Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Dr.Yes]

Dr. Yes, I find you discussion very interesting. Your texts are touching an angle that many people tend to ignore: 'Inter-disciplinary Definitition of terms of reality'. Your last posting raises two fundamental questions:

(1) Is every discipline's definition of a given term of reality as good as any?

(2) Should every discipline be content with its own definition and altogether steer clear of other disciplines? What goes on elswhere is not my stew!

Ask me whether I know the answers to these questions and I would immediately reply :"your guess is as good as mine!". Yes, I don't know the answers, yet these are serious unavoidable questions that must be confronted head on with utmost rigour and honesty. I find it difficult to disagree with those who stay content with definitions of these terms in their respective disciplines. Do you contemplate or see otherwise?

The word definition:

A definition of 'definition'

Suppose we have decided to define a certain word or a concept associated with that word. Suppose also that we have identified which sense of the word we are interested in, and we have noted clear cases, some unclear cases, and some borderline cases of the application of the word. The question then is: how can this word be defined? What is desired here is a description of the intension of the word: that is, an account of the set of properties that characterizes all and only members of the extension. In that case, it seems the following is a serviceable account of the meaning of '(intensional) definition':

The definition of a concept, or of (a given sense of) a word or phrase, is a description of its intension--that is, the set of properties that characterizes all and only members of the extension of the word; the extension is all the things that the concept, word, or phrase applies to.


Some philosophers have criticisms of this sort of definition of the word 'definition'; or perhaps it would be better to say that some philosophers think that it is, for various reasons, impossible to give exhaustively exact definitions of most concepts, words, and phrases. Two prominent critics are Wittgenstein and Quine. Still most philosophers still acknowledge that in philosophy something similar to giving definitions of important philosophical concepts is necessary.
[edit]


Quote

Nothing is more usual than for philosophers to encroach on the province of grammarians, and to engage in disputes of words, while they imagine they are handling controversies of the deepest importance and concern. — David Hume

I'll have to leave you with this for now... I'd like to continue my interpretation later.

 

[Dr.Yes]

(1) Is every discipline's definition of a given term of reality as good as any?

(2) Should every discipline be content with its own definition and altogether steer clear of other disciplines? What goes on elswhere is not my stew!

(3) I find it difficult to disagree with those who stay content with definitions of these terms in their respective disciplines. Do you contemplate or see otherwise?

1) It would be best if each definition of a word were universal and any dialectic useage remained as a regional use or one of novelty and for research purposes. Otherwise its a lot of unecessary work to communicate properly and that kind of work leads away from the goal of most discussions.

I realize there are a myraid of components that can belong to just one word. As the on-line dictionary I quoted points out, the definition of a word must, by all means and costs, be defined by both the origin of the word and the roots of the word that lay outside of a single, use of the word. I haven't quoted it properly here. It is a daunting task to arrive at a quorum with respect to the definitive definition of a word. But it can be done.

2)"What goes on elsewhere is not my stew"? There's an ethical law here that is eluding me. On one hand there is a group of people incorrectly defining a word like "Aspertame" and thinking the definition is that aspertame is better than sugar. There is the uninvited but ethical intervention where you tell them the true definition of aspertame (as described by research doctors around the world regarding neurotoxic effects etc...). The people using aspertaime haven't asked for help or questioned its definition because their ignorance of the substance and associated dangers keeps them from doing so.

Adhering to Ethical Laws ensures less expenditure of energy, over time, in every case. The person who uses the faulty definition of a substance and ends up in the hospital or a mental health facility or on the street will end up causing the overall society to spend more of its energy or resources because of an unethical choice concerning the proper definition of a word. A small minority (usually the perpetrators using a fraudulent definition of a word to reap a profit) will profit from the lack of a definition but, in the long run, there results a catastrophic expenditure of energy and the perp is rendered ineffective by way ethical/physical laws. (I maintain that ethics is a part of "pure physics" and can be used to explain why certain physical events take place but... perhaps not why "everything" takes place.

3) Its only when people ask for your help with definitions that you can, in someway, influence a more cohesive understanding of a word or definition.

Thank you!

NB: Furthermore to define something means to make it more visable and/or discernable as in easier to see or understand. There are some words that have remained simple to define like "tree" or "cut" and so on... and there are other, more widely adopted, popularized and commercialized words that have lost all definition... such as "love" or "god".

