The Metaphysical and the Physical

[Mentat]

First, for the purpose of this thread, let's take for granted that there are physical phenomena and that there are metaphysical phenomena. We may or may not actually believe that, but let's just assume it for the purpose of this thread.

Now, here is the question I'm posing: is it possible for metaphysical phenomena to interact with physical phenomena?

I ask this because it appears that any interaction that takes place in the physical realm would be a physical interaction. By similar reasoning, any interaction that takes place in the metaphysical world would have to be a metaphysical reaction.

If both of these (above) assumptions are true, then it is not possible for the physical and the metaphysical to interact - since it couldn't happen in the physical realm, and it couldn't happen in the metaphysical (which encompasses anything other than the physical) realm.

Any/all comments are appreciated.

[Iacchus32]

Perhaps if you were to view the metaphysical as another "state" or, dimension? While I suspect it has more to do with the interaction between energy fields or patterns. In which case I would say yes, the metaphysical does effect the physical, because energy is the interior (spirit or motive) of that which is exterior or physical (the physical act).

[Tiberius]

Just so you know where I'm coming from - I don't believe in the metaphysical, although I admit that, although extraneous to any explanatory or spiritual needs and totally unproven, it is still a possibility in principle.

But, I'll play - just because it's fun :)

First, in the light of Iacchus32's response, we MUST semantically clarify something about enery...

Energy is physical. It is made up of particles and interacts in the material realm under laws of physics. "Energy" is light, heat, magnetism, electromagnetism, mechanical, etc. Energy is NOT the fuzzy magical stuff people like to use the word for when talking metaphysics, souls, and the like. The word "energy" has been hijacked by mystics who like to use it in the place of "magic" because it sounds more mature and believable. Therefore, I will ONLY be using the word "energy" in it's proper and completely physical definition.

So matter, energy, space, time, all exist in this physical realm. The metaphysical would be all of that which allegedly exists elsewhere. But if the metaphysical were real, as Iacchus32 mentions, it would probably have to be thought of as a sort of extra dimension (or set of extra dimensions) - another "plane of reality" as it were.

It makes sense that, within the metaphysical realm alone, there would be SOME sort of rules as to how the components of that realm interact (What IS possible, what IS NOT possible and so on). Of course, we're keeping this open to be attached to any religion or no religion, but if we were to take any number of examples of things people say and believe about the metaphysical realm/s, then it is clear that there is a form of causality and structure within these realms. For example, in Christianity there was a war between the angels. For this to happen, there would have to be some sort of structure of causality and interaction of parts. Otherwise, there would be nothing to determine who "won" the war because there would be no results for intentional action. So, what we're left with is a sort of "alternate physicality", with it's own "physics" of a sort.


It is possible that this metaphysical realm would NOT have any connection to our own. But if this were true, then we would have NO knowledge of what was there and no connection to it at all. If there were Jesus, or Buddha, or heaven or hell there - we'd have no idea and wouldn't even have LEGENDS of what things were there. So, anything we DID have people believing would most likely be completely wrong. Furthermore, we wouldn't even be able to go there when we died. In essence, this realm would be so incredibly irrelevant that to even discuss it would be ludicrous.

However, if the sort of things that people SAY happens between us and the metaphysical realm actually did, then it would stand to reason that there would be "laws of interaction" between the two realms. These laws might govern such things as what's required for us to see into the other realm, for it to affect things here, and so on. It would look quite a bit like magic actually. For example, if we had souls, then there would be specific laws governing how a soul affects the activity of the brain.

But, in reality, all of this is a lot easier to understand when you look at the history of metaphysical thought...

When early man was first beginning to try and answer the deep questions he had, he had no knowledge of scientific explanations, so anthropomorphized stories got made up to explain things. By the time of the early Greeks, these concepts were pretty intricately developed. But even then, it is clear when you read Plato, that they concieved of "the gods" and the afterlife as MATERIAL and PHYSICAL. When they spoke of heaven, they LITERALLY meant the thing they saw at night when they looked up. Earlier religious people all thought this as well. When they thought about their soul, they LITERALLY thought it was a physical property, like a gas or something, that allowed life for physical scientific reasons.

It was only AFTER the scientific revolution, when alternate explanations for things started coming out, that we began to see that souls and heaven and such were innacurate hypotheses. But by that time, so much ethical, cultural, and personal attachment had been connected to these concepts that no one was ready to just give them up. So what happened was a gradual re-interpretation of old concepts in a framework that our modern scientific minds could accept. After finding out that the heavens were just a bunch of stars like our own, we invented a NEW "heaven" and said that it was in "another dimension" - a decidedly relativistic concept that would have been nonsense to early people mut makes sense to a psuedo-scientific population.

So, while it's fun to think about such things, what we're really talking about here is Science Fiction. :)

[Iacchus32]

As I understand it, the metaphysical realm is tied in a correaltive sense, to our thoughts and emotions, by which there exists a "spiritual influx" into that which is natural. So how does science classify thought and emotion in relation to energy? In terms of electro-chemical processes of the brain, right? So it wouldn't be unreasonable to classify them as patterns of energy then, right? In which case this is how the metaphysical realm affects us most directly.

Whereas how do you explain the vividness of dreams, which can become a reality unto themselves at times? Isn't this a possible indication that we have a soul, and this is a means by which we all have access to the metaphysical realm?

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Whereas how do you explain the vividness of dreams, which can become a reality unto themselves at times? Isn't this a possible indication that we have a soul, and this is a means by which we all have access to the metaphysical realm?
No matter the vividness of dreams, we still wake up. We know, with plenty of good evidence that the dreams come from self-stimulation of sensory parts of the brain. I don't see how this suggests a soul, or that this metaphysical realm is anything more than a word for our own illusions.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
No matter the vividness of dreams, we still wake up. We know, with plenty of good evidence that the dreams come from self-stimulation of sensory parts of the brain. I don't see how this suggests a soul, or that this metaphysical realm is anything more than a word for our own illusions. Then how do you explain the fact that dreams are quite often triggered by something that happened earlier in the day? Or, why some dreams are pre-cognitive? Or why dreams hold deep "phsycological truths" about who we are? I don't think any of this can be disputed? Which tells me that there's something more than "physiology" going on.

[maximus]

a simple, one dimensional answer would be to say no, justified by the literal definitions of the terms in question. for example:

metaphysic(al): adj. 1. (pert. to) branch of philosophy dealing with the nature, character, and causes of being and knowing, the existence of God, ect.; 2. (pert. to) abstract speculative philosophy in general

does not seem to be applicable to

physicsal: adj. 1. relating to physics and physical science; 2. material as opposed to moral or spiritual

(for both the quotes the second definition is more appropriate in the disscusion) and the second definition in 'physical' is pretty much in direct opposition with the possibilty of metephysical intervension. but that's only is you trust The Scriber-Bantam English Dictionary. [:D]

(and yes i realize that i have not directly answered your question of the possiblity of one affecting the other. i'm only clarifying by showing a contradiction between the words.)

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Energy is physical. It is made up of particles and interacts in the material realm under laws of physics. "Energy" is light, heat, magnetism, electromagnetism, mechanical, etc.

Energy may be physical, but why do you think it is particles? Take light/EM for example. If light is energy, then why does the loss of energy result in a longer wavelength and a slower oscillatory rate? All we should see is less energy and no other characteristics remaining behind. Are you saying energy is wave-ness and oscillitory rate-ness?

And then, what is the "particle" of heat? Heat isn't a particle as far as I know.

Personally, I don't think light/EM is energy, but rather is something that can be energized. Light appears to be something unique to itself -- luminescence plus vibrancy -- which remains present whether you increase or decrease its energy.

Originally posted by Tiberius
Energy is NOT the fuzzy magical stuff people like to use the word for when talking metaphysics, souls, and the like. The word "energy" has been hijacked by mystics who like to use it in the place of "magic" because it sounds more mature and believable.

I don't think you are anybody else knows what energy actually "is." That is why in physics energy is only described in terms of what it does -- work. Energy is a mystery, and if you have the secret of it, please share so we can all know.

Originally posted by Tiberius
So matter, energy, space, time, all exist in this physical realm. The metaphysical would be all of that which allegedly exists elsewhere.

Why must that be? Space, matter, energy and time are here in the same place, why can't the metaphysical be here too?

Originally posted by Tiberius
. . . if we were to take any number of examples of things people say and believe about the metaphysical realm/s, then it is clear that there is a form of causality and structure within these realms. .

What people say and believe have nothing to do with the reality, or not, of anything metaphysical. Just as in empiricism, we need to look for experience.

Originally posted by Tiberius
It was only AFTER the scientific revolution, when alternate explanations for things started coming out, that we began to see that souls and heaven and such were innacurate hypotheses.

You know the soul hypothesis is inaccurate? Who has proven it so, would you cite the studies?

Originally posted by Tiberius
But, in reality, all of this is a lot easier to understand when you look at the history of metaphysical thought...

When early man was first beginning to try and answer the deep questions he had, he had no knowledge of scientific explanations, so anthropomorphized stories got made up to explain things. By the time of the early Greeks, these concepts were pretty intricately developed. But even then, it is clear when you read Plato, that they concieved of "the gods" and the afterlife as MATERIAL and PHYSICAL. When they spoke of heaven, they LITERALLY meant the thing they saw at night when they looked up. Earlier religious people all thought this as well. When they thought about their soul, they LITERALLY thought it was a physical property, like a gas or something, that allowed life for physical scientific reasons.

That is some understanding of the history of metaphysics! You cite pagen beliefs as representing the metaphysical, and then compare that to modern science. Well, I could cite alchemy as representing science and play the same game.

If you are going to contrast physics and metaphysics, at least do a little homework about the phenomenon of enlightenment. The genuinely enlightened were intolerant of the pagan nonsense too.

I hope you aren't going to join the ranks of those who speak about metaphysics without the slightest understanding of it. It is so typical for someone to study everything that supports their belief, merely skim what's on the other side, and then when they make an argument, represent what they are opposed to as idiotic.

[maximus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Energy may be physical, but why do you think it is particles? Take light/EM for example. If light is energy, then why does the loss of energy result in a longer wavelength and a slower oscillatory rate? All we should see is less energy and no other characteristics remaining behind. Are you saying energy is wave-ness and oscillitory rate-less?

And then, what is the "particle" of heat? Heat isn't a particle as far as I know.

no, this is not entirely correct. the light wave/particle duality allows light to be percieved both as light waves and as particles, depending on which is more useful in a certain observation/experiment. also there is a heat particle . only for radiated heat of course which is light (infared). conductive heat is different.

[Eh]

Originally posted by Tiberius

Energy is physical. It is made up of particles and interacts in the material realm under laws of physics. "Energy" is light, heat, magnetism, electromagnetism, mechanical, etc. Energy is NOT the fuzzy magical stuff people like to use the word for when talking metaphysics, souls, and the like. The word "energy" has been hijacked by mystics who like to use it in the place of "magic" because it sounds more mature and believable.

I think you should write a FAQ for this site, to make clarifications like that.

[Eh]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

...And then, what is the "particle" of heat? Heat isn't a particle as far as I know.

Heat is just another name for radiation. And yes, there is an associated particle for that. Accelerate an electron and it's lost energy shows up as heat, carried off by a photon.

I don't think you are anybody else knows what energy actually "is." That is why in physics energy is only described in terms of what it does -- work. Energy is a mystery, and if you have the secret of it, please share so we can all know.

Well physics has actually come a bit further than the vague concept of work. General relativity gives a geometric structure to energy, which is curved spacetime. The field that defines spacetime then seems to be a matter of pure geometry.

Of course, QM only complicates things with a zoo of particles with varying values, such as spin, mass, etc. So far there is no quantum theory of spacetime that could give us a full answer as to what energy is, but potential TOE's seem to be headed in the direction of geometry. So while we can't say exactly what it is for sure, it's a lot better than what we knew 100 years ago.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by maximus
no, this is not entirely correct. the light wave/particle duality allows light to be percieved both as light waves and as particles, depending on which is more useful in a certain observation/experiment. also there is a heat particle . only for radiated heat of course which is light (infared). conductive heat is different.

I believe you are speaking of the dual nature of EM, and I wouldn't dispute that. But I am talking about something different.

I am suggesting that energy and EM are totally different qualities. Light can have more energy, and it can have less energy. Losing energy doesn't stop light from exhibiting its base characteristics, such a as light speed or oscillation. Can you say energy is in any way linked to lightspeed? Light is, but energy isn't, so how can light and energy be synonomous?

Therefore, light may be something in its own right, something capable of absorbing and yielding energy. Likewise, energy may be something in its own right too, capable of infusing and deflating that which can accomodate it.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eh
Heat is just another name for radiation. And yes, there is an associated particle for that. Accelerate an electron and it's lost energy shows up as heat, carried off by a photon.

Ahhhhh . . . I was hoping someone would debate this with me.

How can heat be another name for radiation? Heat is associated with radiation, but there is more to radiation than heat.

If you see an atom at work, oscillating perhaps a trillion times per second, you don't get heat (I couldn't find reliable info on this, so I am guessing a little here . . . physics experts, correct me if I am wrong). Energy is there, and so heat should be there too. However, once a photon is emitted, then you do get heat. Why?

Is it that a photon is heat? Or is it that light is one thing (something capable of carrying energy), energy is another, and heat still another? There is no manifested energy or heat without entropy, there is no energy without heat, but light maintains other characteristics despite its heat or energy (e.g., oscillation and c). So possibly light carries energy and heat is an effect of entropy.

So I say light is one thing, and heat and energy are something else.

[Eh]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Ahhhhh . . . I was hoping someone would debate this with me.

How can heat be another name for radiation? Heat is associated with radiation, but there is more to radiation than heat.

It seems that the notion of energy lost to heat, is another way of saying that a photon has carried away energy from a source.. But I'm not sure if other forms of radiation would be considered heat in the traditional sense.

If you see an atom at work, oscillating perhaps a trillion times per second, you don't get heat (I couldn't find reliable info on this, so I am guessing a little here . . . physics experts, correct me if I am wrong). Energy is there, and so heat should be there too.

Hmmm, let's see if I can remember here. The electrons give off heat if they accelerate. That is, with any change in the speed or direction of a charged particle, it will emit a photon carrying the associated energy loss. Shake an electron, and as it jumps into a lower energy state the photon carries away the energy it had in it's momentum.

Perhaps you're thinking of large machines and friction. Any such machine will be subject to energy loss due to heat, and so will be constantly producing heat.

However, once a photon is emitted, then you do get heat. Why?

Do you you mean the heat that photons can produce, such as in the case of the sun? The energy lost by the source of the raditation, is carried by the photon. But those photons are usually quickly absorbed by something else, such as humans. That's why you will feel "heat" while standing in the sun.

Is it that a photon is heat? Or is it that light is one thing (something capable of carrying energy), energy is another, and heat is an manifestation of entropy? There is no heat without entropy, there is no energy without heat or light, but light maintains other characteristics despite heat or energy (e.g., oscillation and c).

Light as mentioned above, is the particle carrying away the energy lost from the source. So it does not exist without energy - it is the energy. And heat it seems, can be defined as the energy carried away by photons when a charged particle accelerates.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eh
Light as mentioned above, is the particle carrying away the energy lost from the source. So it does not exist without energy - it is the energy. And heat it seems, can be defined as the energy carried away by photons when a charged particle accelerates.

I confess to wanting to debate this because I want to understand it better (i.e., not because it has much to do with this thread . . . object Mentat and I will stop).

I don't think you are correct in saying that light "does not exist without energy." If you are right, then you should be able to make light vanish by depleting it of all its energy. But that isn't what happens. Energy disappears, but the base characteristics of light, oscillation and c, remain no matter what you do to it. That means light is "energizable" but is itself not energy.

The conclusion: energy and light must be two different things.

[Iacchus32]

And what about meditation? Isn't this a process by which we can alter our brainwaves and increase our energy levels? What does that suggest about metaphysics and its relationship to energy? And why is it supposedly possible for people to entertain "visions of God" under such states? Also, when we think and have certain feelings about things, for example when a man thinks about a beautiful woman, couldn't this also be construed as "somewhat metaphysical" -- especially where "great reverence" is involved -- where it too might also raise our energy levels?

