|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 08/21/2010 : 19:26:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...I might want to suggest the possibility that Thought (and possibly Emotion, various mental states, etc.) could be considered as analogous to Potential Energy defined by classical Physics as: |
How would it help (broaden and/or deepen) our understanding of consciousness to consider thought as analogous to potential energy?| At this point it would behoove one to ask, "What is the force field that neurons in the Brain (probably Human) are positioned within such that their relative position (pattern) creates a Thought potential? |
What is a "thought potential?" I'm having trouble even visualizing one. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2010 : 21:29:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by bngbuck
At this point it would behoove one to ask, "What is the force field that neurons in the Brain (probably Human) are positioned within such that their relative position (pattern) creates a Thought potential? |
What is a "thought potential?" I'm having trouble even visualizing one.
|
Chopra?  |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2010 : 12:50:08 [Permalink]
|
Tomko.....
| Bngbuck, as far as I can see, Dave W. uses the word material as a synonym for natural. In other words, thoughts are naturally occurring things arrising from natural processes in the brain. Whether you call that material or not, seems immaterial to me. |
Tomko, the primary reason that I was unsure of Dave's meaning of the word material is that there are several common definitions of material that specifically reference the word matter, as in the sense of physics' matter/energy duality.
It is my understanding that natural can have other meanings than "composed of matter". |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 12:02:16 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| If E=mc2, then energy is matter (and vice versa). But I'm not going to be dragged into another stupid semantic argument. |
I'm sorry, Dave, but I do not understand what you mean by agreeing that energy is matter (by virtue of the undeniably simple mathematics of E=mc²); and then comment that you are being dragged into a "stupid" semantic argument. What, in your view, is wrong with the possibility that Thought = (a form of) matter = energy? You have said that....| thoughts are wholly material |
I don't understand why it is a stupid semantic argument to conclude from your statement that Thought is composed of matter, is in fact matter, and also might be seen to equate with energy under certain conditions, such as the field theory of potential energy.
To the extent of our current knowledge, I agree with you that only matter and energy exist in the Universe. That inevitably does define thought as either matter or energy. Are you stating that Thought can only exist as the Matter form aspect of the M/E duality, and consequently not possibly be understood as Energy?
I certainly see nothing stupid, ignorant, or impossible about either of the two alternatives: nor do I see you as possessing those attributes for so theorizing, or if you wish, so declaring. And I most emphatically am not proposing that some "explanation gap" here be filled with mystical, deistic, or even "supernatural" explanation - as opposed to the tenets of classical and current particle physics.
Quite to the contrary, I propose only that if Thought be considered as material - as it likely must be - it might be properly subsumed under the Energy half of the M/E duality; or at least be considered as analoguous to the concept of energy, considering the obvious fact that we do not as yet have sufficient information to fully understand it.
Hypothecation is not necessarily "wholly unevidenced and unspecified speculation" when reference to accepted mechanical or nuclear principles (potential energy) is given. If, as you state, "I'm fine with talking about even what we don't know and why not", why refuse to discuss that which might be? Aristarchus speculated the heliocentric theory nineteen centuries before Copernicus had developed the astronomical and mathematical tools to prove it. The man was not demonized in his time for speculating on what was later demonstrated to be a truth.| all the evidence we have is consistent with thoughts being nothing more than the result of various patterns of neuronal excitation. |
A perfectly reasonable hypothesis, essentially that a pattern or arrangement of elements is, in and of itself, a thing of matter. It could be argued that the process of nuclear fission which literally coverts matter into energy, is a result of a very specific patterning of the nuclear particles of U-235. I would propose that your pattern explanation of the nature of Thought might be analogous to this model.
