|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2009 : 20:27:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
But the present condition of any element is built upon an eternity of experience and each experience has engraved some form of change upon it. |
Clearly you don't mean "element" like carbon, oxygen, uranium, etc. So what do you mean by "element?" |
- 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 - 11/29/2009 : 09:40:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
Au contraire, I understand, I just don't believe what you are saying. |
You don't believe it because you only think you understand what I'm saying. You clearly do not, however. You've got a caricature stuck in your head that you're beating on, and thus you think you're doing well in this discussion. |
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
...snip...systems can have qualities not directly traceable to the system's components, but rather to how those components interact, and one is willing to accept that a system supervenes on its components, then it is difficult to account for an emergent property's cause. These new qualities are irreducible to the system's constituent parts (Laughlin 2005). The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This view of emergence is called strong emergence. Some fields in which strong emergence is more widely used include etiology, epistemology and ontology.
In physics, emergence is used to describe a property, law, or phenomenon which occurs at macroscopic scales (in space or time) but not at microscopic scales, despite the fact that a macroscopic system can be viewed as a very large ensemble of microscopic systems.
An emergent property need not be more complicated than the underlying non-emergent properties which generate it. For instance, the laws of thermodynamics are remarkably simple, even if the laws which govern the interactions between component particles are complex. The term emergence in physics is thus used not to signify complexity, but rather to distinguish which laws and concepts apply to macroscopic scales, and which ones apply to microscopic scales. |
I interpret this to mean science does not know why the nature of some macroscopic composites cannot be explained by the known properties of its microscopic (fundamental particles) components.
Q: As the strong/weak forces (which - again - 'modern' science does not understand to any significant degree) juxtapose certain ingredients, can their properties somehow create an integrated system - an atypical configuration allowing the composite to act as a unit with special extended properties unique to that configuration.
A: Yes. It can be demonstrated.
HOWEVER: Just because science does not understand how the components interact to produce the phenomenon only serves to point out the limits of scientific understanding.
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?????
C'mon. Gimme a break. Within a complex system there may be attributes at play of which the observer is totally unaware, but 1+1 is not 3. It never was, and never will be. The fact that the process is inexplicable does not mean the components have magically merged themselves into a single existence or temporarily conjured a supervening 'extra-existential' being.
I accuse your interpretation of emergent properties with violating the axiom of identity. You cannot violate the laws of nature unless you are the Pope. A thing is what it is. Two things are not one thing and one thing is not two things. Things act and react differently in different environments and if they act differently than we expect, it is because we don't fully understand their nature. Two (or more) things can act in unison, but they are still two (or more) things.
Emergence doesn't explain the phenomena of thought and consciousness. And it certainly doesn't explain how a single identity can be merged from a composite of individual identities. Emergence is basically just a label stating "science does not know why the nature of some macroscopic composites cannot be explained by the known properties of its microscopic (fundamental particles) components." Especially if one of those components (animated particle) is not yet discovered.
| The onus is upon those who invoke the supernatural. |
Which is you. Enlighten me as to this "entity" which you think conveys consciousness. |
"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - now THAT'S supernatural...unless you care to demonstrate for us the mechanics of such a miraculous process.
If it were suddenly proven to you beyond all doubt that a composite does not 'become' a single existence (although it may act AS IF it were) due to EP (pardon my shorthand) and could NOT have an individual identity or a single consciousness, how would YOU explain that you are AN existence and YOUR BODY is a composite? Obviously it would follow that YOU were not YOUR BODY - and I think you can extrapolate the rest of my reasoning.