[maximus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
How can heat be another name for radiation? Heat is associated with radiation, but there is more to radiation than heat.If you see an atom at work, oscillating perhaps a trillion times per second, you don't get heat (I couldn't find reliable info on this, so I am guessing a little here . . . physics experts, correct me if I am wrong). Energy is there, and so heat should be there too. However, once a photon is emitted, then you do get heat. Why?

are you asking how is it that we percieve heat from radiation (carried by a photon)? this is more biological that physical.



Is it that a photon is heat? Or is it that light is one thing (something capable of carrying energy), energy is another, and heat still another? There is no manifested energy or heat without entropy, there is no energy without heat, but light maintains other characteristics despite its heat or energy (e.g., oscillation and c). So possibly light carries energy and heat is an effect of entropy.
So I say light is one thing, and heat and energy are something else.

you are confusing terms. as i said before heat percieved by radiation and heat from conduction are different things. one is carried by photons and the other (i believe) is the direct induction of energy. but going back to the original topic, energy really is physical (if that's what you're agrueing against). it is observed as matter, and as forces, and as a distortion of spacetime.
also, what do you mean by there is no manifested energy or heat without entropy? entropy has nothing to do with our discussion, it is a measurment of those terms, not a cause for. do you mean that there is no energy or heat that does not have a measurable entropy value?

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what about meditation? Isn't this a process by which we can alter our brainwaves and increase our energy levels? What does that suggest about metaphysics and its relationship to energy? And why is it supposedly possible for people to entertain "visions of God" under such states? Also, when we think and have certain feelings about things, for example when a man thinks about a beautiful woman, couldn't this also be construed as "somewhat metaphysical" -- especially where "great reverence" is involved -- where it too might also raise our energy levels?

you are commiting the error that others in this thread have described. you are thinking of 'energy levels' as a mystical thing (or so it reads). during meditation you do, indeed, lower you heart rate and brainwaves, therefore you burn your food calories slower, therefore your 'energy level' drops. (maybe even your body temperature). and when a man meets a beautiful woman his brain (and genetic history) tell him to mate. our 'energy-levels' increase in responce to this instinct in the same way as described above.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
you are commiting the error that others in this thread have described. you are thinking of 'energy levels' as a mystical thing (or so it reads). during meditation you do, indeed, lower you heart rate and brainwaves, therefore you burn your food calories slower, therefore your 'energy level' drops. (maybe even your body temperature). and when a man meets a beautiful woman his brain (and genetic history) tell him to mate. our 'energy-levels' increase in responce to this instinct in the same way as described above. All that I'm suggesting (so far), that if in fact we are "metaphysical beings," then there has to be some sort of relationship between that and physical reality. In which case this is the most plausible means I know of in how to get there.

I would also venture to say I've had any number of metaphysical experiences myself, yet it's obvious I can't expect science to back me up (to say the least), so I'm pretty much on my own when it comes to tyring to explain these things. Neither does a metaphysical experience per se', require science for validation, it requires somebody who has been introduced to the experience and has worked with it for awhile. Indeed there's a whole level of experience here that science hasn't even begun to touch.

It's like how do you know how chocolate pudding tastes unless you've actually tasted it for yourself? Or, how can you even begin to describe something, unless you've determined what that something is? In which case I would suggest science has little or no comprehension of what metaphysics is about. So I think science is "committing the error" when it tries to dismiss it, rather than disprove it.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It's like how do you know how chocolate pudding tastes unless you've actually tasted it for yourself? Or, how can you even begin to describe something, unless you've determined what that something is? In which case I would suggest science has little or no comprehension of what metaphysics is about. So I think science is "committing the error" when it tries to dismiss it rather than disprove it.

it is impossible to disprove something using science that cannot scientifically be observed (unless that is your agrument). but it can give some ingsight as to other possible scenerios that would produce an effect that is interpretted to be metaphysical. we can show, for example, that when someone believes they have had a supernatural or metaphysical experience there might be other cause for such an interpretation.

to clarify your position can you give me an example of a metaphysical experience? preferrably one that you yourself have experienced, Iacchus.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
it is impossible to disprove something using science that cannot scientifically be observed (unless that is your agrument). but it can give some ingsight as to other possible scenerios that would produce an effect that is interpretted to be metaphysical. we can show, for example, that when someone believes they have had a supernatural or metaphysical experience there might be other cause for such an interpretation.Or perhaps science is just not going about it the right way?

to clarify your position can you give me an example of a metaphysical experience? preferrably one that you yourself have experienced, Iacchus. Yes. If the first link doesn't suggest anything, then by all means try the second ...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or perhaps science is just not going about it the right way?


how would you have us do it?


and in reading Book of Ezekiel, and Indian Tapastry i get an idea of what you're talking about. out of body expeiences, messages from beyond, and odd coincidence. some arguememts i could make would be that the dream following the bag of chips was brought on by the chips rather than the other way around. many other occurances mentioned were coincidental. i believe his 'message dreams' were completely self-created and had no connetion to outside influences, and were again, coincidental.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
how would you have us do it?How would I have science do it? Would I have them do it my way? I'm not sure. It all depends on how serious they are. The least they could do though, is research some of the more credible people in the field.


and in reading Book of Ezekiel, and Indian Tapastry i get an idea of what you're talking about. out of body expeiences, messages from beyond, and odd coincidence. some arguememts i could make would be that the dream following the bag of chips was brought on by the chips rather than the other way around. many other occurances mentioned were coincidental. i believe his 'message dreams' were completely self-created and had no connetion to outside influences, and were again, coincidental. That was bag of potatoes, not chips. While there's no doubt that the dream was brought on by the bag of potatoes, and that the whole thing was a "series of events," beginning with the bag of potatoes and ending with the climax with the phone-call during the middle of the movie. Even so, for someone who hasn't experienced this sort of thing, yours is the most plausible explanation.

By the way, if you would like to read about another "metaphysical effect," check out the thread, The Advent of Color (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429), which speaks about my avatar to the left.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
That was bag of potatoes, not chips. While there's no doubt that the dream was brought on by the bag of potatoes, and that the whole thing was a "series of events," beginning with the bag of potatoes and ending with the climax with the phone-call during the middle of the movie. Even so, for someone who hasn't experienced this sort of thing, yours is the most plausible explanation.


oh? are you saying that if i had had this same experience i would catorgorize it is at metaphysical, instead of coincidental? that's awful presumtious of you! i have, as a matter of fact, had odd coincidental experiances (none quite so unusual as the author in that passuage) and have classified it as a coincidence. you'll have to give me a better example of metaphyhsical occurances to convince me.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by maximus
are you asking how is it that we percieve heat from radiation (carried by a photon)? this is more biological that physical. . . . as i said before heat percieved by radiation and heat from conduction are different things. one is carried by photons and the other (i believe) is the direct induction of energy

I don't know what you are referring to, I am not really saying anything about those things.

Originally posted by maximus
energy really is physical (if that's what you're arguing against). it is observed as matter, and as forces, and as a distortion of spacetime.

I am not arguing that energy is not physical, it is physical.

Originally posted by maximus
what do you mean by there is no manifested energy or heat without entropy? entropy has nothing to do with our discussion, it is a measurement of those terms, not a cause for. do you mean that there is no energy or heat that does not have a measurable entropy value?

What I was pointing out is that there is a relationship between the actual manifestation of energy (as opposed to a potential condition) and entropy. You cannot make energy available for work without increasing disorder and producing heat except that is, for one curious exception, which is the real point I was gradually working toward.

The exception is light (let’s forget about heat for now). The order of light is maintained whether you give or take energy from it. That order is oscillation and c (let’s forget about c too for now). You can temporarily alter oscillation, but nothing you can do will permanently stop it. Therefore, energy is something that energizes, and light is something vibrant (I think it is luminescence too). Light carries energy but is not energy (personally, I believe energy is compression because light yields the energy it carries as its wavelength lengthens).

Now, how might that be translated into something metaphysical? Well, it seems for us to have a theory of existence we do need something uncreated, something that was always here. What if light is the uncreated and indestructible stuff we need? The resiliency light shows in physics indicates it is quite mutable, but so far as we know, imperishable. Some postulate it is matter, ever changing, that has eternally existed. But matter does seem to vanish, as the universe appears to be doing as it expands and radiates itself away.

Theists say it is God that is eternally-existent, but the God theists imagine seems to have a problem too (as the “first cause”) because of the omniscient (all-knowing) aspect they attribute to God. It seems like a creator who has forever existed would know everything just as theologians propose. But then, how do we reconcile an all-knowing creator with one who creates countless species unable to survive? Or a creator who, considering how diseases and molecular freakishness (like destructive mutation and viruses) bring down life, and seemingly creates less than perfectly (plus many of us wonder about certain members of the human race)? Wouldn’t an omniscient creator already understand exactly what to do, and unerringly create a flawless creation?

But assuming (for theists) there is a creator, and if the creator experiments, it means the creator is not omniscient, but would be a learning creator. With the concept of a learning creator we can reason that if the creator is becoming more learned, then before the creator became more learned the creator was less learned. And tracing that process back we see there would have been a condition when the creator was un-learned, which suggests there an event which gave birth to, or originated, the creator and so it cannot have eternally existed (but, of course, it might continue eternally).

Okay, so of that which we know to exist, nothing appears more constant than light. It survives without damage the mega-temperatures and pressures of solar activity, absorbs and emits energy, animates atoms, participates in photosynthesis giving life, runs through neurons participating in consciousness, and then when free from those things goes vibrantly on its way traveling apparently forever without losing speed or oscillatory integrity. Awesome stuff. So maybe, just maybe, it is the uncreated “stuff” we need to explain the origin of the universe. Maybe everything, from matter and forces to consciousness are manifestations of light.

Now, here’s where it gets interesting (at least to some people). If light is the uncreated factor, and consciousness is light, then it appears that light has “emerged” from matter in the human form; that is, light goes in unconscious but emerges on top (in the brain) conscious. This is a type of “meta” of metaphysics (meta- means beyond or transcending). If light really is uncreated and indestructible, and it has become conscious in the human, then is it possible for conscious light to continue without the brain? True, it will lose its emergent vehicle, and all that structure the brain provides, but might there be a way for at least something conscious to nonetheless survive?

Let’s add one more interesting fact, and that is a practice that has been going on for about 3000 years: individuals striving for enlightenment. Now there’s an interesting coincidence. In this practice, people turn their attention inward and attain what they call “union” with an inner light. It is people successful with this practice, in my opinion, who’ve stimulated the masses to theorize about God and metaphysics. But theory isn’t knowing, so if anyone ever knew the potential of this inner union with light, it was those who practiced it.

Of such practitioners, the Buddha is most famous (which is why I quote him, not because I am a Buddhist, which I am not). Here is what the Buddha said, “There is, monks, that plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . There is, monks, an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . . [and] because [that exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded.”

So maybe there is a metaphysical potential the human race as a whole has yet to discover. Maybe the relative few who’ve realized the enlightenment potential were evolutionary harbingers (3000 years is an instant on evolution’s time scale). Maybe this realization has nothing to do with religion, theology, and any other sort of speculation about the nature of existence. Maybe it has to do with an inner experience that one has to work hard at for many years to attain; if so, and if it is evolution, then even evolution appears to be evolving since the element of choice has now become part of it.

Finally, I might point out that metaphysics needn’t be nonsense. I am not saying my little presentation makes total sense, but at least it is an attempt to fit the facts and abide by physical laws. The reason many people are interested in metaphysics is because of life and consciousness. It is precisely there that some of us feel physics alone doesn’t work as an explanation. As far as I am concerned, everything else can be physics.

[Eh]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

I don't think you are correct in saying that light "does not exist without energy." If you are right, then you should be able to make light vanish by depleting it of all its energy.

What do you mean by deplete? The only photons ever observed have been carrying energy.

But that isn't what happens. Energy disappears, but the base characteristics of light, oscillation and c, remain no matter what you do to it. That means light is "energizable" but is itself not energy.

Any photon traveling at c has momentum, a form of energy. Take away that energy, and light by definition would disappear.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
oh? are you saying that if i had had this same experience i would catorgorize it is at metaphysical, instead of coincidental? that's awful presumtious of you! i have, as a matter of fact, had odd coincidental experiances (none quite so unusual as the author in that passuage) and have classified it as a coincidence. you'll have to give me a better example of metaphyhsical occurances to convince me. Not any less presumptuous than what you've just said here. All I'm saying is I can understand why people would doubt. That's fine. I'll just pick up my gear and go to another hole ... And the author in what passage?

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eh
What do you mean by deplete? The only photons ever observed have been carrying energy. . . . Any photon traveling at c has momentum, a form of energy. Take away that energy, and light by definition would disappear.

If a photon bumps into something and drops to a lower energy state, does that affect c? Can a photon be made to stop oscillating? If not, then I am saying c and oscillation (not the rate of oscillation) are independent of energy.

[Eh]

If a photon bumps into something, it gets absorbed. The charged particle that absorbed it, then gets a jump in it's energy level. If a photon is undisturbed, it will remain in it's current state for good, and photons travel at c at all times. Maybe you are thinking of electrons instead?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I confess to wanting to debate this because I want to understand it better (i.e., not because it has much to do with this thread . . . object Mentat and I will stop).

I don't think you are correct in saying that light "does not exist without energy." If you are right, then you should be able to make light vanish by depleting it of all its energy. But that isn't what happens. Energy disappears, but the base characteristics of light, oscillation and c, remain no matter what you do to it. That means light is "energizable" but is itself not energy.

The conclusion: energy and light must be two different things.

I have no problem with your discussing this here. However, I disagree with the (quoted above) post. You see, oscillation and movement cannot occur without any energy (this is just the obvious conclusion from the fact that all "work" requires energy).

[Mentat]

I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to read all of the posts yet, so tell me if I'm just repeating something that has already been said.

Iacchus, you mentioned dreams, right? Did you assume that a dream was something "metaphysical", non-physical? But this assumption (much like the assumption that consciousness and thought are non-physical things) is not logical, as we would have no way of explaining how something that is metaphysical could possibly interact with something physical. It is better (IMO) to take the scientific approach, and say that a dream (much like a thought) is a physical phenomenon, occuring in the brain.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eh
If a photon bumps into something, it gets absorbed. The charged particle that absorbed it, then gets a jump in it's energy level. If a photon is undisturbed, it will remain in it's current state for good, and photons travel at c at all times. Maybe you are thinking of electrons instead?

This was discussed at a thread in the physics area where I asked if light ever spontaneously loses energy. A photon can lose energy if it collides with another particle, and according to Marcus at least, the expansion of the universe is causing light to "stretch" to longer wavelengths and therefore lose energy (the very reason for cosmic background radiation).

My point is, if a photon can drop from infrared to microwave frequency, for instance, and it does not alter c, then it means energy has nothing to do with c. Similarly, if one cannot get light to stop oscillating by lowering its energy, then oscillation (again, not the rate of oscillation) is also independent of energy.

And my larger point is that light is NOT energy, but is something in its own right. It does "carry" energy, and as it is energized it takes on the various characteristics observed at different wavelengths.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
You see, oscillation and movement cannot occur without any energy (this is just the obvious conclusion from the fact that all "work" requires energy).

Both light speed and oscillation should be dependent on energy according to the definition of work, as you say. However, the amount of energy a photon has does not affect its speed. That is completely contrary to the rule because if it is energy driving movement, then energy should be expended as the photon travels; likewise, light should expend energy oscillating. Yet in both cases its energy stays the same! Therefore, energy (at least the energy of a particular photon) is not what is causing c or oscillation, something else is.

I don't want to speculate about the cause of c, but if light is vibrant by nature then possibly the increasing oscillation rates we see when it gets energized is the accentuation of that natural vibrancy.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
This was discussed at a thread in the physics area where I asked if light ever spontaneously loses energy. A photon can lose energy if it collides with another particle, and according to Marcus at least, the expansion of the universe is causing light to "stretch" to longer wavelengths and therefore lose energy (the very reason for cosmic background radiation).


Wait a minute, the photon can lose energy? I didn't know that. I always thought that the energy that an electron loses and gains was in form of photons. And if so, photons would be massless particle/waves and they would be energy.