I am sure that we both understand that all manifestations of both energy and matter are not identical, as that would be absurd on the face of it. There are obviously many forms of matter and of energy that are apparent to our senses. But that fact does not negate your assertion that everything in the universe is either energy or matter; or conversely, that nothing exists that is not one or the other facet of the duality. That conclusion is perfectly acceptable to me at this point in history when very little evidence exists as to a full explanation of many matter and energy states. | I'm fine with talking about what we know and how we know it, or even what we don't know and why not |
but I'm not going to be dragged into another stupid semantic argument.
|
So be it, I'm not about to engage in violence. That which is seen as stupid semantics by one may well appear to be a necessary examination of the meaning of words to another.| (and) I'm not going to engage with wholly unevidenced and unspecified speculation. |
| "Thoughts might, after all, be caused by Martian hamsters running in wheels which transmit a code via odor lasers and our brains are merely antennae," |
I do appreciate your fulfilling your pledge!
Originally posted by bngbuck
Thank you for an elegantly simple and completely acceptably civil response. Discourse with you is becoming pleasant again. |
Response by Dave W.
I certainly can't say the same. |
Well, on that happy note of reconciliation, allow me to wish you as pleasant a day as you are capable of having after encountering some alternatives to your Pythian views of reality.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 12:25:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
To the extent of our current knowledge, I agree with you that only matter and energy exist in the Universe. That inevitably does define thought as either matter or energy. |
Okay, I guess we'll just forget about emergent properties, then.| Are you stating that Thought can only exist as the Matter form aspect of the M/E duality, and consequently not possibly be understood as Energy? |
No, because thought is an arrangement of stuff, and not the stuff itself.| Quite to the contrary, I propose only that if Thought be considered as material - as it likely must be - it might be properly subsumed under the Energy half of the M/E duality; or at least be considered as analoguous to the concept of energy, considering the obvious fact that we do not as yet have sufficient information to fully understand it. |
Try having this whole conversation over again, but this time, in every place where there's a word like "thought" or "consciousness," replace it with the words "silver dollar." You can skip the emergent properties parts for this exercise.| Hypothecation is not necessarily "wholly unevidenced and unspecified speculation" when reference to accepted mechanical or nuclear principles (potential energy) is given. |
I'm still waiting on your explanation of how thinking of thought as analogous to potential energy helps anything.| If, as you state, "I'm fine with talking about even what we don't know and why not", why refuse to discuss that which might be? |
Because there are an infinite number of things which might be, and I simply don't have the time to discuss them all.| Aristarchus speculated the heliocentric theory nineteen centuries before Copernicus had developed the astronomical and mathematical tools to prove it. The man was not demonized in his time for speculating on what was later demonstrated to be a truth. |
According to Wikipedia, he was:Cleanthes (a contemporary of Aristarchus and head of the Stoics) thought it was the duty of the Greeks to indict Aristarchus on the charge of impiety for putting in motion the hearth of the universe … supposing the heaven to remain at rest and the earth to revolve in an oblique circle, while it rotates, at the same time, about its own axis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 15:59:17 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Okay, I guess we'll just forget about emergent properties, then. |
That would be great, because I'm having a real problem with the fogging effect of Schrödinger's catalyst creeping into my strict reductionism.| No, because thought is an arrangement of stuff, and not the stuff itself. |
So does an arrangement's place in the Universe belong in the Matter part or in the Energy part? Remember...| (thoughts are) wholly material. Suggesting that they're not is to suggest that there's something other than matter and energy in the universe, something for which there is no evidence. |
Or would it be that there is nothing in the Universe except Matter and Energy and their numerous emergent properties? If Emergentism has validity, then I would posit that there is indeed evidence for at least a third element of the Universe, namely the emergent properties of Matter and Energy.