(MASSIVE CONJECTURE:::BEWARE:::) The animated entity (AE) doesn't 'convey' consciousness, it becomes conscious. AE's experience (act and are acted upon) as do all things that exist. But even living beings can experience periods without consciousness and I presume those periods are somewhat protracted for non-living beings. Consciousness is a condition that develops as AE's begin to 'wear the mud' - utilize the resources of its environment - ANIMATE. It is the enhancement of the corpse that 'convey's consciousness - it is a tool that amplifies the properties of the AE. The reason you can 'see' an image in your imagination is because YOU - the AE - are stimulating your optic nerve (the same way you would stimulate other nerves to ambulate). If you didn't have an optic nerve to provide feedback, the image would be faint - if at all.
| Enlighten me as to how emergent properties applies to thought and consciousness (although I've probably already read those sites), will you. |
Nononono. You've eliminated emergent phenomena from everything. We can demonstrate many emergent phenomena, however, so you're simply denying reality. But because we've got tons of evidence for emergent phenomena all over the place, we can't rule out consciousness being another example of one. You have done so, with an alleged "axiom" which you refuse to defend, probably because it's so obviously false. |
It is you who are claiming to be a condition - a composite acting under the spell of EP - and not an existence - a single physical existence with defined quality, quantity and spatial location - the three elements of reality (go ahead, have some fun with this one - may need a separate thread).| En garde! Ready to defend. I shall let you strike the first logical blow...please proceed. |
I already have. You've refused to defend your logic. |
I am underwhelmed.| If I dismantle water, I get hydrogen and oxygen...cuz that is what it is made of. If you mix the O with Fe you get rust. If you mix the H with two parts of Scotch and two cubes of ice - then discard the H - you get a good stiff drink. What's your point? I am not Hamiltonian and I do not dual - what I propose is simple mechanics (see prior post). |
See? No defense there. Just nonsense.| Emergent properties is being used as an escoteric buzzword to cover the inability of science to explain thought and consciousness. |
"Water" is an emergent phenomenon of hydrogen and oxygen. It's not an esoteric buzzword at all when applied to water. You've ruled out, a priori, any possibility of them anywhere, and thus you'll either need to show that hydrogen and oxygen do possess all the qualities of water, or that there is some "water entity" that pervades the universe, just waiting for two hydrogen and one oxygen atom to become joined (just like you seem to want there to be some "consciousness entity" that applies itself to correctly configured brains). |
Well...well...well...you keep bringing up water. It seems to always be on your mind (and mind IS, of course, only brain from your perspective...lol). Yes, science does not know why the nature of water cannot be explained by the known properties of its fundamental particles, but that doesn't mean 1+1=3.| I find it lacking, to say the least. |
Your incredulity is evidence of nothing. |
Neither is an irrational belief that 1+1=3. My incredulity is evidence that EP - as you seek to apply it to thought and consciousness - is abracadabra. It is an esoteric term thrown about defensively to suspend the necessity of providing a logical explanation.| What is it a condition of? To what does the condition "energy" apply? |
EverythingYes, it is.| They are interchangeable. |
No, actually, mass is a condition of energy. They are only interchangeable if a man is interchangeable with the suit he wears. Mass is energy. That's what E=mc2 is all about. |
and m=E/c2... and your point is?| Existences attain conditions... |
I agree.| ...conditions can flow through existences (most of the electromagnetic spectrum for example) changing each existence in its path until something absorbs or redirects it. |
Not according to any modern physics of which I am aware. Of course, you want to throw away the last century of progress (measurable, utilitarian progress), so why not go back to the days when electromagnetic waves were actually waves in some alleged aether? |
Nothing has no volume. Space is NOT nothing. It is often called aether and if it were only alleged then earth would be adjacent to sol and we wouldn't be having this discussion.CONJECTURE::::BEWARE::::
Consciousness has a very real physical representation. It is a process - a continuing change in condition in that thing you don't think exists. |
A change in condition isn't even a condition, much less an existence. But I already proved that you don't exist, so what's the point of this again?
|
See below... |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 11/29/2009 09:43:41 |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 09:49:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
But the present condition of any element is built upon an eternity of experience and each experience has engraved some form of change upon it. |
Clearly you don't mean "element" like carbon, oxygen, uranium, etc. So what do you mean by "element?"
|
ERROR. Strike "element". Replace it with "existence".