My point is, if a photon can drop from infrared to microwave frequency, for instance, and it does not alter c, then it means energy has nothing to do with c.


This is just wrong, a photon doesn't drop in frequency, it is the electromagnetic wave that drops in frequency, and thus produces less energy (photons) through radiation.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm sorry, but I haven't been able to read all of the posts yet, so tell me if I'm just repeating something that has already been said.

Iacchus, you mentioned dreams, right? Did you assume that a dream was something "metaphysical", non-physical? But this assumption (much like the assumption that consciousness and thought are non-physical things) is not logical, as we would have no way of explaining how something that is metaphysical could possibly interact with something physical. It is better (IMO) to take the scientific approach, and say that a dream (much like a thought) is a physical phenomenon, occuring in the brain. And yet dreams are very much a metaphysical topic when people bring up "metaphysics." Not unless I'm totally mistaken? Dreams are also related to visions, which is even more a metaphysical phenomenon, which I ought to know from experience because I've had both.

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html

[Tiberius]

Wow, so much posted since I last looked. Just some "tidbits" in response...

1) Light IS energy. All energy exists in the form of particles (and particles can have wave-like properties).

2) No one has ever been proven to have obtained special information through a dream that they could not have imagined, guessed, or gotten somewhere else beforehand - despite what pseudo-documentary specials on Fox television would have the public believe.

3) Dream interpretation can sometimes reveal things you might be preoccupied about or have experienced that day. As your brain is organizing its memories this is as normal as a computer scanning it's files. But very often dream interpretation is far overblown.

4) There is absolutely no reason to presume that what happens with the body and brain in meditation is anything other than completely mechanistic and understandable through physical laws. Indeed, there are a number of reasons to suspect just that.

5) When I said that the soul/heaven hypothesis had been proven irrelevant, it is clear when looking at the context and place in the paragraph, I was referring to the ORIGINAL version of these, which saw the afterlife/heaven as literally being outer space and the soul as being a physical gas-like substance that could have been weighed or captured in a jar. Please read the opinions of others and do not "skim" over them and mistakes of understanding like this should be easier to avoid.

6) Scientists have and do continuously research mystical claims. For thousands of years, there has yet to be one proven and reliably repeatable incident of anything happening or anyone's special abilities that could not be explained through normal scientific means under controlled conditions. This doesn't mean that there AREN'T such things, but it does make it incredibly improbably in my view. Of course, anyone without an agenda who has looked objectively at these things and come away with no evidence is labeled as a "debunker" so the mystics will only accept one answer - the one that confirms their delusional worldview.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is just wrong, a photon doesn't drop in frequency, it is the electromagnetic wave that drops in frequency, and thus produces less energy (photons) through radiation.

The oscillation associated with a photon slows/lengthens the lower its energy. If you look at Planck's law, it states the energy of EM is confined to quanta (photons) and its magnitude is proportional to its frequency.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tiberius
6) Scientists have and do continuously research mystical claims. For thousands of years, there has yet to be one proven and reliably repeatable incident of anything happening or anyone's special abilities that could not be explained through normal scientific means under controlled conditions. This doesn't mean that there AREN'T such things, but it does make it incredibly improbably in my view. Of course, anyone without an agenda who has looked objectively at these things and come away with no evidence is labeled as a "debunker" so the mystics will only accept one answer - the one that confirms their delusional worldview. Well at least we know this much, somebody is under the delusion that "somebody" is under a delusion ...

And yet what is a delusion, if not one's own "subjective view?" Am afraid that's all we've got to work with, you know, with being human and all. Perhaps from now on we should keep our delusions (subjective views) to ourselves?

Hmm ... I wonder if this alludes to a "metaphysical concept" as well?

The mind is the fabricator of its "own reality." Therefore reality must be a delusion (of the mind).

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then how do you explain the fact that dreams are quite often triggered by something that happened earlier in the day? Or, why some dreams are pre-cognitive? Or why dreams hold deep "phsycological truths" about who we are? I don't think any of this can be disputed? Which tells me that there's something more than "physiology" going on.
1. Because that's what dreams usually are. The brain does not receive information from metaphysics, or is really original. It pieces together memories as a new tapestry, a process that has been show to be of physical usefulness in the maintenance of the brain.

2. This is, as we all know, unproven.

3. Because the dreams come from the brain, and clearly are influenced by it's state. And that many "interpretations" of dreams are too generalised to sort deep "truths" from fiction.

4. Not at all. IMHO, this suggests a fundamental root cause which lies precisely in physiology.

I think you may give mere physiology too little credit?

[physicskid]

Which is real? 'Physical world' or 'non-physical world'(metaphysical)

Nothing is real? Or is it both are real? [?] The answer to this question is impossible to find out, so why bother to know? Metaphysics is a unnessary subject.[:))]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. Because that's what dreams usually are. The brain does not receive information from metaphysics, or is really original. It pieces together memories as a new tapestry, a process that has been show to be of physical usefulness in the maintenance of the brain.

2. This is, as we all know, unproven.

3. Because the dreams come from the brain, and clearly are influenced by it's state. And that many "interpretations" of dreams are too generalised to sort deep "truths" from fiction.

4. Not at all. IMHO, this suggests a fundamental root cause which lies precisely in physiology.

I think you may give mere physiology too little credit? To the degree that you take something out of context, you destroy it, and it loses its essence or "soul." In which case physiology becomes the context (receptacle) of what spirituality is the essence. This only belies the relationship between the visible world, which we can see, and the invisible world which moves it, which then becomes "metaphysics."

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by physicskid
Which is real? 'Physical world' or 'non-physical world'(metaphysical)

Nothing is real? Or is it both are real? [?] The answer to this question is impossible to find out, so why bother to know? Metaphysics is a unnessary subject.[:))] Nothing is real? And yet everything is real, at least in the "subjective sense." Hmm ... but doesn't that also imply "nothing is real?" Then maybe it's a good thing we have metaphysics to bail us out? If you don't agree, then perhaps "I" won't respond to your next reply, because "I" am not real or, at least not neccessary, to your "subjective opinion."

If reality is only real in the sense of how we perceive it, then that implies there's a gap, which can never be bridged, except perhaps through "metaphysics."

[Royce]

A number of years ago I did a physical experiement with a friend of mine to witness it. I had a brand new Fluke digital voltmeter calibrated to .001 volt with a temperature probe calibated to .1 degree F. Using a silicon grease based heat sink compound to better transfer heat I held in my hand the tip of the temperature probe. The initial temperature of the palm of my hand was 96.4 Degrees F. By my will alone I was able to raise the temperature sensed by the probe to 106.8 degrees F. I did not squeeze nor rub the probe but held it firmly but motionless in the palm of my hand. It took several minutes for me to reach that temperature and once I read 10 D.F. over normal core body temperature I stopped and took the temperature of my other hand. It again read 96.4 D.F. I the tried to lower the temperature of my hand. By the same method I was able to bring the reading down to 87.6 D.F. in just a few minutes. I was able to do both with either hand at will but not as easily with my other (right) hand nor was I able to reach the same temperature extremes.
This is all absolutely true with no other changes than my will. I swear to the truth of the above by whatever I or you may hold sacred.
I am familiar with biofeedback theory and techniques. I can not explain by physilogical means only how I was able to raise the temperature read in my hand to 10 D.F. above normal.
I have read that some adepts are able to make water come to a boil or paper burst into flame by mental power or will alone. I have never seen this nor have I tried to do it. The point of this post is to show that the metephysical does exist and can and does interact and effect the physical. If not please explain how I was able to do this and please explain where the extra heat energy came from or where it went consistant with physilogical and thermadynamic theories.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Light IS energy. All energy exists in the form of particles (and particles can have wave-like properties).

So you say . . . I disagree. The only thing you can say for certain about energy is that it's the capacity to do work, period. No one has ever observed energy itself when its expended doing work, that is exactly why it's defined the way it is. You see the result of energy, but you cannot see energy. Therefore neither you nor anyone else knows what energy is, only what it can do. So I maintain that light is an oscillating luminescence that carries energy, and whose magnitude of energy is reflected by its frequency.

Originally posted by Tiberius
There is absolutely no reason to presume that what happens with the body and brain in meditation is anything other than completely mechanistic and understandable through physical laws. Indeed, there are a number of reasons to suspect just that.

There is the standard materialist position. I am familiar with both the physiological evidence and the experience of meditation, and I say there is no reason to assume it is "mechanistic and understandable through physical laws" unless, that is, you are already to committed to the materialist view.

You are doing what every materialist I've ever run into does, and that is to study only one side of the subject. They are full of facts about science, but don't know squat about meditation or the history of the enlightenment experience. That doesn't stop them from speaking like they are an authority.

Originally posted by Tiberius
When I said that the soul/heaven hypothesis had been proven irrelevant, it is clear when looking at the context and place in the paragraph, I was referring to the ORIGINAL version of these, which saw the afterlife/heaven as literally being outer space and the soul as being a physical gas-like substance that could have been weighed or captured in a jar. Please read the opinions of others and do not "skim" over them and mistakes of understanding like this should be easier to avoid.

Nonsense. I misunderstood and skimmed over nothing. I did not criticize what you said about the soul etc. for the reason you just listed, but rather because because you offered pagan beliefs as typical of metaphysics. I said, "You cite pagen beliefs as representing the metaphysical, and then compare that to modern science. Well, I could cite alchemy as representing science and play the same game."

My point was, again, that you know the science side but you don't consider it worth your time to understand the part of metaphysics that has some weight to it. I agree that there is a lot of silly stuff being claimed. In my opinion, all the talk about communicating with the dead (pets even!), supernatural claims, other such stuff is nonsense. But just like there are pseudo-scientists, there pseudo-metaphysists. When you represent all of metaphysics by the stupid ones, that is not a fair or accurate representation.

The subject of this thread is physical and metaphysical, not physical and superstitious. If we are going to debate the possibility of their interaction, or even that the metaphysical exists, at least do a little homework and read the best representatives of the metaphysical. Try Meister Eckhart, Kabir, the Sufi Ni'matullahi, the metaphysics of Socrates in Phaedo (IMO, the greatst of all the dialogues), the Hasid Israel ben Eliezer, Teilhard de Chardin, readings from the Greek Philokalia, Confucius, Brother Lawrence, the dialogues of the Buddha . . .

You know, come to a discussion either with a well rounded view, or with the willingess to learn. How can you "assume" things about a subject you've not investigated?

[Royce]

In support of Les and to add to my previous post about the "experiment", it has just occured to me that any and all acts of will are perfect and well documented and accepted cases of the metaphysical effecting and affecting the physical. Biofeedback is proven and an accepted phenomena. It is a classic example of mind over matter.
The mind and will are of the metaphysical by deffinition and the brain and body are of the physical, yet our minds and our will constantly make our bodies do physical things and change their states. Simple things like willing my arms and hands to move and type this post is an act of abstract thought and will effecting the physical reality of the universe.
By my will alone I have changed the universe, added to it and changed the energy state of countless electrons and photons. We all do this every moment of our lives. Is this not proof of the metaphysical and it's effect on the physical? This is so natural and commonplace that we never think of it as such; but, it is.
While you may claim that brain activity is merely the electrochemical physical action of brain cells, you can not deny that thought, will and/or purpose exists or that they effect the physical reality that is the material universe.
I may be wrong; but, I think that this logic is infallible and undeniable even to a pure materialist. I invite all of you to prove me wrong.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Royce
A number of years ago I did a physical experiement with a friend of mine to witness it. I had a brand new Fluke digital voltmeter calibrated to .001 volt with a temperature probe calibated to .1 degree F. Using a silicon grease based heat sink compound to better transfer heat I held in my hand the tip of the temperature probe. The initial temperature of the palm of my hand was 96.4 Degrees F. By my will alone I was able to raise the temperature sensed by the probe to 106.8 degrees F. I did not squeeze nor rub the probe but held it firmly but motionless in the palm of my hand. It took several minutes for me to reach that temperature and once I read 10 D.F. over normal core body temperature I stopped and took the temperature of my other hand. It again read 96.4 D.F. I the tried to lower the temperature of my hand. By the same method I was able to bring the reading down to 87.6 D.F. in just a few minutes. I was able to do both with either hand at will but not as easily with my other (right) hand nor was I able to reach the same temperature extremes.
This is all absolutely true with no other changes than my will. I swear to the truth of the above by whatever I or you may hold sacred.
I am familiar with biofeedback theory and techniques. I can not explain by physilogical means only how I was able to raise the temperature read in my hand to 10 D.F. above normal.
I have read that some adepts are able to make water come to a boil or paper burst into flame by mental power or will alone. I have never seen this nor have I tried to do it. The point of this post is to show that the metephysical does exist and can and does interact and effect the physical. If not please explain how I was able to do this and please explain where the extra heat energy came from or where it went consistant with physilogical and thermadynamic theories.


I'm sure that is true - nothing about changing your body temperature is metaphysical. If anything, this proves that the brain and the body are one. Your experiment gives a strong indication that there is no mind-body duality and that the activity of the brain is purely mechanical. If I build a complex robot with a robot brain it could do the same thing.

The "extra energy" did not come out of nowhere - it is stored in your fat cells. What you did was no more fantastic than when I get in my car and start it up. The engine heats up, and that heats the surrounding metal. It gets the energy from the gas in the tank. Tell me, had you eaten in the last few days? Why do you think we have to eat?

All you did was get excited and that raised your adrenalin level. The ability of the brain to control the activity of the body has been shown in many many ways and is purely physical and explainable. On the other hand, if you were to "boil water" with only your mind, and without touching it, then you could get a million bucks - all you have to do is do it under controlled conditions that rule out trickery, with mutually agreed to procedures. So far, no one in history has ever been able to do this. But a lot of people have made a lot of money creating flim flam TV specials that suggest such.

[Royce]

If all I did was raise my adrenilin level then why did my other hand stay relatively cool? Why was I able to burn off the energy and adrenlin level so fast, within a few minutes, that I could lower the temperature of the same hand by 15-20 degrees. How could I raise or lower the temperature detected in my hand to extremes that would render my body unconsious at best or dead under normal circumstances. It was not my body changing its temperature but my hand or possibly just the probe.
Either way, as I later posted, it is mind/will over matter. Mind and or will is metaphysical, not spiritual or mystic, but metaphysical by the definitions given in the beginning of this thread.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
There is the standard materialist position. I am familiar with both the physiological evidence and the experience of meditation, and I say there is no reason to assume it is "mechanistic and understandable through physical laws" unless, that is, you are already to committed to the materialist view.


It's not an assumption. While physical explanations don't explain the claims of some people, we have no real evidence that any of those bizarre claims even ever happened in the first place. But it is clear that the physical side is explaining the thing we know happen very well so far. Sure, there might be some sort of metaphysical phenomenon, but there's no reason to think so given what data we really have. Once something inexplicable can actually be shown to have happened in the first place, then we can begin talking about explanations. But I'm not going to debate explanations for things which no one can even prove happened at all.


You are doing what every materialist I've ever run into does, and that is to study only one side of the subject. They are full of facts about science, but don't know squat about meditation or the history of the enlightenment experience. That doesn't stop them from speaking like they are an authority.


Give me one example of something that has happened which cannot, in principle, be explained through physical means. Then prove that it actually happened and show it happening in repeatable and controlled conditions. Until we actually establish that any mumbo jumbo has actually taken place, then there's no point in researching causes.


Nonsense. I misunderstood and skimmed over nothing. I did not criticize what you said about the soul etc. for the reason you just listed, but rather because because you offered pagan beliefs as typical of metaphysics.

Wrong. I did not say that "pagan beliefs" are typical of metaphysics. I gave a history of the perspective that things like souls and heaven (metaphysical concepts) were seen as. And it was accurate. My very post explained the changes that took place in the perspective over time - and that would NECESSARILY mean that those early views were not typical of modern metaphysics.


My point was, again, that you know the science side but you don't consider it worth your time to understand the part of metaphysics that has some weight to it. I agree that there is a lot of silly stuff being claimed. In my opinion, all the talk about communicating with the dead (pets even!), supernatural claims, other such stuff is nonsense. But just like there are pseudo-scientists, there pseudo-metaphysists. When you represent all of metaphysics by the stupid ones, that is not a fair or accurate representation.


