Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 The Evolution of Intelligent Design
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 08/13/2012 :  18:16:45  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Though particle physicists can't claim with certainty to have isolated a truly elemental particle, I personally believe I am more than qualified to speak with profound authority on the subject - because I am one. And so are you.

"Cogito ergo sum." (Descartes)

I think, therefore I am. One must exist in order to experience, and the fact you experience is convincing proof you exist.

You probably consider yourself to be 'an existence', which is obviously why you call yourself 'I' instead of 'we'. But exactly what IS 'an existence'?

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. 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 single existence that is not composed of independent parts, an irreducible physical manifestation consisting only of itself, an elemental identity I call an 'entity'. But so far, physicists have not been able to find the elusive entity and it is entirely possible they would not recognize one even if they could isolate it.

The material objects with which we interact in our environment are composites. A chair, for example, is the label we use to conveniently describe a set of parts including a seat, legs, back and arms. If its construction is of wood, then those parts are made of sets labeled 'cells' which are comprised of sets labeled 'molecules' which are, in turn, formed by sets labeled 'atoms', whose protons, neutrons and electrons have been theoretically superseded by hadron groups populated by even smaller sub-sets of quark and lepton particles and anti particles which may - or may not - be truly irreducible.

An irreducible physical entity is 'an existence'. Everything comprised of those entities, from an atom to a galaxy cluster, is a composite.

You are ostensibly 'an existence', but your body is a composite - a collection of billions of separate elements or fundamental particles, each with its own individual properties. Each basic particle pre-existed your birth and will ultimately survive your demise. Each has a unique history, a separate location and physical domain. Logically this presents a conundrum. How can you be 'an existence' if that manifestation which you consider to be yourself is a composite? Indeed, every existence has its own unique history and identity and a collection of existences will have as many separate, individual identities as there are elements in the set.

The Pinocchio Hypothesis:
To reconcile this disparity, hordes of scholarly pundits with names bubbling in beakers of alphabet soup 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, very long time, you can produce a composite that thinks, propagates and experiences a single existence with an individual identity. That may sound silly (I call it the Pinocchio hypothesis), but which lowly layman in his right mind would dare contradict an entire horde of scholarly pundits, especially when they are up to their necks in hot alphabet soup. So, with an eye of newt and wing of bat, a pinch of this and a dash of that, these pundits dub this egregious departure from logic "the phenomenon of emergent properties" or EP and they credit it with the creation of all life on Earth.

But even the most tenured of scholars aren't able to explain the specific mechanics of EP that transform a body with 8x10^27 atoms into a single existence with an individual identity. In fact, there seems to be two distinct factions in the EP camp. The 'integration' group assures us without hesitation that some unknown power of unification melds a composite into a single identity and awareness. This faction would have us believe 8x10^27 = 1. On the other hand, the 'emergence' group tries to convince us 8x10^27 = 8x10^27+1, claiming any sense of self is due to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. They expect us to believe composites can conjure up a supervening entity, a temporary ego or virtual being with its own separate awareness and identity. In their practice of this mathematical sorcery, proponents of EP are idiomatically reduced to casting the incantations "integrated" and "emergent" because "abracadabra" and "hocus pocus" are currently shunned and disfavored by the orthodox scientific community.

Hogwarts! If this is science, then Harry Potter is the next Isaac Newton. If you believe you are the corporal product of emergent properties then you are claiming that you are an occurrence and not an existence. Merlin, himself, would be embarrassed by such magical thinking.

So what is life?

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."

Figure it out for yourself - else you'd never believe it. I'll let you know when you've got it right.

Quoted from: www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/life.htm

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/13/2012 :  18:44:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
One technicality, I believe a hadron is defined as a composition of some number of quarks, but other particles aren't made of quarks, so really there's an alphabet soup of elementary particles that don't really overlap, several types of quarks, leptons, and bosons.

And, I don't think scientists who are experts on evolution say hardly any of what this says they say. The best I could suggest to the authors would be to learn a bit more about what they do say before writing articles about it.