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. It is my first error in over 3500 years...(lopsided pyramid) |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 10:01:24 [Permalink]
|
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. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 11:08:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
I interpret this to mean science does not know why the nature of some macroscopic composites cannot be explained by the known properties of its microscopic (fundamental particles) components. |
Then you interpret it badly.| Q: As the strong/weak forces (which - again - 'modern' science does not understand to any significant degree) juxtapose certain ingredients... |
And by saying that, you demonstrate your ignorance of physics....can their properties somehow create an integrated system - an atypical configuration allowing the composite to act as a unit with special extended properties unique to that configuration.
A: Yes. It can be demonstrated.
HOWEVER: Just because science does not understand how the components interact to produce the phenomenon only serves to point out the limits of scientific understanding. |
This is your claim: that "emergent phenomenon" is a phrase synonymous with "we don't know what happens here." It is false. There are plenty of emergent phenomena which are very well understood, like cellular automata."The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?????
C'mon. Gimme a break. Within a complex system there may be attributes at play of which the observer is totally unaware, but 1+1 is not 3. It never was, and never will be. The fact that the process is inexplicable does not mean the components have magically merged themselves into a single existence or temporarily conjured a supervening 'extra-existential' being. |
Nobody is saying any such thing. That's why I know you don't understand this. You're just inventing straw men to slaughter.| I accuse your interpretation of emergent properties with violating the axiom of identity. |
Randian objectivism, now?!| You cannot violate the laws of nature unless you are the Pope. |
The laws of nature are such that they provide emergent phenomena too numerous to count. Nobody but you is trying to change that.| A thing is what it is. Two things are not one thing and one thing is not two things. |
Nobody is saying anything different.| Things act and react differently in different environments and if they act differently than we expect, it is because we don't fully understand their nature. Two (or more) things can act in unison, but they are still two (or more) things. |
Again, you're stating truth. It has nothing to do with a disproof of emergent phenomena, but it's still truth. Trivial truth.| Emergence doesn't explain the phenomena of thought and consciousness. |
Once again, you speak without understanding. Emergence isn't an explanation, it is a condition. Nobody explains consciousness by saying, "it is an emergent phenomenon," they're just saying what it is (a thing is what it is, right?).| And it certainly doesn't explain how a single identity can be merged from a composite of individual identities. |
Who is claiming any such thing?| Emergence is basically just a label stating "science does not know why the nature of some macroscopic composites cannot be explained by the known properties of its microscopic (fundamental particles) components." |
No, that's just your silly straw man version of what it means.| Especially if one of those components (animated particle) is not yet discovered. |
Ah, so you admit that you are appealing to the supernatural. Awesome.| "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - now THAT'S supernatural...unless you care to demonstrate for us the mechanics of such a miraculous process. |
There's nothing miraculous about it. Water molecules have different properties than their component atoms. What's miraculous about it, unless you are a strict reductionist, and thus way behind the times.| If it were suddenly proven to you beyond all doubt that a composite does not 'become' a single existence (although it may act AS IF it were) due to EP (pardon my shorthand) and could NOT have an individual identity or a single consciousness, how would YOU explain that you are AN existence and YOUR BODY is a composite? |
By your definitions, you are not an existence. Unless you think that consciousnesses are "eternal," which is really, really supernatural.| Obviously it would follow that YOU were not YOUR BODY - and I think you can extrapolate the rest of my reasoning. |
Again, your reasoning fails by your own definitions. The only thing people have observed which is eternal is energy, therefore everything else must be conditions of energy.| (MASSIVE CONJECTURE:::BEWARE:::) The animated entity (AE)... |
Yeah, until you provide evidence of any such entity, that conjecture can go nowhere and be used to conclude nothing.| It is you who are claiming to be a condition - a composite acting under the spell of EP - and not an existence - a single physical existence with defined quality, quantity and spatial location - the three elements of reality (go ahead, have some fun with this one - may need a separate thread). |