This could lead to a recognition of terms like Thought and Arrangement as entities of the Universe derived from Matter and Energy but "not the stuff itself" - (as you have stated).| Try having this whole conversation over again, but this time, in every place where there's a word like "thought" or "consciousness," replace it with the words "silver dollar." You can skip the emergent properties parts for this exercise. |
Yeah. I did that and ended up with more money than sense. Tried "Buck" as a colloquial substitute for "silver dollar", but the whole exercise became far too subjective. I gather that your point is that you rather favor the "of matter" explanation of the essence of Thought, as opposed to "of energy"; naturally amending the explanation to be truly "of the emergent properties" of M, not the actual M itself. BTW, the exercise is excellent practice at coining words and phrases!| Because there are an infinite number of things which might be, and I simply don't have the time to discuss them all. |
Understood! Personally, I do well with ships and seas and sealing wax, but must draw the line at cabbages and kings, Horatio!| Cleanthes (a contemporary of Aristarchus and head of the Stoics) thought it was the duty of the Greeks to indict Aristarchus on the charge of impiety for putting in motion the hearth of the universe … supposing the heaven to remain at rest and the earth to revolve in an oblique circle, while it rotates, at the same time, about its own axis. |
Yes, but even in 300BC, Cleanthes had his own cross to bear...Wiki
his slowness, earned him the title of "the Ass" from his fellow students, |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 16:30:28 [Permalink]
|
Dave and Machi4velli.....
| What is a "thought potential?" I'm having trouble even visualizing one. |
My use of the words "thought" and "potential" together was meant to refer to my previous mention of a possible analogy that might be made between the term used in physical mechanics "potential energy" and a material (of Energy) explanation of the nature of thought.
I doubt that a "thought potential" can be visualized any more effectively than a "thought" can. I have difficulty with visualizing either.
However, it would not surprise me if Deepak, after a six pack or two, could carry on interminably using similar words; and probably descend into the deepest valley of the Land of Woo in the process!
Your criticism of the phrase is well taken, I fear that I not only misspoke, but that James Randi's vulnerable coronary arteries would harden perceptibly upon reading such a construction! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 16:48:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
So does an arrangement's place in the Universe belong in the Matter part or in the Energy part? |
Both, unless you hold that because of E=mc2, all matter is energy. A silver dollar isn't just a pile of atoms.| Or would it be that there is nothing in the Universe except Matter and Energy and their numerous emergent properties? If Emergentism has validity, then I would posit that there is indeed evidence for at least a third element of the Universe, namely the emergent properties of Matter and Energy. |
If you want to go that route, then there's nothing in the universe but matter, energy, color, odor, texture, melting and boiling points, musicality, opaqueness, etc., etc. If matter is simply an emergent property of energy, then it's emergence all the way down.| This could lead to a recognition of terms like Thought and Arrangement as entities of the Universe derived from Matter and Energy but "not the stuff itself" - (as you have stated). |
Well, it depends on the context. Physics doesn't particularly interest itself with the price of tea in China, but that's just an emergent property of the markets, which are an emergent property of human societies, which are... well, it'd take a lot of typing to get down to quarks, but we'd get there eventually.| Yeah. I did that and ended up with more money than sense. Tried "Buck" as a colloquial substitute for "silver dollar", but the whole exercise became far too subjective. I gather that your point is that you rather favor the "of matter" explanation of the essence of Thought, as opposed to "of energy"; naturally amending the explanation to be truly "of the emergent properties" of M, not the actual M itself. |
No. Again, a silver dollar isn't just a pile of atoms. It's a very specifically shaped bunch of atoms (held in place by the energy in atomic and chemical bonds) that evokes a particular meaning in a some human brains. The atoms and bonds have no clue (of course) that they're a part of a silver dollar or what a dollar means to some people. Similarly, the molecules and energies involved in a "thought" don't understand anything about thinking. "Thought" is only meaningful at a higher level than the raw physics, and even higher than biology (no individual neurons embody the concept of thinking). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 17:09:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by bngbuck
So does an arrangement's place in the Universe belong in the Matter part or in the Energy part? |
Both, unless you hold that because of E=mc2, all matter is energy. A silver dollar isn't just a pile of atoms.
|
Lets be clear here. In Physics energy is not a substance...it is a property of matter. in short it is a measurement of work done by matter. I'll only agree to either that definition or (to sooth my desire for absurdity) that it is a really cheezy Taiwan boy band. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_ band
energy
noun ( pl. -gies)
1 the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity : changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being.
