is something you wear, not something you are. |
Correct.| It does; however, seem to be a necessary tool in order for us to function and think in human terms. |
Also correct. These last two statements seem to have nothing to do with the statement that came before, however.| This isn't rocket science. |
Understatement of the year.| It has nothing to do with religion. |
Yeah, I don't think the theists want you anywhere near their domain, either.| It is simple reasoning and elementary deduction. |
No, it's bad reasoning and faulty deduction.| Life is no chemical accident. It is simply the product of a spectrum of elemental particles with the attribute of natural animation that long ago began to manipulate the resources of this planet - 'wear the mud' so to speak. |
This is unsupported by anything that's come in the entire preceding discussion.| Our physical size is extremely tiny prior to our trek into life (a feature for which anyone who is, was, or ever will become pregnant can be eternally grateful), so it comes as no surprise that we haven't been able to isolate and identify that element within us that compiles and compels our corporal garb. |
Assuming that there is such an element, which hasn't been demonstrated to be logically necessary.| As strange as it may seem, you - yourself - have no idea what you actually look like. It seems consciousness, as we know it, only occurs when you are wrapped within your corporal shell. It is amazing that an elemental seedling too small to be detectable to the instruments of modern technology could intuitively engineer a complex machine the size of a human body. And even if you could strip away the blood and the bones just long enough to glimpse your true countenance, you might see nothing at all, for that fundamental element which is you may be ethereal - it may not have the property of mass. Like space, you may be transparent - as invisible as the air you breathe. |
Poetic pablum.| Centuries or eons from now when the first soul is detected by a technology not yet envisioned... |
Wishful thinking.| ...some interesting questions will undoubtedly arise... |
Since none of the questions have any probative value into the truth of your assertions (they all assume that you're correct), I'll skip them.| 'Life' and 'death' are physical conditions, transient states of being. Existence is eternal. When you die you will be dead - but you will still 'be'. |
These are facts not in evidence.| There will come a time in the history of mankind when future societies will look back upon our modern era and wonder how creatures who couldn't even understand the nature of their own being could have considered themselves 'intelligent'. |
Oh, goody, you quoted yourself earlier in this thread without indicating you were doing so. Death: The Final Frontier
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. |
More self-indulgence.| Actually, the concept of 'Life After Death' is pretty much a no-brainer. You were certainly dead nine months before you were born. You are (presumably) alive now - so the matter really isn't debatable. |
Hahahaha. Yes, it is. "Dead," in common usage, refers to people who were once alive. Prior to conception, people aren't dead. They aren't anything. Of course, you seem to enjoy redefining words without telling anyone, so have fun playing your little rhetorical games.
And then you go on for a while with wild conjecture about eternal existence. I'm out of time for the night, but I note with dismay that there are at least two more pages after that. Do you ever get around to providing any evidence that what you say is true, or is it just page after page of bad logic and anti-intellectual smears?
And never once did you even hint at anything resembling an example of what a "quality" of an "entity" might be. You really haven't provided anything of substance for any of your arguments. The first three pages are an assemblage of bold assertions of fact with little - if any - logical "glue" holding them together (and in at least one case, internal contradictions would sever any bond, anyway), with occasional asides used to pointlessly attack scientists (which is ironic, considering how sciencey you're attempting to be - you've even got an equation in a nice graphic!). I'm actually pretty close to calling "Poe" on you.
|
GOODNESS - you actually took the time to read the site. Tks
Yes, semantics is a stumbling block. It is hard to encode mind or machine language into English - actually the language is not sufficient to convey much of the concept - and you have to comprehend ALL of it before you can understand the component ideas. I'll break my replies into separate posts for sake of clarity and convenience.
BTW My links page was removed from the menu - only accessible as a 'continue' link from the last page, but I've reviewed the addresses and made the necessary corrections. Tks again.
And the forum is new. Just added recently. Not yet even promoted or revealed to the search engines.