You're the one who said that existences are eternal and conditions are temporary, and by those definitions I can only conclude that consciousness is a condition. These are your definitions, so if you have a problem with being a condition instead of an existence, I suggest you fix your logic and axioms.Still, you refuse to defend your position, relying upon straw men and incredulity to attack an opposing position. Your ideas must stand on their own to be considered seriously. But then again, since you started this with some vague talk related to Intelligent Design, which has no positive case to make for itself (relying instead upon straw-man versions of evolution and incredulity about biology), I should not be surprised.| Well...well...well...you keep bringing up water. |
It's a simple molecule with properties vastly different from its component parts. Thus, it should have been an easy example with which you could show the absence of emergent phenomena. But you refuse to do so, instead dancing around with nonsense like this:| Yes, science does not know why the nature of water cannot be explained by the known properties of its fundamental particles... |
Doesn't it? Who says that?| ...but that doesn't mean 1+1=3. |
Nobody is saying it does. You're tilting at windmills.| Neither is an irrational belief that 1+1=3. |
Nobody believes any such thing.| My incredulity is evidence that EP - as you seek to apply it to thought and consciousness - is abracadabra. |
Bwaahahahahahahaahaha! Because you doubt it, that's evidence that what you doubt must be magic? How massively arrogant of you. What an incredible display of the arrogance of ignorance you've just treated us all to.| It is an esoteric term thrown about defensively to suspend the necessity of providing a logical explanation. |
Consciousness studies are hard work. Why do you need an explanation so badly that you're willing to jump to the magical idea of an "animated entity" instead of waiting for the work to be done?| What is it a condition of? To what does the condition "energy" apply? |
Everything |
Give me an example. With the exception of energy itself, "everything" that I see is temporary, and thus not an existence. Can conditions apply to other conditions?| and m=E/c2... and your point is? |
Mass is temporary, and thus a condition, as demonstrated by electron/positron annihilations (for just one example).What is the volume of a photon?| Space is NOT nothing. It is often called aether and if it were only alleged then earth would be adjacent to sol and we wouldn't be having this discussion. |
Ah, now we have argument via making up your own definitions and applying them as if that's what I meant. How tremendously weak.Argument via conflation of two meanings of the word "exist." Weaker still. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 11:39:50 [Permalink]
|
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. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 12:33:23 [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
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'.
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 12:47:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
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. |
Again, you're not thinking this through. Changes in volume, density, or location are nothing more than changes to the conditions of things. A thing's location in the universe is just another condition, and not a change to the thing itself. Changes to the "intensity of properties" are nothing more than changes to conditions.
Could you give us a real-world example of a change to a thing, instead of a change to some condition of that thing? Don't forget that things that exist do so eternally, so chairs and rooms and jets and wind and tyrants and stakes and fires aren't things that exist, they are just composites.
Hey, I just realized that the universe doesn't exist, since it's nothing more than a composite of everything in it. The universe is a condition. Of energy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2009 : 12:58:48 [Permalink]
|
| Hey, I just realized that the universe doesn't exist, since it's nothing more than a composite of everything in it. The universe is a condition. Of energy. |
 So that's why I've felt so unsettled....
Followin' this fuckin' thread is making my ulcer bleed. 
|
"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 - 11/29/2009 : 14:05:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
I interpret this to mean science does not know why the nature of some macroscopic composites cannot be explained by the known properties of its microscopic (fundamental particles) components. |
Then you interpret it badly. - An opinion, not a disproof. Please explain how this differs with your interpretation.
(Hey, this means of reply is MUCH easier...don't know if it could stand a 3rd generation, though.)| Q: As the strong/weak forces (which - again - 'modern' science does not understand to any significant degree) juxtapose certain ingredients... |
And by saying that, you demonstrate your ignorance of physics. - A 'put-down'. Again, not a disproof. Your arguments all seem to be ad hominem rather than citing any valid contradictory logic or data...why is that? Just uninspired...or could it be you cannot do so?...can their properties somehow create an integrated system - an atypical configuration allowing the composite to act as a unit with special extended properties unique to that configuration.
A: Yes. It can be demonstrated.