Every mystic has their own little favorite superstition that they say is the "real" one. hehe. :)


The subject of this thread is physical and metaphysical, not physical and superstitious.


Can you explain the difference?


...the metaphysics of Socrates in Phaedo (IMO, the greatst of all the dialogues)...


If you have read Phaedo then you should know what I was talking about. Socrates clearly believes that all of what he's talking about (the gods, afterlife, underworld, souls, etc.) are purely physical and natural phenomenon that exist in this realm. When he talks of the realm of the gods, he LITERALLY means that which you see in the night sky. When you look at the language in Phaedo, then it is obvious that socrates believed you could actually visit the gods if you had a rocket ship (pretending for a moment he knew what one was).

It was only after alternate explanations of the stars, earth, and biology started taking over the stage did people start to look at these concepts as "metaphysical" or immaterial.


You know, come to a discussion either with a well rounded view, or with the willingess to learn. How can you "assume" things about a subject you've not investigated?

A well rounded view? When one side is a bunch of baloney and the other is accurate then what you call a "well rounded view" would not be desireable. And I have investigated it to great lengths. I know it's easier to claim I haven't than to actually provide some sensible reason to believe in the metaphysical, but I hope that you do - it would make great reading. Think that metaphysics is real? Then prove it. People like yourself have been trying for thousands of years and have not been able to yet.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Royce
If all I did was raise my adrenilin level then why did my other hand stay relatively cool?

Ever seen an infrared image of a human? Our temperatures vary all over our bodies. Sure, it's possible through microimpulses in our muscles and nerves to excite one part of our bodies. Nothing metaphysical there.


Why was I able to burn off the energy and adrenlin level so fast, within a few minutes, that I could lower the temperature of the same hand by 15-20 degrees?


Because bodies can and do change temperature and excitement levels very quickly - often QUICKER than a few minutes. Perfectly normal and within observed biology.


How could I raise or lower the temperature detected in my hand to extremes that would render my body unconsious at best or dead under normal circumstances. It was not my body changing its temperature but my hand or possibly just the probe.


The above is a mix of exaduration and misunderstanding of temperature.


Either way, as I later posted, it is mind/will over matter. Mind and or will is metaphysical, not spiritual or mystic, but metaphysical by the definitions given in the beginning of this thread. [/B]

Well, it's BRAIN over matter. And since the brain is physical, then it's really MATTER over MATTER.

But I know what you're saying about the "mind" being metaphysical. This is a different subcategory of metaphysical that you've described and I've been meaning to get to...

There are many things in our vocabulary and in the world that are not "physical" per se, yet not spiritual or mystical. For example, "democracy", "capitalism", "socialism", "mind", "Windows 2000", "party", and so on.

These are nouns, but they are not words that represent physical objects. Rather, they represent activity, patterns, and situations. These things are REAL and, as you said, part of this universe, but not physical.

The Mind is the name we give to the pattern of electrochemical activity in the brain. This pattern codes for information - memories, attitudes, and active thought (a form of computation or information processing). So, the "mind" is not an object, but a description of activity - a PATTERN.

I am perfectly willing to entertain notions such as these. If you wish to refer to all patterns of activity as "metaphysical" just because they, like democracy, cannot be held in the hand or put on a scale, then I suppose that's ok with me, but there's the whole other class of "metaphysics" that DOES involve alleged things outside the natural universe, which this must be distinguished from.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
Either way, as I later posted, it is mind/will over matter. Mind and or will is metaphysical, not spiritual or mystic, but metaphysical by the definitions given in the beginning of this thread.

I think we could develop a description of the "meta" part of metaphysical which most anyone might agree. I doubt few would disagree that mind wills the body. If we look at the behavior of matter not under the control of consciousness, it just sits there for the most part, or if inanimate matter does have dynamics, they are quite predictable.

In the interests of finding a common ground, and since this is a science site, I try not to stray too far from what facts support, even if I might suspect a lot more is going on than the facts. The best sorts of facts are those everyone can easily see. For instance, even if we are a product solely of matter as materialists claim, then some part of this "living matter" has certainly transcended itself in order to manifest in the areas of will, creativity, love . . . no unconscious matter can do any such thing.

Though hoping to find common ground, I am starting to suspect that those of us who appreciate the meta of physics are wasting our time talking to radical mechanists. They look at reality the way someone might examine music only by studying the notes, never sitting down and listening deeply and with all one's being. The "feel" of existence seems irrelevant to them, whereas to me at least, it is more relevant (to my existence) than the facts because if I couldn't feel, I wouldn't care if I existed at all.

[Royce]

Originally posted by Tiberius



A well rounded view? When one side is a bunch of baloney and the other is accurate then what you call a "well rounded view" would not be desireable. And I have investigated it to great lengths. I know it's easier to claim I haven't than to actually provide some sensible reason to believe in the metaphysical, but I hope that you do - it would make great reading. Think that metaphysics is real? Then prove it. People like yourself have been trying for thousands of years and have not been able to yet.

Here we go again. How can you claim to have an unbiased opinion and a well rounded view when you claim that one side is a bunch of baloney. This is a biased view and shows that you have not even looked FOR much less AT existing evidense to form an unbiased fair opinion. By your own words you condemn yourself to the level of a materialistic bigot. One who because of their mind set refuses to acknowledge the existance of anything outside their belif system. This is scientific objectivism? Not in my mind. It is just as irrational and illogical and closed minded as any superstistous, religious fanatic. I do not in any way mean this personally or to be offensive. Read you own post and see the contradictions.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tiberius
It's not an assumption. While physical explanations don't explain the claims of some people, we have no real evidence that any of those bizarre claims even ever happened in the first place.

You say it isn't an assumption and then you speak of metaphysics only as bizarre. There's an assumption! I've already agreed with you about bizarre claims. Can't you imagine any sort of metaphysics that isn't bizarre?

Originally posted by Tiberius But it is clear that the physical side is explaining the thing we know happen very well so far. Sure, there might be some sort of metaphysical phenomenon, but there's no reason to think so given what data we really have.

The empirical method reveals only physics, and so "physical side" is explaining the physical side! If the only way you examine reality is through a method that only reveals physics, then exactly what else should you expect to find? If you look only at the universe's mechanics, how else can you describe it? If you only accept mechanistic explanations, then what else will you hear?

It is no different than someone who has a fetish. Fetishists will tell you a certain object has incredible potency (i.e., to stimulate them), but really it is the way they are looking at the object. A fetish for mechanics can similarly distort one's view, making it flat and lifeless to all but those sexy mechanics.

Originally posted by Tiberius
Can you explain the difference?

Read some of the works I recommended, there is a whole other category of inner person than the superstitious.

Originally posted by Tiberius
If you have read Phaedo then you should know what I was talking about. Socrates clearly believes that all of what he's talking about (the gods, afterlife, underworld, souls, etc.) are purely physical and natural phenomenon that exist in this realm. When he talks of the realm of the gods, he LITERALLY means that which you see in the night sky. When you look at the language in Phaedo, then it is obvious that socrates believed you could actually visit the gods if you had a rocket ship (pretending for a moment he knew what one was).

Boy, how could you possibly have misunderstood Socrates more! For one thing, one of the charges against him at his trial was his ridicule of the gods and cult practices. He believed none of it. When he did speak of them in dialogues, it was simply using language and phrases of the time to communicate.

Originally posted by Tiberius
A well rounded view? When one side is a bunch of baloney and the other is accurate then what you call a "well rounded view" would not be desireable. And I have investigated it to great lengths. I know it's easier to claim I haven't than to actually provide some sensible reason to believe in the metaphysical, but I hope that you do - it would make great reading. Think that metaphysics is real? Then prove it. People like yourself have been trying for thousands of years and have not been able to yet.

Well, you have not investigated the practice of samadhi or union prayer as it's called in the West, and you don't know anything about the enlightenment experience. This is the "legitimate" area of metaphysics, and doesn't deserve you lumping of the pseudo-science stuff in with it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Though hoping to find common ground, I am starting to suspect that those of us who appreciate the meta of physics are wasting our time talking to radical mechanists. They look at reality the way someone might examine music only by studying the notes, never sitting down and listening deeply and with all one's being. The "feel" of existence seems irrelevant to them, whereas to me at least, it is more relevant (to my existence) than the facts because if I couldn't feel, I wouldn't care if I existed at all.What's the whole point in examining every single last aspect that went into the cow, that went into the steak, that's conveyed in front of you on a plate, when the whole point is to sink your teeth into it and chow down!? [;)]

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
To the degree that you take something out of context, you destroy it, and it loses its essence or "soul." In which case physiology becomes the context (receptacle) of what spirituality is the essence. This only belies the relationship between the visible world, which we can see, and the invisible world which moves it, which then becomes "metaphysics."
That only works so long as you already assume that the metaphysics exists. If you do not, then you can find a purely physical explanation, and description. Hence, this is not evidence of metaphysics, but is in fact neutral as far as the argument goes.

If all I did was raise my adrenilin level then why did my other hand stay relatively cool?
I don't think you did raise your adrenilin level. I think you dilated the surface capillaries in your warming hand. Cooling is acheived by contracting these same capillaries. The body frequently does this to transfer heat out of the inner parts of the body, and this system is know to be controlled (normally subconsciously) by a specific part of the brain. It is very probable that you manage to acheive some degree of bio-feedback with the homeostasis part of your brain, and hence have some control over it.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Royce
Here we go again. How can you claim to have an unbiased opinion and a well rounded view when you claim that one side is a bunch of baloney. This is a biased view and shows that you have not even looked FOR much less AT existing evidense to form an unbiased fair opinion. By your own words you condemn yourself to the level of a materialistic bigot. One who because of their mind set refuses to acknowledge the existance of anything outside their belif system. This is scientific objectivism? Not in my mind. It is just as irrational and illogical and closed minded as any superstistous, religious fanatic. I do not in any way mean this personally or to be offensive. Read you own post and see the contradictions.

Why do you assume that I must be biased just because I've taken a position? How the hell do YOU know what I've "looked for" and what I haven't? Do I know you? Is it completely unthinkable that I have seriously considered and studied nonmaterialist ideas, and then come to the decision that they are unsupported? You can't possibly imagine that someone could do this so you claim that I've just discounted these things outright. You are completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that a person could seriously consider all sides and come to the conclusion of naturalism. Nice.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
That only works so long as you already assume that the metaphysics exists. If you do not, then you can find a purely physical explanation, and description. Hence, this is not evidence of metaphysics, but is in fact neutral as far as the argument goes.And yet your argument works only if it's "unknowable." Which I and many others have suggested to the contrary. If it exists then it "has" to be knowable, at least in some form.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The empirical method reveals only physics, and so "physical side" is explaining the physical side! If the only way you examine reality is through a method that only reveals physics, then exactly what else should you expect to find? If you look only at the universe's mechanics, how else can you describe it? If you only accept mechanistic explanations, then what else will you hear?


Show me another effective method for gaining data than the empirical method and I'll consider it.


Boy, how could you possibly have misunderstood Socrates more! For one thing, one of the charges against him at his trial was his ridicule of the gods and cult practices. He believed none of it. When he did speak of them in dialogues, it was simply using language and phrases of the time to communicate.


I have not misunderstood Socrates, you have. I have broken down this and other books in Plato's Dialogues line by line. Socrates was ACCUSED of being an atheist and it was a bogus charge, and he himself said specifically that he was not. He merely had a different take on the nature of the gods than a number of the more superstitious masses, who didn't care for him questioning their nature, and so thus came the accusation. Socrates, according to Plato at least, believed in the gods, the afterlife, an immortal soul, and the underworld. Not only do I know this, but I know how and why he came to those exact conclusions. But he believed these were physical in nature. In other words, these were his scientific theories of the time. In essence, he was a materialist because materialists were all that there was in the western culture before the enlightenment. For example, most of the writers of the Christian Bible were actually materialists because they thought that heaven was the night sky and that you could reach hell with a shovel.
[/quote]


Yeah, a well rounded view. You have not investigated the practice of samadhi or union prayer as it's called in the West, and you don't know anything about the enlightenment experience.
[/B]

And you've bought into all this without having read every single thing some random person on a chat board might throw at you (unless you have read every book in the world, in which case I apologize). Besides, if I'm criticizing things other than what you're talking about, then why be mad that I haven't read them? They're obviously irrelevant to what I'm saying in that case. So, why don't you tell us about union prayer to take an example - a summary?

[Eh]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
This was discussed at a thread in the physics area where I asked if light ever spontaneously loses energy. A photon can lose energy if it collides with another particle, and according to Marcus at least, the expansion of the universe is causing light to "stretch" to longer wavelengths and therefore lose energy (the very reason for cosmic background radiation).

Light has energy in it's momentum, and also it's frequency. So while light will always travel at c, it can have various energy levels which are associated with the frequencies of the EM spectrum. At any rate, it is not possible to find light that isn't traveling at c, or at a certain spectrum.

My point is, if a photon can drop from infrared to microwave frequency, for instance, and it does not alter c, then it means energy has nothing to do with c. Similarly, if one cannot get light to stop oscillating by lowering its energy, then oscillation (again, not the rate of oscillation) is also independent of energy.

Remember that the momentum of light is also a form of energy. So no energy, no c.

And my larger point is that light is NOT energy, but is something in its own right. It does "carry" energy, and as it is energized it takes on the various characteristics observed at different wavelengths.

Light is certainly a form of energy, just like everything else.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Show me another effective method for gaining data than the empirical method and I'll consider it.

Data? What does that have to do with this discussion? Gathering data is very relevant to studying physics, but utterly irrelevant to the deeper sort of metaphysics I have been trying to get you to consider. Those people who want to gather data using metaphysics I say are wasting time; and those people who want to understand metaphysics by gathering data are also spinning their wheels. For understanding metaphysics, check out samadhi meditation. It enlighened the Buddha, and many others as well.

Originally posted by Tiberius
I have not misunderstood Socrates, you have.

I am not going to argue Socrates with you, it will take years. Let's agree to disagree (radically!).

Originally posted by Tiberius
the writers of the Christian Bible were actually materialists because they thought that heaven was the night sky and that you could reach hell with a shovel.

This is too sloppy for words. Which writers are you referring to? There are far too many writers contributing to the Bible to generalize about. And what part of the Bible do you mean? The whole thing, or just the NT? In the NT, quote me one writer, just one saying that.

Originally posted by Tiberius
And you've bought into all this without having read every single thing some random person on a chat board might throw at you (unless you have read every book in the world, in which case I apologize).

I haven't read every book. But it is my area of expertise and where I am formally educated, and something I've been trying to understand for 30 years. I don't expect someone who isn't interested in metaphysics to be an expert, but if not, then I do expect you to make sure what you say is accurate when you are fault-finding, which is what you have been doing.

My objection is to you not specifically singling out the bogus practices of mind readers, pet psychics, etc., and infering from them a general criticism of all metaphysics. That is sloppy scholarship.

The reason I find that objectionable is because I am a big fan of science. And I am a big fan of metaphysics. I don't see why the two need to be at odds. If I ever run across some metaphysical assertion that contradicts a known physical fact, I wouldn't accept it -- supernatural phenomenon, for instance.

My experience has been that metaphysical understanding is an inner thing, and physical understanding is an outer thing. In terms of acquiring knowledge in each other's domain, they don't seem very compatible, and I am perfectly happy with that.

[Royce]

Les, my point was that, simply stated, the metaphysical mind can interact with the physical universe, which addresses one of the original questions of this thread. I thought this was obvious but now the mind and will is even being denied existence.
I thought that once the point made that the meta does interact with the physical on the mind and will level, which I thought would be accepted as obvious, then by extention, we could speculate that spirit or soul exists then the case had already been made that they too could interact with the physical reality.

[Tom Mattson]

Boy, are you guys confused. [6)]

Rather than address all the posts in this thread, I am going to speak in some generalities and then comment on the one post that lies at the root of the conceptual problem.

Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality. Physicists make use of the concept because the dynamical behavior of physical systems is such that this mathematical function is conserved.