"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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/13/2012 :  19:19:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Back for more, THoR?
Originally posted by THoR

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.
No, this hasn't been the postulate since the time of Einstein.
An irreducible physical entity is 'an existence'.
So you say. Why should what you assert without evidence matter to us?
To reconcile this disparity...
The disparity that you have made up.
...these pundits dub this egregious departure from logic "the phenomenon of emergent properties" or EP and they credit it with the creation of all life on Earth.
That's false. Emergent properties are only an explanation for behaviors of composites, which you claim don't "exist" by your personal definition of the term. Without your silly definitions, there is no departure from logic at all.

By your definition, language, art, electricity, love, water and motion don't exist because there is no particle for any of them.
But even the most tenured of scholars aren't able to explain the specific mechanics of EP that transform a body with 8x10^27 atoms into a single existence with an individual identity.
Don't need to.
In fact, there seems to be two distinct factions in the EP camp. The 'integration' group assures us without hesitation that some unknown power of unification melds a composite into a single identity and awareness.
That's false. The word "melds" is simply wrong.
On the other hand, the 'emergence' group tries to convince us 8x10^27 = 8x10^27+1, claiming any sense of self is due to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
Also false.
They expect us to believe...
But you would have us believe in the existence of a "water entity," since no known particle can account for the properties of water alone.

That emergent properties exist is easy to demonstrate: the properties of a chair will not be found within a pile of lumber and a handful of nails. You can't cut up a chair into smaller and smaller parts and find a "chair particle" anywhere inside it. Yet each and every chair has a unique history of experiences that the parts that comprise it do not share.

You deny that this can happen to "occurrences," but that's nothing more than a problem with your definitions of these words, and not an insurmountable difficulty faced by either scientists or philosophers. The fact that you can't seem to bring yourself to use the language correctly is not the fault of the experts you so clearly hate.
If you believe you are the corporal product of emergent properties then you are claiming that you are an occurrence and not an existence. Merlin, himself, would be embarrassed by such magical thinking.
How about your magical definitions? What is wrong with being an occurrence? What is superior about being an existence? Because I don't face your self-imposed semantic hurdles, my answer to both questions would be "nothing."
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."
Quoting fiction is always a sign of a strong argument.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2012 :  18:15:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

One technicality, I believe a hadron is defined as a composition of some number of quarks, but other particles aren't made of quarks, so really there's an alphabet soup of elementary particles that don't really overlap, several types of quarks, leptons, and bosons.

Yes, and some particles only "exist" when they travel at 186283 mi/sec. Wouldn't this imply they are conditions - propagations of change/energy - rather than physical entities?

And, I don't think scientists who are experts on evolution say hardly any of what this says they say. The best I could suggest to the authors would be to learn a bit more about what they do say before writing articles about it.

Cudda fooled me. Which scientists are you citing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_evolution
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Edited by - THoR on 08/14/2012 18:17:23
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2012 :  19:10:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Back for more, THoR?
Couldn't stay away. I really enjoy the animated conversation. Bouncing parts of my thesis off a variety of apparently intelligent crania really helps. I'll be not only respectful but grateful to those who argue in good faith. In most cases it just helps me refine my semantics (hard to translate brain language into English) but occasionally I find myself convinced by those who disagree...and I alter the thesis accordingly. Give it your best shot...don't hold back.
Originally posted by THoR

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.
No, this hasn't been the postulate since the time of Einstein.
The folks at Fermi would disagree with you http://www-donut.fnal.gov/web_pages/standardmodelpg/TheStandardModel.html
An irreducible physical entity is 'an existence'.
So you say. Why should what you assert without evidence matter to us?
Okay, you can define 'an existence' any way you wish, I prefer to limit that status to something irreducible. You can call a cow or a comet or a cluster of galaxies 'an existence', but those are obviously composites, not irreducible entities. When dealing with rather complex ideas, it is handy to get the definitions squared away at the start.
To reconcile this disparity...
The disparity that you have made up.
I totally understand how you might miss the disparity of 8x10^27 = 1 since obviously you are an adherent to the 'abracadabra' philosophy... or do you prefer 'hocus pocus'?
...these pundits dub this egregious departure from logic "the phenomenon of emergent properties" or EP and they credit it with the creation of all life on Earth.
That's false. Emergent properties are only an explanation for behaviors of composites, which you claim don't "exist" by your personal definition of the term. Without your silly definitions, there is no departure from logic at all.
Yes, without logic or definition, anything is possible - even the absurd.