Sorry I've been gone so long, but business before pleasure. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 12/13/2009 13:14:54 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 13:52:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Dave W.
| A body is something you wear, not something you are. |
Correct. |
What's correct about that? Of course a body is something you are, not something you "wear." A body is not a suit that you can step out of. Your body is you. |
Hypothetically, your entire body could be replaced by machines, one cell at a time, and you should (hypothetically again) maintain consciousness. More realistically but still hypothetically, your entire body except the brain could be replaced by organs from other people (nerve connections are tricky, but not impossible). It's most-likely true that your brain may be you (and thus my "correct" was not wholly correct), but the rest of the meat seems to be replaceable |
You have posited that consciousness and sense of self must be due to emergent properties - else it can only be that a single particle within the structure is actually 'aware'. This, I believe, is the essense of our differences. Having discussed the matter in this and other forums, I have made changes and clarifications to my writings:
www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/life.htm
"Emergent properties obviously do occur. Composites can exhibit behaviors that cannot readily be explained by the 'sum of their properties', but pundits who apply this phenomenon to explain consciousness and sense of self claim this inexplicability is due to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts rather than confess that there may be attributes among the parts whose properties are not known or fully understood. They would have you believe they know everything there is to know about the elements in question and expect you to agree with them that collections generate a supervening entity - a temporary or 'virtual' existence with a single awareness and identity - in effect 1+1 must equal 3 (in fact, their jobs often depend upon it). Crowds provide an excellent example of emergent properties. Individuals exhibit group behaviors that they would not exhibit alone. But that doesn't mean the participants suddenly mind-merge or evolve into a single identity. Two independent elements cannot share their existence or experience a common identity any more than they could simultaneously occupy the same space." |
I have, in fact, found my discussions with YOU specifically to be extremely helpful in adding to and editing the thesis because once I wade through the vitriolic denigration, you do occasionally point out specific valid points of contention. PLEASE...a little more logical explanation of your objections and a little less vitriol. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:15:47 [Permalink]
|
| They would have you believe they know everything there is to know about the elements in question and expect you to agree with them that collections generate a supervening entity - a temporary or 'virtual' existence with a single awareness and identity - in effect 1+1 must equal 3 (in fact, their jobs often depend upon it). |
THoR, this is wholly wrong. No one says consciousness is definitely an emergent phenomenon. Only that it very well could be, and most of the evidence we have seems to indicate that it is. It also has the advantage of not positing any non-material forces or entities. It comports with what we already know. But because consciousness is still largely unexplained, there is a degree of speculation which no one denies.
However, that has no bearing on the merits of your theory, which as far as I can tell rests entirely on the premise that consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomenon. Since there is no reason to conclude that, your theory is left without a single shred of support. You can't build a case with negative evidence. It's like creationists who think that by arguing against evolution they can somehow arrive at creationism. Science doesn't work that way. You need positive evidence in support of your theory. Without it, your theory has no more explanatory power than saying that a magic man gives everyone a soul. There just isn't anything for anyone to hang their hat on there. Your theory doesn't point to any new research avenues. It isn't testable. It's vacuous. Bitterness against those who reject your theory on these grounds won't change that.
|
"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 12/13/2009 14:18:59 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:17:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But there can be uncaused effects, such as fundamental particles popping into existence without a cause. Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally. |
Nature is a marvelously skilled prestidigitator and humans are easily fooled. Most of the scholars currently dealving into the realm of the micro-cosm are like blind men exploring an elephant and a mighty dose of skepticism is in order. A true 'Skeptic' cannot critically examine (and usually dismiss) religious dogma and then turn around and blindly embrace the dogma of contemporary science.
Mass is a measurable phenomenon guaged by the evidence of energy and momentum. It can, according to uncle Al, be transformed into energy and visa versa. It is easy to call something with mass a particle - but is it actually an entity? Could it be that the property of mass occurs not only within a particle (the rest of the particle being ethereal) but also may occur when two particles (each of which may not exhibit that phenomenon) come into contact with each other? Mass would appear and disappear as those particles touch and then detach. It could seem that those masses change location without passing through the points in between - or could be partly in one location and partly in another.