Some examples of energy forms and the state variables that determine them:

KE of a particle: K=(1/2)mv2 State variable: v
PE of a particle in a gravitational field: V=-GMm/r State variable: r
Energy of a photon: Eγ=hf State variable: f

et cetera...

In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Energy may be physical, but why do you think it is particles? Take light/EM for example. If light is energy, then why does the loss of energy result in a longer wavelength and a slower oscillatory rate?


Because that is how energy is defined.


All we should see is less energy and no other characteristics remaining behind. Are you saying energy is wave-ness and oscillitory rate-ness?


Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.


And then, what is the "particle" of heat? Heat isn't a particle as far as I know.


Heat is not quantized, but a macroscopic phenomenon. The state variable in this case is the temperature, and that is what is measured.


Personally, I don't think light/EM is energy, but rather is something that can be energized. Light appears to be something unique to itself -- luminescence plus vibrancy -- which remains present whether you increase or decrease its energy.


It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has an energy that can be calculated.


I don't think you are anybody else knows what energy actually "is." That is why in physics energy is only described in terms of what it does -- work. Energy is a mystery, and if you have the secret of it, please share so we can all know.


Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

[Iacchus32]

Ahh, "wisdom" is the interior of what knowledge is the exterior. Knowledge is the physical, of which wisdom is the metaphysical. This is why science doesn't get it.

Science "follows" the path of knowledge, while the mystic "searches" the path of wisdom.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tom
Boy, are you guys confused. [6)]

Actually I was hoping someone would step in who can speak with authority. I’ve been trying to pick a fight to test my understanding of something. If you will tolerate it, let me challenge you a bit to see what comes out of it.

You say, "Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality."

At the old PF, Integral said this too, basically saying that energy is a means of measurement. So when you say “state variables that do have reality,” aren’t you meaning by the term “reality,” that which can be observed, measured, and quantified? Does energy fail to qualify for that (i.e., reality) because only energy’s effects can be seen (work), while energy itself (whatever that is) is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable?

Originally posted by Tom In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.

Got it. But building on my previous point, is it that energy is “nothing,” or is it that energy is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable? You know it is “real” because you can see its effect on things, but for the sake of predicting and working in physics you have to find a way to observe, measure, and quantify. Since energy is contrary to that, you observe, measure, and quantify its effects on things.

Originally posted by Tom
Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.

That seems to agree with my line of reasoning.

Originally posted by Tom
It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has an energy that can be calculated.

This is why I picked the fight. A number of people have been saying that energy is light. I used to think so too, until I realized light can be more, or less, energized. To me it is illogical that light can gain or lose energy without losing base characteristics, like c or oscillation. In every other instance where energy is required to move something, energy is expended. But light travels at c no matter what its energy. Therefore, energy is not responsible for c; c must be related to something else altogether.

It is harder to make the case with oscillation (as a base characteristic of light) because it does slow and elongate in lower energy states. My argument there is that maybe light has a “base state” of vibrancy which energy is exaggerating. Since oscillation frequency increases as the wavelength shortens, then possibly “energy” is potentialized by compression of the base state of light, and made available for work when it decompresses.

Originally posted by Tom
Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

That’s the only thing you said I can’t see. If you assign a definition or a number to something, that is just its representative. You may understand the representative system you’ve set up, but it doesn’t mean you understand that which it represents.

[Eh]

What exactly are you imagining light is? Do a thought experiment here. Take a photon, and then list the various properties it has. Can you find a property that isn't related to energy?

[MavinMI6Agent009]

I think that there's a psychophysical dualism construct that acquires two basic powers of the human mind and brain: the cognitive and the conative. Both are cooperative and interactive. Whatever exists physically exists as an individual thus each individuality has materialism in existance. Regardless of what an object may be such as a building, car, or tree, their is always some physical embodiment material. Just my 0.5 cents.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tiberius

There are many things in our vocabulary and in the world that are not "physical" per se, yet not spiritual or mystical. For example, "democracy", "capitalism", "socialism", "mind", "Windows 2000", "party", and so on.

These are nouns, but they are not words that represent physical objects. Rather, they represent activity, patterns, and situations. These things are REAL and, as you said, part of this universe, but not physical.

The Mind is the name we give to the pattern of electrochemical activity in the brain. This pattern codes for information - memories, attitudes, and active thought (a form of computation or information processing). So, the "mind" is not an object, but a description of activity - a PATTERN.

I am perfectly willing to entertain notions such as these. If you wish to refer to all patterns of activity as "metaphysical" just because they, like democracy, cannot be held in the hand or put on a scale, then I suppose that's ok with me, but there's the whole other class of "metaphysics" that DOES involve alleged things outside the natural universe, which this must be distinguished from.

What could there be "outside the natural Universe"?

What phenomena would you classify as "metaphysical"?

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tom
Boy, are you guys confused. [6)]

Rather than address all the posts in this thread, I am going to speak in some generalities and then comment on the one post that lies at the root of the conceptual problem.

Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality. Physicists make use of the concept because the dynamical behavior of physical systems is such that this mathematical function is conserved.

Some examples of energy forms and the state variables that determine them:

In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.

Because that is how energy is defined.

Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.

Heat is not quantized, but a macroscopic phenomenon. The state variable in this case is the temperature, and that is what is measured.

It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has an energy that can be calculated.

Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

So "energy" is not "independently real" but is a "function" of that which is "real"? This is a serious inquiry...so don't hurt.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
Les, my point was that, simply stated, the metaphysical mind can interact with the physical universe, which addresses one of the original questions of this thread. I thought this was obvious but now the mind and will is even being denied existence.
I thought that once the point made that the meta does interact with the physical on the mind and will level, which I thought would be accepted as obvious, then by extention, we could speculate that spirit or soul exists then the case had already been made that they too could interact with the physical reality.

That is a pretty good argument . . . if (IMO) you are talking to people who already suspect something metaphysical is in charge.

But I have found that in debating with those who doubt that, they won't allow such a long inferential leap. Someone whose mind is already made up is hopeless, but the open-minded skeptic, who is so because he needs evidence and for things to make sense, might listen if you can make your case each and every step along the way.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I think we could develop a description of the "meta" part of metaphysical which most anyone might agree. I doubt few would disagree that mind wills the body. If we look at the behavior of matter not under the control of consciousness, it just sits there for the most part, or if inanimate matter does have dynamics, they are quite predictable.

Actually, "metaphysics" -- according to Webster -- is quite respectable...NOT the "woo-woo" thinking we have come to associate with the word.

METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) ad, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (cosmology).

METAPHYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning; too abstract; excessively subtle; SUPERNATURAL...and here's where the problems begin!

Actually, anything that "happens" in the Universe should be thought of, by definition, as NATURAL. Yet even "consciousness" is not worthy of discussion -- let alone INCLUSION -- within cosmological theory ...as if consciousness is not a PART of the Universe at all.

I purposely didn't include one word that Webster did (actually, I'm using 'The American Heritage Dictionary"); the word is "immaterial". I would assume they mean "without substance" and not "without function".

Thus, it would seem, that when a materialists cannot detect, measure or test a "substance" then...it (whatever the "it" may be ) doesn't exist.

Some things can only be "measured" by their EFFECTS...yet, again, consciousness is left out in the cold because its effects can't be definitively demonstrated or predicted.

Of course you know there have been experiments on "intention's" effect on "random events"...but even these are inconclusive.

I, too, would like to "unite" -- via persuasive logic, if nothing else -- that which is UNITED ALREADY: the natural forces/processes/ingredients of the physical and non-physical Universe.

Good luck with that. [a)]

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, "metaphysics" -- according to Webster -- is quite respectable...NOT the "woo-woo" thinking we have come to associate with the word.

METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) ad, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (cosmology).

METAPHYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning; too abstract; excessively subtle; SUPERNATURAL...and here's where the problems begin!

Actually, anything that "happens" in the Universe should be thought of, by definition, as NATURAL. Yet even "consciousness" is not worthy of discussion -- let alone INCLUSION -- within cosmological theory ...as if consciousness is not a PART of the Universe at all.

I purposely didn't include one word that Webster did (actually, I'm using 'The American Heritage Dictionary"); the word is "immaterial". I would assume they mean "without substance" and not "without function".

Thus, it would seem, that when a materialists cannot detect, measure or test a "substance" then...it (whatever the "it" may be ) doesn't exist.

Some things can only be "measured" by their EFFECTS...yet, again, consciousness is left out in the cold because its effects can't be definitively demonstrated or predicted.

Of course you know there have been experiments on "intention's" effect on "random events"...but even these are inconclusive.

I, too, would like to "unite" -- via persuasive logic, if nothing else -- that which is UNITED ALREADY: the natural forces/processes/ingredients of the physical and non-physical Universe.

Good luck with that. [a)]

Good post.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What could there be "outside the natural Universe"?


I have no idea, nor have I ever heard of any reliable way that such a thing could ever be determined.

What phenomena would you classify as "metaphysical"? [/QUOTE]

Nothing, in the supernatural sense - I doubt the supernatural exists. However, if one is thinking of the metaphysical as being those things which relate to "ultimate meaning and truth" then there's lots of matters of ethics, living, values, and such that one could consider as metaphysical. I have no problem with these, but these would all be a part of and explanable within the context of the natural universe.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Data? What does that have to do with this discussion? Gathering data is very relevant to studying physics, but utterly irrelevant to the deeper sort of metaphysics I have been trying to get you to consider. Those people who want to gather data using metaphysics I say are wasting time; and those people who want to understand metaphysics by gathering data are also spinning their wheels. For understanding metaphysics, check out samadhi meditation. It enlighened the Buddha, and many others as well.


We are using different ideas of "data" here. EVERYTHING is data. If you learn something about yourself from meditation or prayer, then you have gathered or processed data. If you watch a movie you gather data. If no data is gathered or processed by a mental activity, then it is meaningless and useless because the brain would be in the identical state it was before the event as after. If the brain has changed at all due to an experience (and it always does in SOME way), then data has been gathered.

What I was saying is that the type of data gathered through metaphysical means has never been shown to be data that the mind could not have gained through normal natural means. But if you are not referring to the supernatural then I still would like you to sum up what it is you ARe referring to exactly. It's easy to mention book titles and names of specific practices - I could do the same. But we're not all going to go read a book and then come back to the discussion. Please try to offer something more substantial and practical for an internet chat or else stop being so offended that people don't know what you're talking about (so you claim).


I am not going to argue Socrates with you, it will take years. Let's agree to disagree (radically!).


Ok. But I'd still recommend you read Phaedo again.


This is too sloppy for words. Which writers are you referring to? There are far too many writers contributing to the Bible to generalize about. And what part of the Bible do you mean? The whole thing, or just the NT? In the NT, quote me one writer, just one saying that.


It is pretty common knowledge that this was the general conception of the time. So, just about ALL of the writers in both books thought of the universe in this way - as did most people. No one in ancient times thought about "other dimensions" or planes of existence - that is a strictly modern reinterpretation. That is the very reason why, when science came along they tried measuring and weighing souls. That's why the structure of the cosmos was of such interest to religious people. That's why when Jesus was said to have "ascended" to heaven, he rose up into the sky. Because they actually believed heaven could be seen by looking up at night.


I haven't read every book. But it is my area of expertise and where I am formally educated, and something I've been trying to understand for 30 years. I don't expect someone who isn't interested in metaphysics to be an expert, but if not, then I do expect you to make sure what you say is accurate when you are fault-finding, which is what you have been doing.


Fault-finding? I don't know what you're talking about. I am merely saying that no one has ever been able to prove reliably that a supernatural or paranormal event has ever taken place - and that is true. I have read a lot about these things as well and could rattle off book titles and I'm sure I'd hit a few important ones you haven't read. The point is, if you have some exception to it, then give us the overview of it and state your point instead of expecting us to go to the bookstore and read the thing and get back to you. There's far too many people with their own views and favorite books for that to be practical. As of now all you've provided is a name such as "union prayer" - this doesn't inspire me to read about it. I know you can't retype the book but providing recaps of points I've read in books is pretty much the majority of what we do here.


My objection is to you not specifically singling out the bogus practices of mind readers, pet psychics, etc., and infering from them a general criticism of all metaphysics. That is sloppy scholarship.


This isn't scholarship - it's informal conversation. If I'm going to be doing scholarship I'll put a lot more effort into it than a chat board. Yes, those are specifically the people I'm referring to. Again, if you have some other example, please give us a more than a name.


The reason I find that objectionable is because I am a big fan of science. And I am a big fan of metaphysics. I don't see why the two need to be at odds. If I ever run across some metaphysical assertion that contradicts a known physical fact, I wouldn't accept it -- supernatural phenomenon, for instance.


That's wonderful :) No problem with that.


My experience has been that metaphysical understanding is an inner thing, and physical understanding is an outer thing. In terms of acquiring knowledge in each other's domain, they don't seem very compatible, and I am perfectly happy with that.

Ok, but what do you mean about "inner understanding?" (a form of data by the way) Give me an example of the sort of understanding you've gotten, how you got it, and how you propose that worked? Without these bare minimums it's impossible to discuss.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eh
What exactly are you imagining light is? Do a thought experiment here. Take a photon, and then list the various properties it has. Can you find a property that isn't related to energy?

I am not sure I can do a thought experiment now, but let me tell you how I've been thinking about it.

It seems that in every model of "reality," there arises this problem of what was first. Many times an infinite regression type of debate happens, or someone just sticks something in the theoretical hole and decides to defend it with or without facts

I started thinking about it and it seemed to me that if there were some base state of things, it should be reflected in every single aspect of reality because everything would be a manifestation of that.

Looking at our universe, what is like that? What is common to everything? At first I thought energy, but then I realized energy was more like an effect than something "real," as Tom said.

What about light? Well, light is very constant in certain ways. It always oscillates for one, and so does everything else. Hmmmmm, could even the mighty oscillator, an atom, somehow be a form of light? If so, what would make light take such a form?

How about compression? If light were naturally vibrant, then if you compressed it that would accentuate vibrancy to produce oscillation. And if light existed in some base state (i.e., non-compressed), then light would try to return to that if the compressional force (whatever that is) were to release/switch directions.

Some facts support this model. The wavelength of light shrinks with increasing energy, which is what we should expect with compression. The universe is expanding, apparently driven by some pressure, and as the universe expands, old light yields a bit of its energy.

Anyway, I was thinking that light might be uncreated and destructible stuff, which possibly in its base state is something like “luminescent vibrancy,” and which everything that exists is a form of. And energy is compression, compressed light to be exact, and so light is a "carrier" of energy (i.e., compression). Energy can be taken advantage of when light decompresses by allowing it to drive processes, etc. Logically, when the various “forms” of light lose their structure and energy, all of it would return to the base state of light.

[Eh]

I think the main point is that light cannot exist without energy. It can't be at rest, and will always have momentum. As I mentioned with a thought experiement, take away the energy, and what do you have left?

Though I think I know where you're going with this. While light by definition cannot exist at rest, maybe light itself is really just a different form of something more fundemental. This would be along the lines of asking what spacetime ultimately is, and you might find it worthwhile to read what potential TOE's have to say. In string theory, every particle (photons included) is nothing but a string with a different vibration. The same string vibrating 3 different ways at different times, will produce what we view as 3 different fundemental particles. So in this case the string is fundemental, but I don't think it can be seperated from it's energy state either.

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Eh
I think the main point is that light cannot exist without energy. It can't be at rest, and will always have momentum. As I mentioned with a thought experiement, take away the energy, and what do you have left?

Well, I am proposing that light is not energy, so it could exist. Energy is something expended to do work. If no energy is expended, and something is still moving, then it might mean the movement is perpetual. That is what I am suggesting about light, that its perpetual oscillation cannot be stopped, but only slowed until it reaches the "base state."

Originally posted by Eh
Though I think I know where you're going with this. While light by definition cannot exist at rest, maybe light itself is really just a different form of something more fundemental. . . . In string theory, every particle (photons included) is nothing but a string with a different vibration. The same string vibrating 3 different ways at different times, will produce what we view as 3 different fundemental particles. So in this case the string is fundemental, but I don't think it can be seperated from it's energy state either.