By your definition, language, art, electricity, love, water and motion don't exist because there is no particle for any of them.
???? You're REALLY reaching, now. Misdirection doesn't really work in an intelligent debate (except in politics).
But even the most tenured of scholars aren't able to explain the specific mechanics of EP that transform a body with 8x10^27 atoms into a single existence with an individual identity.
Don't need to.
Yes they do.
In fact, there seems to be two distinct factions in the EP camp. The 'integration' group assures us without hesitation that some unknown power of unification melds a composite into a single identity and awareness.
That's false. The word "melds" is simply wrong.
Okay, what word would you recommend that is synonymous with integrate...I'll consider editing the paragraph.
On the other hand, the 'emergence' group tries to convince us 8x10^27 = 8x10^27+1, claiming any sense of self is due to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
Also false..
Why should what you assert without evidence matter to us?
They expect us to believe...
But you would have us believe in the existence of a "water entity," since no known particle can account for the properties of water alone.
If you believe water is 'an existence' rather than a composite, you need to brush up on you chemistry.


That emergent properties exist is easy to demonstrate: the properties of a chair will not be found within a pile of lumber and a handful of nails. You can't cut up a chair into smaller and smaller parts and find a "chair particle" anywhere inside it. Yet each and every chair has a unique history of experiences that the parts that comprise it do not share.
I will fully understand if you wish to edit your last sentence to avoid embarrassment - I promise not to poke fun at you.


You deny that this can happen to "occurrences," but that's nothing more than a problem with your definitions of these words, and not an insurmountable difficulty faced by either scientists or philosophers. The fact that you can't seem to bring yourself to use the language correctly is not the fault of the experts you so clearly hate.
You wouldn't hate a Neanderthal for not being able to text on a cell phone. It might; however, become annoying and frustrating.
If you believe you are the corporal product of emergent properties then you are claiming that you are an occurrence and not an existence. Merlin, himself, would be embarrassed by such magical thinking.
How about your magical definitions? What is wrong with being an occurrence? What is superior about being an existence? Because I don't face your self-imposed semantic hurdles, my answer to both questions would be "nothing."
??? Which questions are you predecating?
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."
Quoting fiction is always a sign of a strong argument.
So is quoting logic and common sense.

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Edited by - THoR on 08/14/2012 19:34:00
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/14/2012 :  21:27:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR
Cudda fooled me. Which scientists are you citing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_evolution
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/


Well, the existence of more than one type of elementary particle has been the state of physics for many years, so the Democritus postulate is no longer widely held as it implies everything is made of a single sort of particle. Thus, the rest of that paragraph is not addressed to anything scientists say.

The whole definition of an existence seems arbitrary. It says an existence is an irreducible entity, and that elementary particles and intelligences (e.g. a person) satisfy this. However, I don't see evidence that an intelligence is irreducible in the sense of elementary particles.

The only argument for an intelligence being an existence is from using the word exist in the Descartes argument (which is hardly bulletproof itself, but that's not a scientific question, so we'll skip that for now), but without further argument, I don't see why beyond the linguistic similarity of the two why we should consider them the same thing. Without this, it doesn't make sense to ask how we can be an existence -- which negates much of the rest of it because it all rests on the assumption an intelligence is irreducible.

"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
Edited by - Machi4velli on 08/14/2012 21:28:36
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 08/18/2012 :  09:19:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

Originally posted by THoR
Cudda fooled me. Which scientists are you citing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_evolution
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/


Well, the existence of more than one type of elementary particle has been the state of physics for many years, so the Democritus postulate is no longer widely held as it implies everything is made of a single sort of particle. No it doesn't.Thus, the rest of that paragraph is not addressed to anything scientists say.