• a feeling of possessing such strength and vitality.
• force or vigor of expression.
• ( energies) a person's physical and mental powers, typically as applied to a particular task or activity.
2 power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, esp. to provide light and heat or to work machines.
3 Physics the property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules) : a collision in which no energy is transferred.
• a degree or level of this capacity possessed by something or required by a process. |
|
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 08/23/2010 17:17:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 18:11:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Lets be clear here. In Physics energy is not a substance...it is a property of matter. in short it is a measurement of work done by matter... |
...Or radiation, according to your quote. Is a massless particle really matter, or are photons simply "packets" of energy? Prior to the quark/gluon soup in Lambda-CDM theory, what matter is carrying all the energy in the universe? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 21:50:38 [Permalink]
|
The aether Dave! It's teh aether!
I'd also like to point out, along with chef, that the "M" in E=MC^2 is MASS. Mass is a property of matter, it is not matter itself. Energy, also, is a property of matter. To my understanding it is incorrect to say that matter is energy.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2010 : 23:28:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| I'd also like to point out, along with chef, that the "M" in E=MC^2 is MASS. Mass is a property of matter, it is not matter itself. Energy, also, is a property of matter. To my understanding it is incorrect to say that matter is energy. |
You put a fine point on it, but if you would like to correct Dave's original declaration.....| If E=mc², then energy is matter (and vice versa). But I'm not going to be dragged into another stupid semantic argument. |
.....by substituting the word "mass" for "matter", I certainly have no argument. I do think that semantic argument might arise (and annoy Dave) if "mass" were substituted for "matter" everyplace that "matter" appears in his persuasions for emergentism, as the two words are certainly not identical in meaning.
For all I know (which is very little) "mass" may even be an emergent property of matter along with all of the multitudes of other entities that Dave suggests. It certainly gets complicated pretty quickly; but then, nobody thought it would be simple!
If anyone is really longing for additional complexity, Wiki offers this:Physicalism may be defined as the theory that the universe is comprised exclusively of physical entities. However, consciousness, for example, appears to be problematic for this thesis, as it exhibits properties not ordinarily associated with most other physical entities. In response to this situation, two variants of physicalism have been advanced: reductionism and emergentism.
Reductionists generally see the task of accounting for the possibly atypical properties of mind and of living things as a matter of showing that, contrary to appearances, such properties are indeed fully accountable in terms of the properties of the basic particles of nature (or in other, like terms), and therefore in no way genuinely atypical. By contrast, emergentists have argued that what is meant by the physical is more complex than this picture suggests, and that novel properties can arise above the level of fundamental particles. Thus, emergentism suggests a layered view of nature, with the layers arranged in terms of increasing complexity with each requiring its own special science.
Some philosophers hold that emergent properties causally interact with more fundamental levels, while others maintain that higher-order properties simply supervene over lower levels without direct causal interaction. |
The soul may well be more than the sum of its warts!
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 06:23:09 [Permalink]
|
Alright dammit, here is the definition of atheist
a·the·ist#8194; #8194;/#712;e#618;#952;i#618;st/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
|
The definition makes no mention of how a person gets to be an atheist or that an atheist is claiming to know something that is unknowable. It's a simple, straitforward definition and not at all contadictory to rational thought. I think agnostics just think to much.
I am an atheist and I shall yell it from the rooftops! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2010 : 06:30:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I'd also like to point out, along with chef, that the "M" in E=MC^2 is MASS. Mass is a property of matter, it is not matter itself. Energy, also, is a property of matter. To my understanding it is incorrect to say that matter is energy. |
Yeah, I've been sloppy. Will stop. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 04:44:21 [Permalink]
|
| I prefer to think of matter as condensated energy. Thought is more like a property of a particular matter configuration, like conductivity of a wire. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Atheist/Agnostic