I am saying the "more fundamental" is a super relaxed state of light. Its long wave could be seen as a string. Start compressing that wave, and one might get some interesting oscillatory effects.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[B]This isn't a “chat board,” it is a forum. Moreover, it is a science forum with a philosophy area.


Heh, different form of the same thing - point is, it's a casual conversation. Don't think too highly of yourself because you're on a "forum" - I don't remember there being any standards to post here (obviously).


I think a lot of us shoot for high standards of accuracy because what we are posting is public. Also, there are quite a few young people who participate at PF, and there is some commitment to wanting the information they see to be trustworthy. Obviously opinions will differ, but the facts used to support an opinion should be right.


And they are. I've based my beliefs on things I've seen and read just like you. But I will not be held to standards of "scholarship" and posting official references for what is essentially entertainment. That is, until they pay me to post here. I don't expect the same from you - just that if you've got some examples you'd like to discuss then spill it or drop it.


Metaphyiscs is one of three formal areas of philosophy (with epistimology and ethics being the other two). In discussions at PF in the past where we’ve contemplated what philosophy is, a simple definition I’ve liked is that it’s thinking about thinking. Using that defintion, then one might say metaphysics is productive ways to reason about the ultimate nature of reality or what really exists (to use a tidy characterization).


Yep.


One tiny area of metaphysics might be the mystical-magical thing, but it does not typify what the philosophical metaphysics is about. So when you post an opinion based on your assumption that metaphysics refers only to new age nonsense, it shows you haven’t done your home work.


I have never claimed that metaphysics refers "ONLY to new age nonsense." - You assumed that when I chose to talk about those things. In fact, quite a lot of my posts on this very thread to others have suggested otherwise (other types of what may be called metaphysics that I'm ok with). Please see those.


Let me quote excerpts from two of your posts, one from your QM thread, and one from here:


Yes that's a good quote. I was referring to QM so I asked for accuracy. You're not happy about me discussing certain things so you're calling it inaccuracy about things I'm not even talking about. Again, if you want to discuss those thing then do so and stop complaining that I'm not.


Part of my objection to your attitude has been that while you are stickler for correct science, you don’t show the same conscientiousness with other areas of thought. I see this all the time here where people only study what they believe in, and form opinions on other stuff carelessly. The worst offenders present their beliefs like they have the “right” view already, and anyone who doesn’t conform intellectually to their beliefs is stupid.


Are you describing yourself here? Anyway, I have studied the things I am talking about. I'm sorry if I'm not discussing "union prayer" but please feel free to do so if you like.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You say, "Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality."

At the old PF, Integral said this too, basically saying that energy is a means of measurement. So when you say “state variables that do have reality,” aren’t you meaning by the term “reality,” that which can be observed, measured, and quantified?


Yes. Look at the examples I gave. One does not measure kinetic energy, one measures speed (the state variable for KE). Similarly for the others.


Does energy fail to qualify for that (i.e., reality) because only energy’s effects can be seen (work), while energy itself (whatever that is) is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable?


As I said, energy is not measured, but it is a function of measured quantities. That does not mean that it is "unquantifiable". Indeed, when I say that it a mathematical function, that means that it is manifestly quantifiable!


Got it. But building on my previous point, is it that energy is “nothing,” or is it that energy is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable? You know it is “real” because you can see its effect on things, but for the sake of predicting and working in physics you have to find a way to observe, measure, and quantify. Since energy is contrary to that, you observe, measure, and quantify its effects on things.


Energy does not have "effects on things". How can it? It's an abstract object! No, as I said in my first post, the dynamical laws of nature as codified by physics are endowed with, among other constraints, the constraint of conservation of energy. It is defined because it is useful.


This is why I picked the fight. A number of people have been saying that energy is light. I used to think so too, until I realized light can be more, or less, energized. To me it is illogical that light can gain or lose energy without losing base characteristics, like c or oscillation. In every other instance where energy is required to move something, energy is expended. But light travels at c no matter what its energy. Therefore, energy is not responsible for c; c must be related to something else altogether.


Indeed, the energy of a photon has nothing to do with the speed of light. The state variable for the energy of a photon is the frequency (E=hf).


It is harder to make the case with oscillation (as a base characteristic of light) because it does slow and elongate in lower energy states. My argument there is that maybe light has a “base state” of vibrancy which energy is exaggerating. Since oscillation frequency increases as the wavelength shortens, then possibly “energy” is potentialized by compression of the base state of light, and made available for work when it decompresses.


There is no evidence that photons have a ground state energy. The frequency of photons seems to be a continuous variable starting from zero.


That’s the only thing you said I can’t see. If you assign a definition or a number to something, that is just its representative. You may understand the representative system you’ve set up, but it doesn’t mean you understand that which it represents.

This reminds me of when Lifegazer used to ask about the "essence of energy", as opposed to just the numerical value. To that, Ahrkron responded with "that's like asking about the 'essence' of your age".

It's just a number, not something with physical presence. However, all conservation laws do come from underlying symmetries in nature. In the case of energy, that law comes from the invariance of physical systems under time translations, an idea that is well understood.

[Tom Mattson]

Sorry, but when a pitcher serves up a meatball like this, I can't resist knocking it out of the park. [:D]

Originally posted by Eh
What exactly are you imagining light is? Do a thought experiment here. Take a photon, and then list the various properties it has. Can you find a property that isn't related to energy?

Photon Properties Not Related To Energy
1. Spin (J=1)
2. Isospin (I=0,1)
3. Parity (Π=-)
4. Charge Conjugation Parity (C=-)

There you go, 4 for the price of 1. What a bargain! [6)]

[Eh]

Isn't spin along the same lines (although not exactly the same as) of angular momentum? I guess the other examples should shut me up about that one.

But another question:

Indeed, the energy of a photon has nothing to do with the speed of light. The state variable for the energy of a photon is the frequency (E=hf).

Isn't there an associated momentum with light traveling at c?

[Eh]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Well, I am proposing that light is not energy, so it could exist. Energy is something expended to do work.

Aside from the confusion about c, I don't think you can define light as light without energy. That is, there doesn't seem to be such a thing as a photon that doesn't have an associated energy level. Something more fundemental may be the cause of light, but I think in a ground state in would no longer fit the definition of light.

If no energy is expended, and something is still moving, then it might mean the movement is perpetual.

Maybe you're looking for Newton's laws of motion. Something will move at a constant speed unless changed by a force. So if you throw something into a perfect vacuum, it will keep traveling at a constant rate until something else interferes. You don't need to be applying a constant push, ignoring friction.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Eh
Isn't spin along the same lines (although not exactly the same as) of angular momentum?


It is exactly the same as angular momentum, which is also not related to energy.


But another question:


Indeed, the energy of a photon has nothing to do with the speed of light. The state variable for the energy of a photon is the frequency (E=hf).


Isn't there an associated momentum with light traveling at c?

Yes: p=h/λ. Photon momentum has nothing to do with the speed of light, either.

edit: quote bracket

[Eh]

But is the momentum unrelated to the frequency?

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Eh
But is the momentum unrelated to the frequency?

With light, you can always turn a wavelength dependence into a frequency dependence via c=fλ. So yes, you can write (edit: typo) p=hf/c. Please note that this does not imply that momentum depends on the speed of light. It is still a constant, no matter what value p takes on.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet your argument works only if it's "unknowable." Which I and many others have suggested to the contrary. If it exists then it "has" to be knowable, at least in some form.
This is nonsensical, as may people proport to "know" that metaphysics does not exist. You can't make this sort of proof by faith.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
This is nonsensical, as may people proport to "know" that metaphysics does not exist. You can't make this sort of proof by faith. No, I can't prove it by your faith, but I can prove it by what I "know," at least to myself anyway. And, just because I may not be able to prove it to anybody else, does not invalidate it. If it exists, it exists, period. Granted, it can be very difficult and frustrating tyring to explain it to other people, but maybe that's the way it was meant to be? How else would one be able to see it for oneself then?

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by FZ+
This is nonsensical, as may people proport to "know" that metaphysics does not exist. You can't make this sort of proof by faith.

Nope. It's not a mirror position (you say tomayto, I say tomaato). Most of us materialists don't claim to "know" that the immaterial (your use of the word metaphysical) does not exist.

What we claim is that we know the material exists. We also know that in thousands of years no one has even been able to show that the immaterial exists. That doesn't mean it DOESN'T, but it does mean that it's not rational to hold a belief in such. That is, until or unless it's proven.

By the same token, it would be irrational for me to BELIEVE that there is life on Europa. That is, until a probe goes there or we by some other reliable means determine it's there.

NOT believing X is not equal to believing it's opposite.

p.s.
The above can also be used to sum up the atheist position, contrary to the common misperception of all atheists as "anti-theists".

[Tom Mattson]

Good job, Tiberius. I can't tell you how many times I have tried to explain the difference between atheism and antitheism.

[drag]

Greetings !

Intresting discussion you guys have here... [:D]
Originally posted by Tiberius
What we claim is that we know the material exists.
What does it mean - "exist" ? Define it, please. [;)]
What does it mean - "material" ? Define it, please. [;)]
Oh and, upon what do you base that claim (that is, if after
the previous 2 questions you got any claim left) ? [:D]

Doubt or shout ! [:D]

Peace and long life.

[Eh]

Jesus Drag, you've just opened a whole new can of worms.

[drag]

Originally posted by Eh
Jesus Drag, you've just opened a whole new can of worms.
Well, sometimes I get to these parties a bit late,
but I sure like to make up for all the fun I missed...[:D]

[Eh]

I suppose so. But at any rate, I'll take a crack at it.

Material An object located in spacetime.

To exist To be outside the imaginary world of the mind. Ie. Something not merely imaginary, fictional etc.

Though I wouldn't try to defend the notion that we can know any such reality.

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
First, for the purpose of this thread, let's take for granted that there are physical phenomena and that there are metaphysical phenomena. We may or may not actually believe that, but let's just assume it for the purpose of this thread.

Now, here is the question I'm posing: is it possible for metaphysical phenomena to interact with physical phenomena?

Let's assume there are FPEs (Flying Pink Ellephants)
and BSEs (Bull Sized Ellephants). Can they interact ? [:D]

Hint No. 1 : Without a full and clear definition we have
no way to know.
Hint No. 2 : We were just assuming this so we do not have
such definitions.
Hint No. 3 : This ain't working out... [;)]

Doubt or shout ! [:D]

Peace and long life.

[drag]

Greetings Eh !
Originally posted by Eh
Material An object located in spacetime.
Well, I could ask you how do you define something that
exists in terms of something that supposedly needs
to be proved to exist itself. But, I won't for now...[:D]
Originally posted by Eh
To exist To be outside the imaginary world of the mind. Ie. Something not merely imaginary, fictional etc.

What is imaginary/fictional/so on then ?

Live long and prosper.

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Nope. It's not a mirror position (you say tomayto, I say tomaato). Most of us materialists don't claim to "know" that the immaterial (your use of the word metaphysical) does not exist.
Lol. That wasn't what I meant. I mean that there is an equal capability of blind faith in any direction, and it is neccessary to make the distinction that you "know" something, as Iacchus seems to believe, and that you simply believe something. There is no way you can transform strong belief of any kind as an element of reality. Hence, while Iacchus may have no doubt in his mind, he cannot possibly presume to say that he has "proven" it, and need only to communicate to the unknowing masses. Your subjective beliefs have zero significance when it comes to objective existences. It's part of the definition of the terms. Unless we are going to get into an argument about solipism...

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tiberius
What we claim is that we know the material exists. We also know that in thousands of years no one has even been able to show that the immaterial exists. That doesn't mean it DOESN'T, but it does mean that it's not rational to hold a belief in such. That is, until or unless it's proven.Yes, but who has to prove it, and to who whom? Does this not also imply that one is not even allowed to speculate on such things unless Science has proven it first? Obviously then, we know where "your faith" lies. Indeed, it will be a long time in coming before one will be able to accept God as a "personal matter."

In the meantime, I'll stick with being "irrational." [;)] ... And didn't they use to say the world was flat?

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but who has to prove it, and to who whom? Does this not also imply that one is not even allowed to speculate on such things unless Science has proven it first? Obviously then, we know where "your faith" lies. Indeed, it will be a long time in coming before one will be able to accept God as a "personal matter."

In the meantime, I'll stick with being "irrational." [;)] ... And didn't they use to say the world was flat?

Iacchus:

Do you think that there might be a certain lack of faith in ONESELF -- in one's ability to shrug off unfounded speculations after considering them for awhile -- that causes certain hard-core materialists to dismiss metaphpysical concepts "at the door"?

Even materialists have to admit that the world of physics would not have gotten very far had "outrageous ideas" not been entertained by certain of their brethren.

Still, they (the hard-core materialists) keep returning to these threads where they know that "we" (soft-minded idealists) are lurking. They come to "bury us, not praise us" and yet, where would we be without them? Speaking for myself, I WANT my hair-brained ideas CHALLENGED so that I'm "forced" to make a better case...or come to the sad conclusion I'm off my rocker.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Iacchus:

Do you think that there might be a certain lack of faith in ONESELF -- in one's ability to shrug off unfounded speculations after considering them for awhile -- that causes certain hard-core materialists to dismiss metaphpysical concepts "at the door"?For one thing I think people get tired of getting ripped off. Which is why as we grow up, we tend to put aside those things which seem childish and naive. Hmm ... "irrational?" And yet I think this is it, that unless we retain some sense of "child-like" wonder in life, and not become too cynical, then we would have missed the point. Of course this is not an excuse for doing stupid things mind you!

Hmm ... would it be considered irrational not to take things too seriously? [;)] ... Or, vice versa?


Even materialists have to admit that the world of physics would not have gotten very far had "outrageous ideas" not been entertained by certain of their brethren.Even so, we all become conservative once the status quo sets in. Nobody wants to disrupt the status achieved within the social hierarchy.


Still, they (the hard-core materialists) keep returning to these threads where they know that "we" (soft-minded idealists) are lurking. They come to "bury us, not praise us" and yet, where would we be without them? Speaking for myself, I WANT my hair-brained ideas CHALLENGED so that I'm "forced" to make a better case...or come to the sad conclusion I'm off my rocker. I only offer what I have to say because I know there's more to life than what Science has to offer, and it rubs me the wrong way to have someone else "restricting" my choices. And I do have something to say!

By the way, would you say the experience the universe is looking for is ecstatic by nature? Indeed, this is what the whole of nature seems to suggest, as everything revolves around "sexual union" -- i.e., the "joining" of the masculine with the feminine. I believe this is one aspect of ecstasy anyway, especially when it involves a larger brain and higher degree of sensitivity.

[Eh]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings Eh !

Well, I could ask you how do you define something that
exists in terms of something that supposedly needs
to be proved to exist itself. But, I won't for now...[:D]

No need to be proving things, right? I'm talking about the concepts themselves. We can concieve of spacetime, so we can use it to define other things.

What is imaginary/fictional/so on then ?

A concept in the mind, that does not have an extension on the outside, so to speak. For example, I can imagine an elf who lives in Chicago. So I have a concept of an elf in Chicago. But in the real Chicago that exists outside the concept in the mind, there is no extension of that elf.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Eh
No need to be proving things, right? I'm talking about the concepts themselves. We can concieve of spacetime, so we can use it to define other things.
I'm not following you.

I can also concieve of pink flying ellephants, so ?
What about the existence of space-time itself ?
Originally posted by Eh
A concept in the mind, that does not have an extension on the outside, so to speak. For example, I can imagine an elf who lives in Chicago. So I have a concept of an elf in Chicago. But in the real Chicago that exists outside the concept in the mind, there is no extension of that elf.
Real Chicago ? Is there anything provable beyond observation ?
Where and how do you set the limmits ?

Live long and prosper.

[Eh]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I'm not following you.

I can also concieve of pink flying ellephants, so ?
What about the existence of space-time itself ?

I'm only attempting to define what constitutes material existence and the usage of 'exists'. I'll leave it to others to prove we can actually know any of them.

Real Chicago ? Is there anything provable beyond observation ?
Where and how do you set the limmits ?