The whole definition of an existence seems arbitrary. No, it is elementary. It says an existence is an irreducible entity, Yes, and two or more irreducible entities would be a composite. and that elementary particles and intelligences (e.g. a person) satisfy this. However, I don't see evidence that an intelligence is irreducible in the sense of elementary particles.
Consciousness is a condition. Conditions are states of being experienced by each individual existence. Live consciousness is a state of being expeirenced by an animated existence enveloped in a corporal structure.


The only argument for an intelligence being an existence is from using the word exist in the Descartes argument (which is hardly bulletproof itself, but that's not a scientific question, so we'll skip that for now), but without further argument, I don't see why beyond the linguistic similarity of the two why we should consider them the same thing. Without this, it doesn't make sense to ask how we can be an existence -- which negates much of the rest of it because it all rests on the assumption an intelligence is irreducible.

Intelligence is a condition. The animated particle that enjoys that condition is irreducible, but irreducible is not a term that would apply to a condition.

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/18/2012 :  11:01:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I don't mean intelligence as a condition, I said "an intelligence", by which I mean a conscious being of some sort, which you've said is an existence since it is irreducible, but I don't see evidence that it is irreducible.

"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
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/18/2012 :  17:38:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR

No, this hasn't been the postulate since the time of Einstein.
The folks at Fermi would disagree with you http://www-donut.fnal.gov/web_pages/standardmodelpg/TheStandardModel.html
I doubt it, since they would understand that if you, for example, crash an electron and a positron into each other, they vanish and two photons go flying away, but it'd be ridiculous to say that either of those leptons is "made of" photons. Or how about a down quark decaying into an up quark and a W boson? These are all described as "elementary" or "fundamental" particles, but the names are misleading if lay definitions are used because they freely transform into each other.
Okay, you can define 'an existence' any way you wish, I prefer to limit that status to something irreducible.
Yeah, but why should your preferred definition be shared by anyone else?
You can call a cow or a comet or a cluster of galaxies 'an existence', but those are obviously composites, not irreducible entities.
But so what? Who cares about whether an existence is irreducible or a composite? You haven't made a compelling argument either way, but your whole thesis depends on your definitions being necessary.
When dealing with rather complex ideas, it is handy to get the definitions squared away at the start.
Indeed, but it seems to me that the only way for your hypothesis to make sense is to use your apparently arbitrary definitions. I mean, why not define "an existence" to be "cheese?" It makes as much sense to do that as to define it as only being applicable to mythical "irreducible entities."
I totally understand how you might miss the disparity of 8x10^27 = 1 since obviously you are an adherent to the 'abracadabra' philosophy... or do you prefer 'hocus pocus'?
So now to treat you as you claim you treat other people, I should have less respect for you because you're not arguing in good faith, but instead resorting to ridicule. Or do you expect others to accept your abuse?
Yes, without logic or definition, anything is possible - even the absurd.
Well, you've provided definitions which seem neither necessary nor compelling, and then applied logic to them. The logic may be valid, but the argument is unsound because the premises (your definitions) haven't been shown to be true.
By your definition, language, art, electricity, love, water and motion don't exist because there is no particle for any of them.
???? You're REALLY reaching, now. Misdirection doesn't really work in an intelligent debate (except in politics).
Show me where I've misdirected anything. Those things I mentioned are not "irreducible entities," and so cannot have their own "existences" per your argument. All of them emerge from the behavior of composites.
But even the most tenured of scholars aren't able to explain the specific mechanics of EP that transform a body with 8x10^27 atoms into a single existence with an individual identity.
Don't need to.
Yes they do.
Why? And why would you care when you think they're just a bunch of elitist "alphabet soup" junkies. Would your opinion of their expertise change if they agreed with you?
In fact, there seems to be two distinct factions in the EP camp. The 'integration' group assures us without hesitation that some unknown power of unification melds a composite into a single identity and awareness.
That's false. The word "melds" is simply wrong.
Okay, what word would you recommend that is synonymous with integrate...I'll consider editing the paragraph.
Well, it needs more than a singe word changed to accurately reflect state-of-the-art neuroscience, but since you so-crassly dismiss the experts in the field, I don't know why you would pay attention.
Why should what you assert without evidence matter to us?
You first.
If you believe water is 'an existence' rather than a composite, you need to brush up on you chemistry.
Show me a chemist's definition of "an existence."
...Yet each and every chair has a unique history of experiences that the parts that comprise it do not share.
I will fully understand if you wish to edit your last sentence to avoid embarrassment - I promise not to poke fun at you.
That sentence is completely accurate. Or do you think that after whacking a wooden chair's seat with a hammer, the top-most back slat will experience the exact same force vectors as each of the legs, and they all experience the exact same forces as the chair as a whole? The fact that wood is flexible and that the forces only propagate at the speed of sound guarantee that idea to be wrong.
You wouldn't hate a Neanderthal for not being able to text on a cell phone. It might; however, become annoying and frustrating.
Who said anything about "hate?"
How about your magical definitions? What is wrong with being an occurrence? What is superior about being an existence? Because I don't face your self-imposed semantic hurdles, my answer to both questions would be "nothing."
??? Which questions are you predecating?
I thought the questions were simple enough. Which part(s) don't you understand? How does one "predecate" a question?
So is quoting logic and common sense.
But quantum physics often throws common sense out the window. And "eliminating the impossible" is often itself impossible, given that nobody is omniscient (so Holmes was being illogical with that statement).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2012 :  12:04:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by THoR