HOWEVER: Just because science does not understand how the components interact to produce the phenomenon only serves to point out the limits of scientific understanding. |
This is your claim: that "emergent phenomenon" is a phrase synonymous with "we don't know what happens here." It is false. There are plenty of emergent phenomena which are very well understood, like cellular automata. - Yeah, but the really wild ones require an infinite grid and that - of course - is impossible. Those self replicating patterns and the patterns in the Torah Codes are, indeed, curious - but not magical. From what you have expressed in your posts, your version of EP requires the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts...1+1=3."The whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?????
C'mon. Gimme a break. Within a complex system there may be attributes at play of which the observer is totally unaware, but 1+1 is not 3. It never was, and never will be. The fact that the process is inexplicable does not mean the components have magically merged themselves into a single existence or temporarily conjured a supervening 'extra-existential' being. |
Nobody is saying any such thing. That's why I know you don't understand this. You're just inventing straw men to slaughter. - Again, you claim I just don't understand, but you don't offer any explanation or valid counter argument. Those are actually not my words. I believe I gave proper credit to Wikipedia. It might be helpful if you would reveal the specific genus of EP to which you continue to refer.| I accuse your interpretation of emergent properties with violating the axiom of identity. |
Randian objectivism, now?! - Now and forevermore.| You cannot violate the laws of nature unless you are the Pope. |
The laws of nature are such that they provide emergent phenomena too numerous to count. Nobody but you is trying to change that.| A thing is what it is. Two things are not one thing and one thing is not two things. |
Nobody is saying anything different.| Things act and react differently in different environments and if they act differently than we expect, it is because we don't fully understand their nature. Two (or more) things can act in unison, but they are still two (or more) things. |
Again, you're stating truth. It has nothing to do with a disproof of emergent phenomena, but it's still truth. Trivial truth.| Emergence doesn't explain the phenomena of thought and consciousness. |
Once again, you speak without understanding. Emergence isn't an explanation, it is a condition. Nobody explains consciousness by saying, "it is an emergent phenomenon," they're just saying what it is (a thing is what it is, right?). - Thank you for proving my point. You claim the phenomenon of your identity is an 'Emergence' - you are a CONDITION (your words) rather than an existence - and as a condition you will cease to be once you have discarded your corporal garb. I have a major problem with that thinking.| And it certainly doesn't explain how a single identity can be merged from a composite of individual identities. |
Who is claiming any such thing? - G A S P ! ! I can't believe you wrote that... | Emergence is basically just a label stating "science does not know why the nature of some macroscopic composites cannot be explained by the known properties of its microscopic (fundamental particles) components." |
No, that's just your silly straw man version of what it means. - another disclaimer without rebuttal. Tell us what it REALLY means, then.| Especially if one of those components (animated particle) is not yet discovered. |
Ah, so you admit that you are appealing to the supernatural. Awesome. - Yeah?! And was the American continent supernatural before Columbus/Ericson/Og? Were microbes supernatural before Pasteur? Was Lewis supernatural before Martin (BOY does that date ME...)?| "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" - now THAT'S supernatural...unless you care to demonstrate for us the mechanics of such a miraculous process. |
There's nothing miraculous about it. Water molecules have different properties than their component atoms. What's miraculous about it, unless you are a strict reductionist, and thus way behind the times. - Even the most discriminating palate cannot discern the individual ingredients in a pie. Each of the ingredients has changed and been changed by the properties of the other components. Every fundamental particle in the pastry may have experienced a change in condition, but that does not mean their identities merged into a single existence.| If it were suddenly proven to you beyond all doubt that a composite does not 'become' a single existence (although it may act AS IF it were) due to EP (pardon my shorthand) and could NOT have an individual identity or a single consciousness, how would YOU explain that you are AN existence and YOUR BODY is a composite? |
By your definitions, you are not an existence. Unless you think that consciousnesses are "eternal," which is really, really supernatural. - I believe I already covered that. Consciousness is a condition. Existence is not a condition. Each existence has an identity. Composites have a number of identities equal to the number of components it contains...not one identity more, not one identity less.| Obviously it would follow that YOU were not YOUR BODY - and I think you can extrapolate the rest of my reasoning. |
Again, your reasoning fails by your own definitions. The only thing people have observed which is eternal is energy, therefore everything else must be conditions of energy. - "And by saying that, you demonstrate your ignorance of physics." Is this a pet theory of yours? I don't know anyone personally who remembers more than the last few decades of eternity. Most scientific scholars would hesitate to proclaim such knowledge and certainty. The way I see it is that all of existence is a field. Energy and mass are interchangeable conditions that occur in those elements that have the property of mass. Space is, of course, a horse of a different (no) color.| (MASSIVE CONJECTURE:::BEWARE:::) The animated entity (AE)... |
Yeah, until you provide evidence of any such entity, that conjecture can go nowhere and be used to conclude nothing. - I AM evidence. I know I exist. I know I am an 'existence' - not a 'condition' as you seem to believe so rabidly. Eons from now when this is common knowledge future generations will look back at us and wonder how humans who couldn't even understand their own nature could have considered themselves 'intelligent'.