Yes, the concept of a real Chicago, which is located outside the mind.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
By the way, would you say the experience the universe is looking for is ecstatic by nature? Indeed, this is what the whole of nature seems to suggest, as everything revolves around "sexual union" -- i.e., the "joining" of the masculine with the feminine. I believe this is one aspect of ecstasy anyway, especially when it involves a larger brain and higher degree of sensitivity.
To tell you the truth -- which is a LIE right there because I don't know -- and, perhaps CAN'T HANDLE -- the truth...nonetheless...

To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to consider that the Universe doesn't CARE what It gets to experience(with and through us); as long as It's having an experience, It's fulfilling Its "Primary Directive".

I've come to this thought reluctantly...because I "prefer to think" that the Universe has "lofty" aims...and prefers to have lofty experiences...but, with all the misery on this planet...and all the beings who take pleasure in doing nasty things ...I consider it POSSIBLE that the Universe is "getting off" as much on what we DO with "hate" as what we do with "love". As I say, I don't like coming to this conclusion...in fact, it isn't really a "conclusion" since its still under consideration as a possibility.

So, in answer to your question, is the Universe looking for "ecstasy"...I would say YES...because the more intense the experience the better...and nothing's more intense than being in reciprocated love. But perhaps the Universe is just as "happy" with experiencing a murderous rampage...or a mother's loss of a child...or a concert under the stars.

I'm not sure whether THIS is the thread to discuss the nature and evolution of spirit or how spirit might "prefer" certain experiences over others. I could come up with a new thread entitled: Does the Universe Give A Damn?...if you think anyone cares ! [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
To tell you the truth -- which is a LIE right there because I don't know -- and, perhaps CAN'T HANDLE -- the truth...nonetheless...Which truth is that? The truth(s) that exist between life and death -- or, if there is a difference -- the truth that always was and always will be? Wow! How is it possible to even conceive of such a thing?!


To tell you the truth, I'm beginning to consider that the Universe doesn't CARE what It gets to experience(with and through us); as long as It's having an experience, It's fulfilling Its "Primary Directive".Well that makes sense in that you can't have one experience, without the possibility of a whole myriad of experiences occurring at the same time, for nothing could be considered "unique" without the backdrop of diversity (of possibilities). In other words life itself couldn't exist without diversity. While perhaps it's this "very uniqueness" that makes everything real?


I've come to this thought reluctantly...because I "prefer to think" that the Universe has "lofty" aims...and prefers to have lofty experiences...but, with all the misery on this planet...and all the beings who take pleasure in doing nasty things ...I consider it POSSIBLE that the Universe is "getting off" as much on what we DO with "hate" as what we do with "love". As I say, I don't like coming to this conclusion...in fact, it isn't really a "conclusion" since its still under consideration as a possibility.We can't have our "highs" without our "lows" ... And yet we all have what's called our "ruling love," and it's this "Ecstasy" that we seek (or long for) in everything we do.


So, in answer to your question, is the Universe looking for "ecstasy"...I would say YES...because the more intense the experience the better...and nothing's more intense than being in reciprocated love. But perhaps the Universe is just as "happy" with experiencing a murderous rampage...or a mother's loss of a child...or a concert under the stars.Yes, all of these might be considered examples of Ecstasy. And yet in order to allow for its "higher proclivity," we must also allow for its "lower proclivity," to set it in contrast. Perhaps we could classify Ecstasy as the "intensity" derived from one's "ruling love?"


I'm not sure whether THIS is the thread to discuss the nature and evolution of spirit or how spirit might "prefer" certain experiences over others. I could come up with a new thread entitled: Does the Universe Give A Damn?...if you think anyone cares ! [;)] By all means, I think it would make a good thread. Of course I'm not sure whether I would participate or not? ... Will just have to wait and see.

By the way, did you know that Dionysus was the god of Wine and, Ecstasy? And that he was also called the Divine Androgeny, meaning the perfect assimilation of the masculine with the feminine (traits)? I just thought you might want to know this, as this is why I brought up the notion of Ecstasy. I also thought it might be a possible "god-connection," if in fact you were looking one? ... Indeed, there seems to be a strong correlation to what you're trying to relate.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Which truth is that? The truth(s) that exist between life and death -- or, if there is a difference -- the truth that always was and always will be? Wow! How is it possible to even conceive of such a thing?!
Honestly (here we go again), I don't know about "overriding" and "always in existence" TRUTH(S). I'm still dealing with POSSIBILITIES!!! Someday you might want to start a thread: Eternal Truths: Fact or Fiction.

Well that makes sense in that you can't have one experience, without the possibility of a whole myriad of experiences occurring at the same time, for nothing could be considered "unique" without the backdrop of diversity (of possibilities). In other words life itself couldn't exist without diversity. While perhaps it's this "very uniqueness" that makes everything real?

We can't have our "highs" without our "lows" ... And yet we all have what's called our "ruling love," and it's this "Ecstasy" that we seek (or long for) in everything we do.

Yes, all of these might be considered examples of Ecstasy. And yet in order to allow for its "higher proclivity," we must also allow for its "lower proclivity," to set it in contrast. Perhaps we could classify Ecstasy as the "intensity" derived from one's "ruling love?"


By all means, I think it would make a good thread. Of course I'm not sure whether I would participate or not? ... Will just have to wait and see.
If one believes that there's a process of "spiritual evolution" going on, then having "higher" and "lower" CHOICES makes sense. The "struggle" -- the Jihad -- as I have said, is "within OURSELVES". The potential for good and evil exists in each of us...and IF evolution is part of the package, then we evolve "into" compassionate beings who CHOOSE good acts over evil ones for that reason. However, if the Universe is simply out to have an Experience of any calibre and content, then it's a "free for all" that's "goin' nowhere"!

By the way, did you know that Dionysus was the god of Wine and, Ecstasy? And that he was also called the Divine Androgeny, meaning the perfect assimilation of the masculine with the feminine (traits)? I just thought you might want to know this, as this is why I brought up the notion of Ecstasy. I also thought it might be a possible "god-connection," if in fact you were looking one? ... Indeed, there seems to be a strong correlation to what you're trying to relate.
I'll have to think about how androgeny would have anything to do with my current ruminations. If I'm "looking for God" it's in "all the wrong places" (just a joke). However, it's a GREAT QUESTION: What am I looking for?...and, incidentally, would make a good thread. [g)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Honestly (here we go again), I don't know about "overriding" and "always in existence" TRUTH(S). I'm still dealing with POSSIBILITIES!!! Someday you might want to start a thread: Eternal Truths: Fact or Fiction.Well, I wasn't so sure of my phrasing of it, but that's kind of the "big question" isn't it? I mean there's lots of truths about our temporary existence, but that doesn't belie the ultimate truth, right? ... Like why are we here?


If one believes that there's a process of "spiritual evolution" going on, then having "higher" and "lower" CHOICES makes sense. The "struggle" -- the Jihad -- as I have said, is "within OURSELVES". The potential for good and evil exists in each of us...and IF evolution is part of the package, then we evolve "into" compassionate beings who CHOOSE good acts over evil ones for that reason. However, if the Universe is simply out to have an Experience of any calibre and content, then it's a "free for all" that's "goin' nowhere"!The world is just a stage, by which we discover the roles which suit us best, and carry these on to the "next plane."


I'll have to think about how androgeny would have anything to do with my current ruminations. If I'm "looking for God" it's in "all the wrong places" (just a joke). However, it's a GREAT QUESTION: What am I looking for?...and, incidentally, would make a good thread. [g)] Androgeny is also none other than the "synergy" that exists between the yin and yang: where the yin is considered feminine in nature and the yang is considered masculine. Does that help?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The oscillation associated with a photon slows/lengthens the lower its energy. If you look at Planck's law, it states the energy of EM is confined to quanta (photons) and its magnitude is proportional to its frequency.

Yes, the energy of EM waves is confined to quanta (photons), that's my point. The energy of an EM wave can decrease or increase, depending on it's frequency, but photons are the energy (I think).

BTW, I was gone for 5 days, so I'm trying to catch up with this thread. Please forgive me, if I repeat something that has already been said.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I think we could develop a description of the "meta" part of metaphysical which most anyone might agree. I doubt few would disagree that mind wills the body. If we look at the behavior of matter not under the control of consciousness, it just sits there for the most part, or if inanimate matter does have dynamics, they are quite predictable.

In the interests of finding a common ground, and since this is a science site, I try not to stray too far from what facts support, even if I might suspect a lot more is going on than the facts. The best sorts of facts are those everyone can easily see. For instance, even if we are a product solely of matter as materialists claim, then some part of this "living matter" has certainly transcended itself in order to manifest in the areas of will, creativity, love . . . no unconscious matter can do any such thing.

Though hoping to find common ground, I am starting to suspect that those of us who appreciate the meta of physics are wasting our time talking to radical mechanists. They look at reality the way someone might examine music only by studying the notes, never sitting down and listening deeply and with all one's being. The "feel" of existence seems irrelevant to them, whereas to me at least, it is more relevant (to my existence) than the facts because if I couldn't feel, I wouldn't care if I existed at all.

But I am not a radical mechanist. I don't mind the idea of their being a metaphysical realm - in fact, this thread would make no sense, if one didn't assume (at least for the duration of their participation on this thread) that there was such a thing. However, what I don't know, is whether the meta-physical (that which is not physical) can interact with the physical. As I pointed out in my first post, something that interact with the physical world interacts physically (right?), and anything that interacts physically must do so in the physical realm (right?). From this reasoning alone, it doesn't seem that the metaphysical could interact with the physical, but I'm still uncertain and welcome any insights.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Ahh, "wisdom" is the interior of what knowledge is the exterior. Knowledge is the physical, of which wisdom is the metaphysical. This is why science doesn't get it.

Science "follows" the path of knowledge, while the mystic "searches" the path of wisdom.

Would you care to substantiate this in some way? Is not wisdom the application and use of aquired knowledge and understanding?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Tom
Boy, are you guys confused. [6)]

Rather than address all the posts in this thread, I am going to speak in some generalities and then comment on the one post that lies at the root of the conceptual problem.

Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality. Physicists make use of the concept because the dynamical behavior of physical systems is such that this mathematical function is conserved.

Some examples of energy forms and the state variables that determine them:

KE of a particle: K=(1/2)mv2 State variable: v
PE of a particle in a gravitational field: V=-GMm/r State variable: r
Energy of a photon: Eγ=hf State variable: f

et cetera...

In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.



Because that is how energy is defined.



Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.



Heat is not quantized, but a macroscopic phenomenon. The state variable in this case is the temperature, and that is what is measured.



It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has an energy that can be calculated.



Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

*Applause*

Very eloquently put, Tom (as usual). Kudos.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, "metaphysics" -- according to Webster -- is quite respectable...NOT the "woo-woo" thinking we have come to associate with the word.

METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) ad, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (cosmology).

METAPHYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning; too abstract; excessively subtle; SUPERNATURAL...and here's where the problems begin!

Actually, anything that "happens" in the Universe should be thought of, by definition, as NATURAL. Yet even "consciousness" is not worthy of discussion -- let alone INCLUSION -- within cosmological theory ...as if consciousness is not a PART of the Universe at all.

I purposely didn't include one word that Webster did (actually, I'm using 'The American Heritage Dictionary"); the word is "immaterial". I would assume they mean "without substance" and not "without function".

Thus, it would seem, that when a materialists cannot detect, measure or test a "substance" then...it (whatever the "it" may be ) doesn't exist.

Some things can only be "measured" by their EFFECTS...yet, again, consciousness is left out in the cold because its effects can't be definitively demonstrated or predicted.

Of course you know there have been experiments on "intention's" effect on "random events"...but even these are inconclusive.

I, too, would like to "unite" -- via persuasive logic, if nothing else -- that which is UNITED ALREADY: the natural forces/processes/ingredients of the physical and non-physical Universe.

Good luck with that. [a)]

Thanks for the definitions, M. Gaspar, they've given me some more questions to ask after seeing if one can unite the "metaphysical" and the "physical" as defined in the first post.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eh
Jesus Drag, you've just opened a whole new can of worms.

He follows closely in the path of the great Wu Li - opening up a can of worms wherever he goes.

I've got some serious conspiracy theories about those two...[;)].

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Let's assume there are FPEs (Flying Pink Ellephants)
and BSEs (Bull Sized Ellephants). Can they interact ? [:D]

Hint No. 1 : Without a full and clear definition we have
no way to know.
Hint No. 2 : We were just assuming this so we do not have
such definitions.
Hint No. 3 : This ain't working out... [;)]

Doubt or shout ! [:D]

Peace and long life.

Alrighty then. I think I gave a pretty clear definition, but if there's something you don't understand, or wish to be expounded on, please tell me.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I'm not following you.

I can also concieve of pink flying ellephants, so ?


And this is where your record starts to break (in so many threads). Let me try to explain: If I ask one to define what a pink elephant wing is, they can tell me "that which a pink flying elephant flies with", and that is perfectly acceptable because of the nature of my question. It's called a heterophenomenological approach, and is perfectly acceptable, even in scientific studies (such as anthropologists studying the religions of ancient tribes).


What about the existence of space-time itself ?


What about it?


Real Chicago ? Is there anything provable beyond observation ?
Where and how do you set the limmits ?


The limit of Science resides in the limit of observation.


[edit]: Pink writing was too hard for me to read.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Would you care to substantiate this in some way? Is not wisdom the application and use of aquired knowledge and understanding? It isn't altogether different from what you're saying, except that it involves an "interior perception" of things (developed from experience).

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
The limit of Science resides in the limit of observation.

Please don't say you mean this?

[maximus]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Please don't say you mean this?

i think he does. and i would agree.



Originally posted by Mentat
The limit of Science resides in the limit of observation.

the only thing i'd add is that human ignorance and willingness to accept truth is another limit.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
i think he does. and i would agree.

Yet where would science be if all thinkers confined themselves only to what could be observed?

Tsk, tsk (one for EACH of you!).

[maximus]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Yet where would science be if all thinkers confined themselves only to what could be observed?

you can think all you want (as einstein did in his thought experiments), but no theory will ever be accepted without having some observational evidence, or without making sound predictions about future experience. affects from einstiens thought experiments have been observed countless times.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
you can think all you want (as einstein did in his thought experiments), but no theory will ever be accepted without having some observational evidence, or without making sound predictions about future experience. affects from einstiens thought experiments have been observed countless times.

My point is that we would not have gotten to the experiment if Einstein had confined himself to thinking about only what could be OBSERVED.

Thus, "the limit of Science resides in the limit of observation" would, indeed, be a LIMITING VIEW for Science ...if it were true.

But, surely, we can masticate on bigger cuds than this?

[maximus]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
My point is that we would not have gotten to the experiment if Einstein had confined himself to thinking about only what could be OBSERVED.

Thus, "the limit of Science resides in the limit of observation" would, indeed, be a LIMITING VIEW for Science ...if it were true.


as i said, you may think away. but do not count on any future observation to confirm your hypothesis.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
as i said, you may think away. but do not count on any future observation to confirm your hypothesis.
And would you have said this to Einstein, too?

Come on, Maximus, say "uncle".

Never mind. I'll concede: only that which can be OBSERVED is relevant to Science...and nothing else is worth thinking about.

Sorry it took me so long. [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
And would you have said this to Einstein, too?

Come on, Maximus, say "uncle".

Never mind. I'll concede: only that which can be OBSERVED is relevant to Science...and nothing else is worth thinking about.

Sorry it took me so long. [;)] So, have you checked out my new thread? Am surprised you haven't bothered to make a post? [t)]

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So, have you checked out my new thread? Am surprised you haven't bothered to make a post? [t)]

Sorry, Iacchus: I don't go shopping -- as I should -- from the "Main Menu". I feel I'm peddling as hard as I can to keep up with the threads I'm already on.

I'm almost AFRAID to look and see what's available...but I will.

See you there. [g)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Please don't say you mean this?

Yes, I mean it. However, I don't mean that Science is limited to what we can observe, I mean that there is a limit imposed on all Scientific progress, and that is that the Scientific Method requires one to first make an observation.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
And would you have said this to Einstein, too?

Come on, Maximus, say "uncle".

Never mind. I'll concede: only that which can be OBSERVED is relevant to Science...and nothing else is worth thinking about.