No, this hasn't been the postulate since the time of Einstein.
The folks at Fermi would disagree with you http://www-donut.fnal.gov/web_pages/standardmodelpg/TheStandardModel.html
I doubt it, since they would understand that if you, for example, crash an electron and a positron into each other, they vanish and two photons go flying away, but it'd be ridiculous to say that either of those leptons is "made of" photons. Or how about a down quark decaying into an up quark and a W boson? These are all described as "elementary" or "fundamental" particles, but the names are misleading if lay definitions are used because they freely transform into each other.
Okay, you can define 'an existence' any way you wish, I prefer to limit that status to something irreducible.
Yeah, but why should your preferred definition be shared by anyone else?
You can call a cow or a comet or a cluster of galaxies 'an existence', but those are obviously composites, not irreducible entities.
But so what? Who cares about whether an existence is irreducible or a composite? You haven't made a compelling argument either way, but your whole thesis depends on your definitions being necessary.
When dealing with rather complex ideas, it is handy to get the definitions squared away at the start.
Indeed, but it seems to me that the only way for your hypothesis to make sense is to use your apparently arbitrary definitions. I mean, why not define "an existence" to be "cheese?" It makes as much sense to do that as to define it as only being applicable to mythical "irreducible entities."
I totally understand how you might miss the disparity of 8x10^27 = 1 since obviously you are an adherent to the 'abracadabra' philosophy... or do you prefer 'hocus pocus'?
So now to treat you as you claim you treat other people, I should have less respect for you because you're not arguing in good faith, but instead resorting to ridicule. Or do you expect others to accept your abuse?
Yes, without logic or definition, anything is possible - even the absurd.
Well, you've provided definitions which seem neither necessary nor compelling, and then applied logic to them. The logic may be valid, but the argument is unsound because the premises (your definitions) haven't been shown to be true.
By your definition, language, art, electricity, love, water and motion don't exist because there is no particle for any of them.
???? You're REALLY reaching, now. Misdirection doesn't really work in an intelligent debate (except in politics).
Show me where I've misdirected anything. Those things I mentioned are not "irreducible entities," and so cannot have their own "existences" per your argument. All of them emerge from the behavior of composites.
But even the most tenured of scholars aren't able to explain the specific mechanics of EP that transform a body with 8x10^27 atoms into a single existence with an individual identity.
Don't need to.
Yes they do.
Why? And why would you care when you think they're just a bunch of elitist "alphabet soup" junkies. Would your opinion of their expertise change if they agreed with you?
In fact, there seems to be two distinct factions in the EP camp. The 'integration' group assures us without hesitation that some unknown power of unification melds a composite into a single identity and awareness.
That's false. The word "melds" is simply wrong.
Okay, what word would you recommend that is synonymous with integrate...I'll consider editing the paragraph.
Well, it needs more than a singe word changed to accurately reflect state-of-the-art neuroscience, but since you so-crassly dismiss the experts in the field, I don't know why you would pay attention.
Why should what you assert without evidence matter to us?
You first.
If you believe water is 'an existence' rather than a composite, you need to brush up on you chemistry.
Show me a chemist's definition of "an existence."
...Yet each and every chair has a unique history of experiences that the parts that comprise it do not share.
I will fully understand if you wish to edit your last sentence to avoid embarrassment - I promise not to poke fun at you.
That sentence is completely accurate. Or do you think that after whacking a wooden chair's seat with a hammer, the top-most back slat will experience the exact same force vectors as each of the legs, and they all experience the exact same forces as the chair as a whole? The fact that wood is flexible and that the forces only propagate at the speed of sound guarantee that idea to be wrong.
You wouldn't hate a Neanderthal for not being able to text on a cell phone. It might; however, become annoying and frustrating.
Who said anything about "hate?"
How about your magical definitions? What is wrong with being an occurrence? What is superior about being an existence? Because I don't face your self-imposed semantic hurdles, my answer to both questions would be "nothing."
??? Which questions are you predecating?
I thought the questions were simple enough. Which part(s) don't you understand? How does one "predecate" a question?
So is quoting logic and common sense.
But quantum physics often throws common sense out the window. And "eliminating the impossible" is often itself impossible, given that nobody is omniscient (so Holmes was being illogical with that statement).