 

[Philocrat]

1) It would be best if each definition of a word were universal and any dialectic useage remained as a regional use or one of novelty and for research purposes. Otherwise its a lot of unecessary work to communicate properly and that kind of work leads away from the goal of most discussions.

I realize there are a myraid of components that can belong to just one word. As the on-line dictionary I quoted points out, the definition of a word must, by all means and costs, be defined by both the origin of the word and the roots of the word that lay outside of a single, use of the word. I haven't quoted it properly here. It is a daunting task to arrive at a quorum with respect to the definitive definition of a word. But it can be done.

2)"What goes on elsewhere is not my stew"? There's an ethical law here that is eluding me. On one hand there is a group of people incorrectly defining a word like "Aspertame" and thinking the definition is that aspertame is better than sugar. There is the uninvited but ethical intervention where you tell them the true definition of aspertame (as described by research doctors around the world regarding neurotoxic effects etc...). The people using aspertaime haven't asked for help or questioned its definition because their ignorance of the substance and associated dangers keeps them from doing so.

Adhering to Ethical Laws ensures less expenditure of energy, over time, in every case. The person who uses the faulty definition of a substance and ends up in the hospital or a mental health facility or on the street will end up causing the overall society to spend more of its energy or resources because of an unethical choice concerning the proper definition of a word. A small minority (usually the perpetrators using a fraudulent definition of a word to reap a profit) will profit from the lack of a definition but, in the long run, there results a catastrophic expenditure of energy and the perp is rendered ineffective by way ethical/physical laws. (I maintain that ethics is a part of "pure physics" and can be used to explain why certain physical events take place but... perhaps not why "everything" takes place.

3) Its only when people ask for your help with definitions that you can, in someway, influence a more cohesive understanding of a word or definition.

Thank you!

NB: Furthermore to define something means to make it more visable and/or discernable as in easier to see or understand. There are some words that have remained simple to define like "tree" or "cut" and so on... and there are other, more widely adopted, popularized and commercialized words that have lost all definition... such as "love" or "god".

Dr. Yes, your assessment has as several aspects:

GENUINE IGNORANCE & DEFINITION

Defining something and being satisfied with it even where we are totally ignorant of its underlying implications. In philosophy this is very problematic as it affects many disciplines, including epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, philosophy of language, philoso[hy of science, logic etc. Many philosophers, espicially the so-called analytical philosophers have drawn our attention time and time again to this problem. A typical example of this is Peter Strawsons' Presuppositions (making propsitions that are epistemologically packed or loaded with underlying presupposed meanings or definitions.) Consider, for example, such terms as:

a) I do not exist!
b) Nothing exists!
c) I am dead!
d) Have you stopped beating your wife?

Now, just consider all other underlying propositions that these terms may imply or presuppose.

Ok, what about other singular terms such as:

1) Something?
2) Nothing?
3) Matter?
4) Mind?
5) Person?
6) God?
7) Unicorn?
8) Pegasus?

How do you satisfactorily define these terms - a multi-disciplinarily acceptable definition for that matter?

MORALITY & DEFINITION

It is currently not clear whether science as a whole is PRODUCTIVE and PROGRESSIVE. If it is, the standard assumption should be that all moral statements are reducible to scientific statements and vice versa. The current problem is to assume that morality can be defined in isolation from science. This is not only metaphysically wrong, but also epistemologically, quantitativelly and logically wrong. It is just not possible. For the very seat of morality is the very thing or being that we force it upon. While it is not a bad thing for the moralist to define and enact moral laws, it is equally of utmost importance (and infact unvoidable) that science must reconcile such laws with its own fundamental laws.

REDUCTIONISM & INFINIT REGRESS

The project of reducing a given term of reality from one scale of reference to the next is substantially regressive in scope and in substance. Up or down the reductive scale, things just get either ever bigger or ever smaller ad infinituum! It is not clear whether the definition of a given term of reality in each scale of reference is epistemologically sufficient. Is the knowledge that we obtain from the definition of a given term of reality within each reductive scale of reference sufficient?

 

[Dr.Yes]

Is the knowledge that we obtain from the definition of a given term of reality within each reductive scale of reference sufficient?

Only if we've done our research really well!