Sorry it took me so long. [;)]

You're missing the point, but it is probably due to my trying to shorten long lines of posting (against "drag" no less) into one statement.

Science is based on the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is as follows (though I'm confident you already know this):

Step 1. Make an observation.
Step 2. Form an hypothesis as to how this observation works.
Step 3. Collect data relating to the observation.
Step 4. Rigorously test your hypothesis, to see if it holds true in all experiments, and modify it as necessary.
Step 5. If your hypothesis has survived, declare it a "theory" and live happily ever after [:)].

Remember, Science is not the only way to learn about your environment. It is one (and only one) branch of Philosophy, and limited, just as any other branch of Philosophy.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Mentat
Step 1. Make an observation.
Step 2. Form an hypothesis as to how this observation works.
Step 3. Collect data relating to the observation.
Step 4. Rigorously test your hypothesis, to see if it holds true in all experiments, and modify it as necessary.
Step 5. If your hypothesis has survived, declare it a "theory" and live happily ever after [:)].


Well, after step 5 you don't stop. You keep testing and retesting. Over time some theories become stronger and stronger, others weaker, and others are superceded by stronger theories. So, you never really "live happily ever after" per se.


Remember, Science is not the only way to learn about your environment. It is one (and only one) branch of Philosophy, and limited, just as any other branch of Philosophy.

Many other branches of philosophy do not deal with learning about your environment or epistemology. Other philosophies that DO deal with this in another way than the scientific method have never been verified as begin a legitimate source of knowledge. So, not all philosophies are equal. The scientific method is the ONLY method for obtaining knwledge which can show accuracy to a degree far greater than random chance. Other methods remain simply folklore wrapped in philosophic lingo. That's why we don't have "mystic centers" all over the country, funded by billions of tax dollars, and making discoveries for the advancement of human beings. The mystics remain pretty much on their own and have been saying the same things for thousands of years - none of which have affected humanity's ability to control it's environment (for better or worse) anywhere near as reliably as science. This efficacy is proof that science is a good method for obtaining knowledge. If any other methods worked as well then they might have an argument to make. So far, ALL other methods fail miserably at obtaining facts.

Other branches of philosophy may be great at giving us insights into living a good life, ethics, and self improvement, but as far as gathering new information about our environment - they must all fall into, within, and in-line with scientific consensus on these matters or else they are utterly useless (not to mention "looney").

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
...The mystics remain pretty much on their own and have been saying the same things for thousands of years - none of which have affected humanity's ability to control it's environment (for better or worse) anywhere near as reliably as science. This efficacy is proof that science is a good method for obtaining knowledge. If any other methods worked as well then they might have an argument to make. So far, ALL other methods fail miserably at obtaining facts.

Other branches of philosophy may be great at giving us insights into living a good life, ethics, and self improvement, but as far as gathering new information about our environment - they must all fall into, within, and in-line with scientific consensus on these matters or else they are utterly useless (not to mention "looney").

So might I conclude that -- with regard to functionality to the human race ...and despite your nod to ontology -- your position is that science is the "wheat" and philosophy the "chaff"?

Also, do you make a distinction between mysticism and metaphysics?

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So might I conclude that -- with regard to functionality to the human race ...and despite your nod to ontology -- your position is that science is the "wheat" and philosophy the "chaff"?

Also, do you make a distinction between mysticism and metaphysics?

No I wouldn't say that at all. I love philosophy and plan to get a PhD in it in the future. I think philosophy is hugely important to humanity and would love to see it back in its proper place as a "way of life" and not merely something you study in college.

But in order for philosophy to be useful to humans TODAY, it needs to be MODERN philosophy. Most people that say they like philosophy and talk about it a lot, merely rephrase plato, kant, or what have you. The are stuck on the language, phrases, and conclusions of ANCIENT philosophy. This would be like trying to teach a doctor with nothing more than Leonardo de vinci drawings.

A living philosophy must be relevant to its time. It must be capable of generating NEW insights and further understanding. To do so, modern philosophy must take into account and be build upon the basis of currently understood science. Philosophy is more flexible and far reaching than science, but it is meaningless if it contradicts it. To be a source of meaning, it must be true - and it has little hope of being true if it ignores or, worse, conflicts with the physical facts established by science. Therefore, a philosopher without a good working knowledge of physics, biology, and cosmology (at the least) is useless to the world.

Socrates would agree with this I believe. When you read the dialogues of Plato, you will find that Socrates relies heavily on the understanding of the physical properties of the world, as they were understood at the time. The philosophic arguments he made were in large part directed and based upon those understandings. In the time since him, many of the physical facts he relied on have been shown to be incorrect. When you follow his line of reasoning at reaching various PHILOSOPHIC conclusions, and you imagine what direction he would have gone, had he known this or that physical fact was different than he stated, you can easily see that he would have arrived at a different philosophic conclusion, had he more accurate scientific data. And that's as it should be. Socrates pulled into our world in a time machine would undoubtedly change many of his conclusions in the light of new scientific data, which he so faithfully followed in his time.

Modern philosophers should do the same. Their philosophy should fit within modern understanding, but also add to it by bringing forth new insights on how to cope in the modern world and how we are to live, as opposed to competing with science by awkwardly claiming to have facts they can't prove. Instead, what I see mostly on boards such as these is a "dogmatization" of ancient philosophers, an insistance on using outdated modes of speech and perspective just to show off how much they've read, a refusal to learn about or speak in scientific terms where relevant, and a rivalry attitude concerning philosophy and science. People have turned philosophy into a fuzzy, poetry-like endeavor so they can sit around talking like someone who lived thousands of years ago, feeling good about their "deep thoughts". And when you bring up relevant scientific concepts they all look at you like you've farted at their tea party.

Now, with respect to mystics...

I use "mystic" an a generic term, for lack of a better word. By this I mean people who believe in the supernatural, paranormal, and/or proclaim other means of obtaining FACTS about reality other than the scientific method. So, this includes a lot of mainstream religious people, new agers, wiccans, scientologists, self-proclaimed psychics and mediums and SOME who claim that things like meditation and accupuncture have mystical, paranormal, or supernatural elements beyond the physical going on. Basically - anyone who's not a "logical positivist" skeptic with a naturalistic worldview.

Having defined them, I should say that some mystics MAY turn out to be right. But they'll need to prove their claims to me before I accept them, and the burden of proof is on those making the claims.

Metaphysics includes mystical stuff, but may also include questions of finding ultimate meaning in life, value systems, ethics, and all sorts of other immaterial yet NOT supernatural/paranormal concepts. So, I don't poopoo all metaphysics - just mystical claims to knowledge.

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
No I wouldn't say that at all. I love philosophy and plan to get a PhD in it in the future. I think philosophy is hugely important to humanity and would love to see it back in its proper place as a "way of life" and not merely something you study in college.

But in order for philosophy to be useful to humans TODAY, it needs to be MODERN philosophy. Most people that say they like philosophy and talk about it a lot, merely rephrase plato, kant, or what have you. The are stuck on the language, phrases, and conclusions of ANCIENT philosophy. This would be like trying to teach a doctor with nothing more than Leonardo de vinci drawings.

A living philosophy must be relevant to its time. It must be capable of generating NEW insights and further understanding. To do so, modern philosophy must take into account and be build upon the basis of currently understood science. Philosophy is more flexible and far reaching than science, but it is meaningless if it contradicts it. To be a source of meaning, it must be true - and it has little hope of being true if it ignores or, worse, conflicts with the physical facts established by science. Therefore, a philosopher without a good working knowledge of physics, biology, and cosmology (at the least) is useless to the world.

Socrates would agree with this I believe. When you read the dialogues of Plato, you will find that Socrates relies heavily on the understanding of the physical properties of the world, as they were understood at the time. The philosophic arguments he made were in large part directed and based upon those understandings. In the time since him, many of the physical facts he relied on have been shown to be incorrect. When you follow his line of reasoning at reaching various PHILOSOPHIC conclusions, and you imagine what direction he would have gone, had he known this or that physical fact was different than he stated, you can easily see that he would have arrived at a different philosophic conclusion, had he more accurate scientific data. And that's as it should be. Socrates pulled into our world in a time machine would undoubtedly change many of his conclusions in the light of new scientific data, which he so faithfully followed in his time.

Modern philosophers should do the same. Their philosophy should fit within modern understanding, but also add to it by bringing forth new insights on how to cope in the modern world and how we are to live, as opposed to competing with science by awkwardly claiming to have facts they can't prove. Instead, what I see mostly on boards such as these is a "dogmatization" of ancient philosophers, an insistance on using outdated modes of speech and perspective just to show off how much they've read, a refusal to learn about or speak in scientific terms where relevant, and a rivalry attitude concerning philosophy and science. People have turned philosophy into a fuzzy, poetry-like endeavor so they can sit around talking like someone who lived thousands of years ago, feeling good about their "deep thoughts". And when you bring up relevant scientific concepts they all look at you like you've farted at their tea party.
Exactly right with regard to those of "us" who seem stuck in the past and unconnected to the present. But it seems that, now and again, you may be lumping many of "us" into that category when, in fact, we are very much interested in -- and drawing from -- current theories, especially in physics and cosmology.

Many of us are "hungry" for information we can "chew" ...and we regret that we must have it "regurgitated" by those with "teeth" that are specialized for the task.

For the purpose of defining my terms-- anticipating future dialogue with you and others -- I like to call science-types and math-heads "left-brainers", and intuitive types that generate endless abstractions as "right-brainers."

Left-brainers observe/study/test the "dots" ...right-brainers connect them.

Now this is not to say that left-brainers cannot be intuitive, abstraction generators who pull ideas together. And it is not to say that right-brainers can't comprehend the complexities and subtleties of science. I'm simply saying that we each have our own ways of doing, thinking and making a contribution.

You, Tiberius, are apparently (from the few things I've read) a well-balanced mix of right-brain/left-brain capacities. And there are others on these threads who seem to be similarly endowed.

Does this mean the rest of us should just pack up our brains and go home?

If my thinking, over the years, has brought me to the speculation that the Universe is conscious, why does this make me a "mystic"?

Per "The American Heritage Dictionary": MYSTIC: Pertaining to religious mysteries or occult rites and practices. MYSTICISM: A spiritual discipline aiming at direct union or communion with ultimate reality or God through deep medication or trancelike contemplation. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directy accessible by subjective experience, such as intuition.

While I don't mind being associated with the last sentence, I do not like being called a "mystic" -- or being lumped together with people who ARE "mystics" -- because it is a "loaded word" that does not convey who I am.

Likewise, METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) and, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (my cap.) (cosmology). Or, METAPHPYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.

As you see, these are perfectly respectable pre-occupations. However, the words again are "loaded" and thus, I'd never say I'm "into metaphysics".

Nor do I call myself a "philosopher" for the very reasons you described above.

Recently, I was offered the word "Panpsycist" which, if I've got to be labeled, is the term most acceptable to ME. Panpsychism proposes that consciousness "resides" in everything that is, from elementary particles through large systems like stars, galaxies and the Universe Itself...that consciousness is a FUNDAMENTAL INGREDIENT of the Universe.

Perhaps -- my formidable friend -- you cannot go so far as to accept that. However, I think you'll have to agree that the Universe has consciousness "in" It ...thereby rendering INCOMPLETE any cosmological theory that does NOT include the nature and evolution of consciousness.

...and that right-brain musings are not always coming from "left-field".[;)]

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
[B]Exactly right with regard to those of "us" who seem stuck in the past and unconnected to the present. But it seems that, now and again, you may be lumping many of "us" into that category when, in fact, we are very much interested in -- and drawing from -- current theories, especially in physics and cosmology.
[quote]

If that is the case, then I don't mean to do so, as this would be ok by me :)

[quote]
Many of us are "hungry" for information we can "chew" ...and we regret that we must have it "regurgitated" by those with "teeth" that are specialized for the task.


Yes, I would prefer everyone have their own teeth, but unfortunately I doubt human nature would ever allow us to see large societies with anything more than a minority of "teethed" people.


For the purpose of defining my terms-- anticipating future dialogue with you and others -- I like to call science-types and math-heads "left-brainers", and intuitive types that generate endless abstractions as "right-brainers."

Left-brainers observe/study/test the "dots" ...right-brainers connect them.


Sounds ok to me. But, using your terminologies here, what I am referring to are those who venture to connect the dots without even bothering to find out what dots are already known and where they are. Instead, they are making pictures and ignoring the dots. When you bring up the dots, they get mad because you're interfereing with their "connection lines".


You, Tiberius, are apparently (from the few things I've read) a well-balanced mix of right-brain/left-brain capacities. And there are others on these threads who seem to be similarly endowed.


Thanks. With my interest in science and natualistic worldview, many are suprised to find out that I am an artist with a love of philosophy.


Does this mean the rest of us should just pack up our brains and go home?


Not at all. But it does mean that philosophy should be made to be compatible with the current scientific understanding to be useful and relevant. Lots of people have very good brains, but that doesn't do much good if they are unwilling to spend the time to learn general science or are unwilling to accept it when you tell them there's a dot they should be drawing their lines between instead of going off in some other direction. Such people often say things like, "man can't explain" and then procede to outline some issue that HAS been explained or partially explained but much more than they realize.

I'm no expert on science, but some don't even have the basics covered and they're jumping right into "edge-of-knowledge" speculation. Normally that's fine, as long as you're really at the edge and not just at your own personal edge. It's like Columbus exploring Spain and getting mad at the locals for telling him they've been living there a while.


If my thinking, over the years, has brought me to the speculation that the Universe is conscious, why does this make me a "mystic"?

Per "The American Heritage Dictionary": MYSTIC: Pertaining to religious mysteries or occult rites and practices. MYSTICISM: A spiritual discipline aiming at direct union or communion with ultimate reality or God through deep medication or trancelike contemplation. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directy accessible by subjective experience, such as intuition.

While I don't mind being associated with the last sentence, I do not like being called a "mystic" -- or being lumped together with people who ARE "mystics" -- because it is a "loaded word" that does not convey who I am.


As I said, I'm using "mystic" for lack of a better word. I don't really care what words are used, as long as the concepts are getting communicated. It's not important that we agree on the "right" word for a meaning - it's only important that we both know what the OTHER means when THEY use the word. If you've got a suggestion for a word that would apply to you, as well as the others in the group I described, that's ok with me.


Likewise, METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) and, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (my cap.) (cosmology). Or, METAPHPYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.

As you see, these are perfectly respectable pre-occupations. However, the words again are "loaded" and thus, I'd never say I'm "into metaphysics".

Nor do I call myself a "philosopher" for the very reasons you described above.


Nearly all words that have been around for a while that describe complex issues have similar baggage. Which is why I'm not interested in symantic debates - just so long as we understand each other (and unfortunately theirs a constant pull in philosophy trying to drag us into that dark bottomless pit!).


Recently, I was offered the word "Panpsycist" which, if I've got to be labeled, is the term most acceptable to ME. Panpsychism proposes that consciousness "resides" in everything that is, from elementary particles through large systems like stars, galaxies and the Universe Itself...that consciousness is a FUNDAMENTAL INGREDIENT of the Universe.

Perhaps -- my formidable friend -- you cannot go so far as to accept that. However, I think you'll have to agree that the Universe has consciousness "in" It ...thereby rendering INCOMPLETE any cosmological theory that does NOT include the nature and evolution of consciousness.

...and that right-brain musings are not always coming from "left-field".[;)]

A lot of new words come about, not because they are really needed, but just because people don't like the baggage and connotation that's been attached to them over time. This is the same reason the word "agnostic" and "nontheist" was invented. Oh well. :)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Well, after step 5 you don't stop. You keep testing and retesting. Over time some theories become stronger and stronger, others weaker, and others are superceded by stronger theories. So, you never really "live happily ever after" per se.


Good point.


Many other branches of philosophy do not deal with learning about your environment or epistemology. Other philosophies that DO deal with this in another way than the scientific method have never been verified as begin a legitimate source of knowledge. So, not all philosophies are equal. The scientific method is the ONLY method for obtaining knwledge which can show accuracy to a degree far greater than random chance.


Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you, on a Logical basis. Inductive Logic is incomplete, and Science is based on Inductive Logic.