So you basically are telling me that "1" doesn't exist. There are no irreducible elements in the cosmos. Everything is made of smaller things ad infinitum and anything we might have considered a fundamental particle will always be found to be a composite?

Yes, quantum physics - a system of mathematical incongruities reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations - does fly in the face of common sense, and there are a variety of terms for individuals (ooooops, I meant collections) who don't use common sense. Unfortunately, all too often the term applied is PHD.

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2012 :  12:22:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by THoR

So you basically are telling me that "1" doesn't exist.
By your definitions, that seems to be the case.
There are no irreducible elements in the cosmos. Everything is made of smaller things ad infinitum...
No, the tiny things seem to be readily changeable into other tiny things, so the idea that one is "made of" others is simply absurd.
...and anything we might have considered a fundamental particle will always be found to be a composite?
No, the very idea of irreducibility appears to break down at the level of sub-atomic particles.
Yes, quantum physics - a system of mathematical incongruities reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations - does fly in the face of common sense, and there are a variety of terms for individuals (ooooops, I meant collections) who don't use common sense. Unfortunately, all too often the term applied is PHD.
Once again, you have proven yourself unable to follow your own stated standards for dialogue. Or do you think that addressing only the first and last bits of my reply showed me respect and/or gratitude?

Not that it matters, because you don't appear to be arguing in good faith. It appears that you aren't here to discuss your ideas, but instead to ridicule physicists, neurologists and other scientists for disagreeing with your insistence that common sense should rule the universe (without a shred of evidence), instead of the laws they've discovered and verified through experiment and critique.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Norway
1270 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2012 :  20:47:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
ok I read it about 17 or 19 times and the major point of his post seems to be that consciousness cannot just emerge from a collection of atoms without some magical thinking. Is anyone actually addressing that?

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2012 :  21:22:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

ok I read it about 17 or 19 times and the major point of his post seems to be that consciousness cannot just emerge from a collection of atoms without some magical thinking. Is anyone actually addressing that?
No, his major point is nothing more than his insistence that common sense tells us that a collection of atoms cannot possibly have a singular existence. It was refuted here years ago, and again in this thread.

His major point is really nothing more than a childish tantrum that scientists know more about the world than he does, and so he feels the need to denigrate them as incompetent bumblers whose "alphabet soup" of education is meaningless, based on nothing more than classic strawman arguments that he invents for them and then defeats, declaring himself a champion underdog.

THoR is foolishly demanding simple answers to complex questions, and rejecting correction. It's his loss.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/28/2012 :  23:20:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

ok I read it about 17 or 19 times and the major point of his post seems to be that consciousness cannot just emerge from a collection of atoms without some magical thinking. Is anyone actually addressing that?