|
Sorry...gotta go. Even curmudgeons have to eat, drink and pee. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 14:19:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by THoR
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. |
Again, you're not thinking this through. Changes in volume, density, or location are nothing more than changes to the conditions of things. A thing's location in the universe is just another condition, and not a change to the thing itself. Changes to the "intensity of properties" are nothing more than changes to conditions.
Could you give us a real-world example of a change to a thing, instead of a change to some condition of that thing? Don't forget that things that exist do so eternally, so chairs and rooms and jets and wind and tyrants and stakes and fires aren't things that exist, they are just composites.
Hey, I just realized that the universe doesn't exist, since it's nothing more than a composite of everything in it. The universe is a condition. Of energy.
|
This is kind of a whole different thread, but - to be brief:
From - www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/existence.htm
Contemporary physics portrays 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. 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. If two independent particles were truly opposite existences they would mutually annihilate on contact. No mass or energy would remain. 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.
Just as every entity has a front and a back, a left and a right, a top and a bottom; just as we would expect every action to be offset by an equal and opposite reaction within the physical boundary of a process, we should also expect qualitative symmetry to reside within the physical boundary of an entity - not be disbursed between two or more separate existences as independent particles and anti-particles |
Fundamental elements are not structureless and homogeneous. If they were, they would be indifferentiable and the universe would be static and timeless.
Sorry, Feeble paraphrase attempt. If you really want my CONJECTURE FILLED interpretation you'd have to browse the webpage - there are Flash illustrations that can't be posted here that are critical to the explanation.
(1+1=2 was only conjecture until someone had balls enough to prove it.)
|
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 11/29/2009 14:20:34 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 15:44:50 [Permalink]
|
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 foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 15:53:57 [Permalink]
|
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2009 : 16:12:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by THoR
An opinion, not a disproof. Please explain how this differs with your interpretation. |
How did I not explain it? You are insisting that "emergent phenomenon" means "1+1=3," or that something magical happens, both of which are just plain wrong.| (Hey, this means of reply is MUCH easier...don't know if it could stand a 3rd generation, though.) |
It makes replying a lot more difficult.| A 'put-down'. Again, not a disproof. Your arguments all seem to be ad hominem rather than citing any valid contradictory logic or data...why is that? Just uninspired...or could it be you cannot do so? |
It would be ad hominem if I were saying, "THoR is wrong because he doesn't understand physics." All I'm pointing out is how ridiculous you're making yourself look, by making statements about things you clearly do not comprehend. You are teeming with the arrogance of ignorance.Thanks for agreeing with me that there are many emergent phenomena which we understand very well.| ...Those self replicating patterns and the patterns in the Torah Codes are, indeed, curious - but not magical. |
That's your straw man again. If you won't let go of your insistence that EP are magical, how can any explanation I might provide sink in? They can't, because you've got a dogmatic attachment to your "axiom."| From what you have expressed in your posts, your version of EP requires the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts...1+1=3. |
No, you got that from Wikipedia.| Again, you claim I just don't understand, but you don't offer any explanation or valid counter argument. |
I point out your lack of understanding to show you why your logic fails. But since you insist on wallowing in your ignorance, you cannot be helped.| Thank you for proving my point. You claim the phenomenon of your identity is an 'Emergence' - you are a CONDITION (your words) rather than an existence - and as a condition you will cease to be once you have discarded your corporal garb. I have a major problem with that thinking. |
Reality doesn't give a damn about whether you like it or not. If consciousness is a condition (and you have provided no evidence or logic through which we might agree that it is not), then after you die, you're dead. The universe doesn't care one whit about your "major problem," and will continue apace after you're gone.