Science is often advanced when someone thinks 'out of the box', but leaps of science often occur when someone 'burns the box'. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:21:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Oh, yeah. I haven't been keeping exact track, but I have noticed that THoR has lots of points on The Crackpot Index.
|
I just ate a croissant and am no longer Galileo...I am now Napoleon. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:31:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by Dave W.
But there can be uncaused effects, such as fundamental particles popping into existence without a cause. Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally. |
Nature is a marvelously skilled prestidigitator and humans are easily fooled. Most of the scholars currently dealving into the realm of the micro-cosm are like blind men exploring an elephant and a mighty dose of skepticism is in order. A true 'Skeptic' cannot critically examine (and usually dismiss) religious dogma and then turn around and blindly embrace the dogma of contemporary science.
Mass is a measurable phenomenon guaged by the evidence of energy and momentum. It can, according to uncle Al, be transformed into energy and visa versa. It is easy to call something with mass a particle - but is it actually an entity? Could it be that the property of mass occurs not only within a particle (the rest of the particle being ethereal) but also may occur when two particles (each of which may not exhibit that phenomenon) come into contact with each other? Mass would appear and disappear as those particles touch and then detach. It could seem that those masses change location without passing through the points in between - or could be partly in one location and partly in another.
Science is often advanced when someone thinks 'out of the box', but leaps of science often occur when someone 'burns the box'.
|
And none of this supports your theory. THor, you can speculate about why others might be wrong until the end of time. It will never be evidence that you are correct. These rants are a waste of everyone's time, including your own. Unless, of course, your goal is to be a crackpot.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:38:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
| They would have you believe they know everything there is to know about the elements in question and expect you to agree with them that collections generate a supervening entity - a temporary or 'virtual' existence with a single awareness and identity - in effect 1+1 must equal 3 (in fact, their jobs often depend upon it). |
THoR, this is wholly wrong. No one says consciousness is definitely an emergent phenomenon. Only that it very well could be, and most of the evidence we have seems to indicate that it is. It also has the advantage of not positing any non-material forces or entities. It comports with what we already know. But because consciousness is still largely unexplained, there is a degree of speculation which no one denies.
However, that has no bearing on the merits of your theory, which as far as I can tell rests entirely on the premise that consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomenon. Since there is no reason to conclude that, your theory is left without a single shred of support. You can't build a case with negative evidence. It's like creationists who think that by arguing against evolution they can somehow arrive at creationism. Science doesn't work that way. You need positive evidence in support of your theory. Without it, your theory has no more explanatory power than saying that a magic man gives everyone a soul. There just isn't anything for anyone to hang their hat on there. Your theory doesn't point to any new research avenues. It isn't testable. It's vacuous. Bitterness against those who reject your theory on these grounds won't change that. |
The concept of atoms was derived long before they were discovered empirically - Democritus of Abdera (460-370 BC) - ditto microbes. They were discovered by the simple application of logic to observed phenomena. The Higgs boson is probably the most recent 'discovery' - there is NO physical evidence other than it makes the equations work. But I don't see any purported 'skeptics' challenging the scholarly status quo on this matter (I do - bosons are only parts of a truely fundamental and neutrally balanced particle - they are effects, sub-parts, not independent existences.)
And I am not the least bit bitter against any who would challenge my conclusions - in fact I invite and welcome them so long as they are civil and argue logically rather than parrot those scholarly peers they wish to impress and/or emulate. Most of the (meta)physics I spout cannot be empirically proven because our technology is not sufficiently advanced. I just find them more probable than extra dimensions, a finite universe inexplicably 'created' and 1+1=3. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:44:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
And none of this supports your theory. THor, you can speculate about why others might be wrong until the end of time. It will never be evidence that you are correct. These rants are a waste of everyone's time, including your own. Unless, of course, your goal is to be a crackpot.