My answer would be he doesn't know that, so it's little more than jumping to conclusions disguised by unjustified definitions as logical inevitability.

On the actual question, I don't think we're quite able to define what consciousness is precisely enough or understand the brain finely enough to attempt to determine how it might emerge from a physical process. Scientists are of course studying from both ends for now.

"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
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2012 :  07:03:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by THoR

So you basically are telling me that "1" doesn't exist.
By your definitions, that seems to be the case.
There are no irreducible elements in the cosmos. Everything is made of smaller things ad infinitum...
No, the tiny things seem to be readily changeable into other tiny things, so the idea that one is "made of" others is simply absurd.
GASP...you seem to be arguing MY point. I never said irreducible elements can't change condition.
...and anything we might have considered a fundamental particle will always be found to be a composite?
No, the very idea of irreducibility appears to break down at the level of sub-atomic particles.
Now you seem to be reversing yourself. I guess pundits call that "spin".
Yes, quantum physics - a system of mathematical incongruities reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations - does fly in the face of common sense, and there are a variety of terms for individuals (ooooops, I meant collections) who don't use common sense. Unfortunately, all too often the term applied is PHD.
Once again, you have proven yourself unable to follow your own stated standards for dialogue. Or do you think that addressing only the first and last bits of my reply showed me respect and/or gratitude?

Not that it matters, because you don't appear to be arguing in good faith. It appears that you aren't here to discuss your ideas, but instead to ridicule physicists, neurologists and other scientists for disagreeing with your insistence that common sense should rule the universe (without a shred of evidence), instead of the laws they've discovered and verified through experiment and critique.

I used "respect" in the ethical sense to mean I would refrain from ad hominem attacks, not that I would defer to others' interpretations or subjugate my own conclusions. What you consider ridicule is my way of pointing out logical incongruities using humo(u)r to drive home the point. It is not ad hominem and it directly addresses the issues of the argument. I HAVE respect for those who have a facility to encode data and ideas into the language of mathematics. It is a skill I long ago lost to disuse. I also have respect for other multi-linguists who encode data and ideas back and forth into other languages (German, French, English, Russian), but that doesn't mean I believe everything they say.

You don't seem to understand the difference between conventional wisdom and common sense as I use the terms. Conventional wisdom would infer a flat Earth or a 'thinking' composite (computer). Common sense is the logical interpretation of the phenomena we observe. When phenomena seem to be illogical, you can bet it is due to some factor that is yet undiscovered that would reconcile the phenomena with the canons of logic. Contemporary scientists are all to eager to "throw common sense out the window" and reconcile their calculations with specious assumptions.

Example: Cosmic expansion is one theory that seeks to explain the observed Hubble red shift. It is not the ONLY theory. But the red shift seems to indicate the most distant galaxies are fleeing at a rate greater than 'C'. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate.

Many similar assumptions have become chapter and verse of 'Standard Model Bibles', adamantly adhered to by zealots who believe in them in spite of their common sense. To them it is a matter of faith and in this case I am the skeptic.

That IS the purpose of this forum, isn't it?


I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Edited by - THoR on 09/01/2012 08:42:58
Go to Top of Page

THoR
Skeptic Friend

USA
151 Posts

Posted - 09/01/2012 :  07:36:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit THoR's Homepage Send THoR a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

Originally posted by On fire for Christ

ok I read it about 17 or 19 times and the major point of his post seems to be that consciousness cannot just emerge from a collection of atoms without some magical thinking. Is anyone actually addressing that?


My answer would be he doesn't know that, so it's little more than jumping to conclusions disguised by unjustified definitions as logical inevitability.
Conclusions can be unjustified, definitions cannot - they are explanations of meaning and no argument can be had without that clarity.
On the actual question, I don't think we're quite able to define what consciousness is precisely enough or understand the brain finely enough to attempt to determine how it might emerge from a physical process. Scientists are of course studying from both ends for now.
Consciousness is a condition. Only existences can have conditions. A collection of existences will have a number of conditions equal to the number of elements in the set....unless other elements are conjured.

I would procrastinate but I never seem to get around to it.
Edited by - THoR on 09/01/2012 07:43:13
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 3.42 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000