Now, if you could provide some evidence and logic with which to predict the existence of "animated entities," then we might have an interesting conversation. Until then, though, conjecture about such things just appears to be wishful thinking, in that you're hoping that when you're dead, you won't be dead.| G A S P ! ! I can't believe you wrote that... |
Seriously: who is claiming that "a single identity can be merged from a composite of individual identities?" Certainly not me. By your definitions, I'm claiming that consciousness is a condition of a composite of other conditions of energy (the only "entity" which could actually exist, since all others are easily demonstrated to be temporary, and thus conditions). I think your definitions are bad ones, but until you cease to use them, I will have to in order to show the holes in your logic.| another disclaimer without rebuttal. Tell us what it REALLY means, then. |
You're clearly not interested in what it really means, because I've already told you. Again: pointing out your straw men is a useful activity in itself.| Yeah?! And was the American continent supernatural before Columbus/Ericson/Og? |
Nobody claimed that it existed and just needed to be found.| Were microbes supernatural before Pasteur? |
Perhaps you meant Leeuwenhoek? No, long before him, some sort of carrier of disease was hypothesized based upon direct observations of how diseases were transmitted. Upon what real-world observations do you base the hypothesis of "animated entities?"| Even the most discriminating palate cannot discern the individual ingredients in a pie. Each of the ingredients has changed and been changed by the properties of the other components. Every fundamental particle in the pastry may have experienced a change in condition, but that does not mean their identities merged into a single existence. |
Sure. Who is claiming otherwise?| I believe I already covered that. Consciousness is a condition. Existence is not a condition. Each existence has an identity. Composites have a number of identities equal to the number of components it contains...not one identity more, not one identity less. |
Great, then we are in agreement: consciousness is a condition, and when your body dies, that condition will vanish (like the "metabolism" condition and the "body heat" condition, etc. also become dissociated from the corpse upon death). It also means that consciousness does not exist, and has no "identity" associated with it. These are your definitions and axioms, not mine, and make no reference to EP. If you have a "major problem" with consciousness being a condition and not existing, then I suggest you re-examine your own logic, and stop insisting that the problems you're encountering have anything to do with "emergent phenomena" in any way.| "And by saying that, you demonstrate your ignorance of physics." Is this a pet theory of yours? I don't know anyone personally who remembers more than the last few decades of eternity. Most scientific scholars would hesitate to proclaim such knowledge and certainty. |
You've never heard of the law of conservation of energy? Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The total energy the universe began with will be the same total energy the universe contains at its heat death. How else should one define "eternal?"| The way I see it is that all of existence is a field. |
I really no longer care how you see things, since you see things that aren't there, and don't see things that are. "All of existence is a field" is meaningless sciencey-sounding twaddle that adds nothing to any hypothesis.| Energy and mass are interchangeable conditions that occur in those elements that have the property of mass. |
But what are those elements entities if they are neither mass nor energy?| I AM evidence. I know I exist. I know I am an 'existence' - not a 'condition'... |
Hey, maybe if you stomp your feet or use more capital letters or some really big text, I'd be more likely to believe you. No, of course not. Your insistence that you exist means nothing to the universe. The question of whether you exist or not (by your definitions) is not answered by really, really wanting to exist. That is magical thinking.