|
Then sail ye not too far into the ocean lest ye fallest from the edge of the Earth.  |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 12/13/2009 14:45:02 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:46:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Most of the (meta)physics I spout cannot be empirically proven because our technology is not sufficiently advanced. |
What specific technological advancements are necessary before your theory can be tested? Do you have specific tests of your theory in mind? Or just vague hopes of future confirmation?
|
"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 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:52:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by THoR
Most of the (meta)physics I spout cannot be empirically proven because our technology is not sufficiently advanced. |
What specific technological advancements are necessary before your theory can be tested? Do you have specific tests of your theory in mind? Or just vague hopes of future confirmation? |
Particle physicists haven't even discovered their FIRST certifiably 'fundamental' particle. It appears they are looking for something structureless and homogeneous and if that is the case, they are looking in the wrong direction. But my budget is somewhat limited and I have no access to CERN. They have me at a disadvantage. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 17:21:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by THoR
Most of the (meta)physics I spout cannot be empirically proven because our technology is not sufficiently advanced. |
What specific technological advancements are necessary before your theory can be tested? Do you have specific tests of your theory in mind? Or just vague hopes of future confirmation? |
Particle physicists haven't even discovered their FIRST certifiably 'fundamental' particle. It appears they are looking for something structureless and homogeneous and if that is the case, they are looking in the wrong direction. But my budget is somewhat limited and I have no access to CERN. They have me at a disadvantage.o
|
What specific technological advancements are necessary before your theory can be tested? Are you saying CERN is adequate to test your theory? What are the predicted characteristics of the particle your are proposing apart from it being "fundamental?"
And why are you mentioning scientists? I didn't ask about them. Can you speak in terms of your theory without constantly casting aspersions on practicing scientists? Apparently not. You do realize this is classic crackpot behavior, right?
|
"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 12/13/2009 17:23:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2009 : 10:30:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
Yes, semantics is a stumbling block. It is hard to encode mind or machine language into English - actually the language is not sufficient to convey much of the concept - and you have to comprehend ALL of it before you can understand the component ideas. |
I don't know of any other human endeavor for which this is true, so what makes your ideas so special?
You also wrote:| You have posited that consciousness and sense of self must be due to emergent properties... |
Did I? Did I write or imply the word "must?"| ...else it can only be that a single particle within the structure is actually 'aware'. |
I'm not sure I buy into that dichotomy.This, I believe, is the essense of our differences. Having discussed the matter in this and other forums, I have made changes and clarifications to my writings:www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/life.htm
"Emergent properties obviously do occur. Composites can exhibit behaviors that cannot readily be explained by the 'sum of their properties', but pundits who apply this phenomenon to explain consciousness and sense of self claim this inexplicability is due to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts rather than confess that there may be attributes among the parts whose properties are not known or fully understood. They would have you believe they know everything there is to know about the elements in question and expect you to agree with them that collections generate a supervening entity - a temporary or 'virtual' existence with a single awareness and identity - in effect 1+1 must equal 3 (in fact, their jobs often depend upon it). Crowds provide an excellent example of emergent properties. Individuals exhibit group behaviors that they would not exhibit alone. But that doesn't mean the participants suddenly mind-merge or evolve into a single identity. Two independent elements cannot share their existence or experience a common identity any more than they could simultaneously occupy the same space." |
|
I assume that you made the changes because you think they make the paragraph "better" in some way, but I can't detect any fundamental differences. You're still battling strawmen with your rejection of emergent properties as the source of mind, and puffing yourself up with your arrogance of ignorance. I mean, I can only guess that when you say "pundits," you really mean "cognitive neuroscientists," except that you don't address any of their actual claims, just your strawmen.| I have, in fact, found my discussions with YOU specifically to be extremely helpful in adding to and editing the thesis because once I wade through the vitriolic denigration, you do occasionally point out specific valid points of contention. PLEASE...a little more logical explanation of your objections and a little less vitriol. |
This is pure hypocrisy coming from someone who has very few logical explanations (and much vitriol) on his Web pages. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution vs. ID: 6 Bones of Contention