This would include updates "ad infinitum" as you say.

Nice exposé Philocrat. I'd say a large percentage of discussions, perhaps as high as 98%, cannot come to an agreement or a conclusion or a solution because of the scandalously wreckless use of words that have been defined only by threads of information picked out of hearsay and gossip by the discussion's participants.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Did some recent finding invalidate Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

I just saw this.

Goedel's theorem is valid but you have to be very careful about what it actually says. It is about formal systems that have in them the proof of arithmetic, including all the theorems of number theory. Necessarily such formal systems will include universal quantifiers (for all x in whatever, Y is true of x), Existential quantifiers (there exists an x in whatever for which Y is true), and mathematical induction (if Y is true for some integer n0, and whenever Y is true of an integer n it is also true of the successor of n, then Y is true for all n > n0). Indeed Goedel's proof uses the existence of these functions to construct his numbering scheme which is at the heart of his proof.

There are logical systems which do not use these functions, and Goedel's theorem does not apply to them. Tarski showed that the quantifiers can be eliminated from geometical proofs and mathematical induction is not used in them anyway. So geometry and measure theory are not affected by Goedel's theorem or its extensions. Roughly, formal systems of digital processes are goedelable, but formal systems of analog processes are not.

 

[zelldot]

Physics alone cannot create a guide to everything, physics was created by humans, and humans can only see from a humans point of view, can physics tell us why we are able to walk into an empty room after an argument and feel tense without knowing the argument ever happened only to find out later on, or why some people are able to tell something bad is going to happen just before they do? The human race is not yet open minded enough to take in the fact that there maybe more than just atoms and energy. i like to think of things on many layers, the same universe but different dimentions, think of it like this, when you see a map in a game there are different ways of viewing the map, wireframe, solid, textured and so on.

 

[Philocrat]

Physics alone cannot create a guide to everything, physics was created by humans, and humans can only see from a humans point of view, can physics tell us why we are able to walk into an empty room after an argument and feel tense without knowing the argument ever happened only to find out later on, or why some people are able to tell something bad is going to happen just before they do?

There are several problems to this observation:

1) THE NEED TO EXPLAIN THINGS SO THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE THEM TO OTHERS IN THE WAY THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND US.

The questions therefore are (a) 'What are the methods of explanations', (a) Do people understand us at all when we explain anything to them?, (c) If they do at all, how much of what we pupport to explain do they understand (what is the percentage)?, and (d) Ultemately, what is the purpose of Communication, if any? Some people, without much thought may give very simple and staightforward answers to these questions, possibly claiming that we do manage to explain enough for us to understand each other, even in the presence of occasional errors and deviations in scope and in substance. But philosophy thinks and presumes otherwise: that either we explain and understand absolutely nothing or what we pupport to explain and understand are substantially vague. So, you can quite rightly say that 'VAGUENESS' is what keeps philosophy in business. The whole notion of philosophy is to explain things in the clearest and consistent way possible. But is this really the case?

2) THE NOTION OF EXPLANATION, EXPLAINER AND SELF-EXPLANATION

Serious question arises as to whether the explainer can explain both other things and his or herself, given that the explainer did not give rise to him or herself. If you neither create youself nor anyting else in the world, how could you possibly explain anything, let alone yourself? Is there a bootstrap mechanism in the universal process that permits this to happen? The standard philosophical headache is that if I created myself or anything else, then I should have in my possession some sort of blue-print or master-plan of the entire process. Or should I not? That is, self-created entities can explain themselves and everything else that they are responssible for. It is therefore not clear whether things or beings that are ignorant of their origins can self-explain!

The human race is not yet open minded enough to take in the fact that there maybe more than just atoms and energy. i like to think of things on many layers, the same universe but different dimentions, think of it like this, when you see a map in a game there are different ways of viewing the map, wireframe, solid, textured and so on.

The problem of thinking about/of things in terms of layers is that you are immediately committed to the notion of 'INTER-LAYER EXPLANATION OR REDUCTIONISM? I have already pointed this out above in several places. Not only must you explain things as they are or perceived in each layer but also how they are from one layer to the next up or down the exlplantory or reductive layer. As you may have noticed above, I sometimes refer to this as 'Reductive Scale'. Here I am taking them to be one and the same thing, presumably. Or is it not? So, the biggest problem now is that all the explanations in all these layers must ultemately in the end reconcile both quantitatively and logically, let alone metaphysically!