And you can't appeal to Descartes for help, either, as he was clearly using a different definition of "exists" than you insist on using, one in which things (common objects of everyday experience) exist, while under your axioms, things like chairs and tables do not exist, since they are merely conditions of composites. We know that they are conditions because they are temporary, not eternal.| ...as you seem to believe so rabidly. |
As soon as you present some evidence that consciousness is eternal, and not temporary as all the evidence I can find suggests, I will change my mind. Pointing to yourself as evidence is nothing more than circular logic, because that's the very question under examination. You can't assume your hoped-for conclusion.| Eons from now when this is common knowledge future generations will look back at us and wonder how humans who couldn't even understand their own nature could have considered themselves 'intelligent'. |
How humiliating for you to admit publicly that you've got nothing more than lofty dreams of far-off vindication to support your own existence. |
- 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 - 11/29/2009 : 17:42:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
How did I not explain it? You are insisting that "emergent phenomenon" means "1+1=3," or that something magical happens, both of which are just plain wrong.
It would be ad hominem if I were saying, "THoR is wrong because he doesn't understand physics." All I'm pointing out is how ridiculous you're making yourself look, by making statements about things you clearly do not comprehend. You are teeming with the arrogance of ignorance.
That's your straw man again. If you won't let go of your insistence that EP are magical, how can any explanation I might provide sink in? They can't, because you've got a dogmatic attachment to your "axiom."
No, you got that from Wikipedia.
I point out your lack of understanding to show you why your logic fails. But since you insist on wallowing in your ignorance, you cannot be helped.
Reality doesn't give a damn about whether you like it or not. If consciousness is a condition (and you have provided no evidence or logic through which we might agree that it is not), then after you die, you're dead. The universe doesn't care one whit about your "major problem," and will continue apace after you're gone.
Now, if you could provide some evidence and logic with which to predict the existence of "animated entities," then we might have an interesting conversation. Until then, though, conjecture about such things just appears to be wishful thinking, in that you're hoping that when you're dead, you won't be dead.
Seriously: who is claiming that "a single identity can be merged from a composite of individual identities?" Certainly not me. By your definitions, I'm claiming that consciousness is a condition of a composite of other conditions of energy (the only "entity" which could actually exist, since all others are easily demonstrated to be temporary, and thus conditions). I think your definitions are bad ones, but until you cease to use them, I will have to in order to show the holes in your logic.
You're clearly not interested in what it really means, because I've already told you. Again: pointing out your straw men is a useful activity in itself.
I really no longer care how you see things, since you see things that aren't there, and don't see things that are. "All of existence is a field" is meaningless sciencey-sounding twaddle that adds nothing to any hypothesis.
Hey, maybe if you stomp your feet or use more capital letters or some really big text, I'd be more likely to believe you. No, of course not. Your insistence that you exist means nothing to the universe. The question of whether you exist or not (by your definitions) is not answered by really, really wanting to exist. That is magical thinking.
And you can't appeal to Descartes for help, either, as he was clearly using a different definition of "exists" than you insist on using, one in which things (common objects of everyday experience) exist, while under your axioms, things like chairs and tables do not exist, since they are merely conditions of composites. We know that they are conditions because they are temporary, not eternal.
How humiliating for you to admit publicly that you've got nothing more than lofty dreams of far-off vindication to support your own existence. |
"You don't understand." "You are ignorant of physics." "Your argument is useless." "Your definitions are bad." "You are teeming with the arrogance of ignorance." - This is not exactly what I would call a logical rebuttal. These are the pathetic postings of someone in a debate who can't stand his ground by posing a valid counter argument. If you have the rationale to rebut what I propose, put if forth...if A then B, C implies D, etc. It is, indeed, a desperate and ineffective defense to just arbitrarily denigrate the proponent of a hypothesis without putting forth contrary logic and consider the argument settled.
As I see it, the crux of the matter is:
1) You exist
2) It is not possible to BE more than one existence
3) Your corpse is more than one existence
You obviously disagree with #2 and you seemingly cannot explain why. |
I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it. |
| Edited by - THoR on 11/29/2009 17:44:25 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Evolution vs. ID: 6 Bones of Contention