NOTE: Note that this thread so far tends to suggest that ONLY physics has the last word in everything explainable! Is this correct, given the current resuslt of the related survey? What about inter-disciplinary explanation that your posting and many other postings on this thread tend to point at?

 

[Dr.Yes]

NOTE: Note that this thread so far tends to suggest that ONLY physics has the last word in everything explainable! Is this correct, given the current resuslt of the related survey? What about inter-disciplinary explanation that your posting and many other postings on this thread tend to point at?

All disciplines are disciplines rooted in physics and the physical universe. They study the phenomena created by a physcial universe. The most amorphic topic can be traced to having roots in physics and the physical world. If the topic is truly detached from the physical world then the act of observing the subject is a physical act and firmly rooted in a physicallity.

All topics would benefit greatly through being explained by pure physics.

 

[Castlegate]

NOTE: Note that this thread so far tends to suggest that ONLY physics has the last word in everything explainable! Is this correct, given the current resuslt of the related survey? What about inter-disciplinary explanation that your posting and many other postings on this thread tend to point at?

If the universe is exclusively a physical entity, there is no doubt that it can only be explained by physics (Case closed), and it would seem that most people agree with this. I consider the universe to be entirely conceptual, but there is no room to be heard above the din in a thread full of physics junkies. It is acceptable to make what is termed a physical observation as far as I am concerned. I just mark it as if there were an asterisk by conforming it to a purely conceptual enterprise. Physicality to me is no more than an illusion once the trick be known.

 

[Daminc]

Physicality to me is no more than an illusion once the trick be known.

Why would you think this?

Is it just your gut feeling? A twist of percerption based on a personal philosophy? Or something else?

 

[Philocrat]

All disciplines are disciplines rooted in physics and the physical universe. They study the phenomena created by a physcial universe. The most amorphic topic can be traced to having roots in physics and the physical world. If the topic is truly detached from the physical world then the act of observing the subject is a physical act and firmly rooted in a physicallity.

All topics would benefit greatly through being explained by pure physics.

Yes, Dr. Yes, you'r substantially right, if not wholly so! And many people on this PF would equally agree with you, despite the current controversy over the 'UNEXPLAINABLE REMAINDER' heavily contested and implied on this very thread.

But philosophy has started to ask some very serious metaphysical and epistemological questions about this. Now, here are the problems:

1) NON-ELIMINATIVE REDUCTIONISM

The following staments suggest 'Non-eliminative realism':

(a) Water is H2O
(b) Man is matter

As argued by some philosophers, these reductive statements or propositions are non-elimnative in scope and in substance. This has the logical structure 'A is B'. That is, B does not pre-suppose the elimination of A, even after A has been reduced to B in the propostion.

2) ELIMINATIVE REDUCTIONISM

The following statements or propositions seem to suggest 'Eliminative Realism:

(b) Evil Demons are Viruses or Diseases
(b) Mind is Matter

On the other side of the argument it is argued that these reductive statements are eliminative in scope and in substance. Logically and quantitativelly, 'As are Bs' implies we can reductively do away with 'As', leaving in our reality only Bs. The same is true of 'A is B'. The question now is, why did we epistemologically venture into the notion of 'As' or 'A', when all there is to the human reality is the notion of 'Bs' or 'B'? Are we being metaphysically deceived into this epistemological pitfall? How did we get ourselves into this position in the first place?

NOTE: Note also that the problem with (1) is that it also pushes a prospective truth-tracker into the bottomless pit of Inter-scale or Inter-layer Reductionism that I mentioned in my previous posting above. If as you said 'All topics would benefit greatly through being explained by pure physics', if follows that a prospective truth-tracker must somehow track all the truths of a given term of reality across all layers or scales of reference or explanation. Up or down the pathway, he or she must grasp the language and logic of explanation in each layer or scale as he/she moves from one layer or scale to the next? Should everyone therefore learn physics (or the language of physics) as the last layer of explanation?

 

[Philocrat]

If the universe is exclusively a physical entity, there is no doubt that it can only be explained by physics (Case closed), and it would seem that most people agree with this. I consider the universe to be entirely conceptual, but there is no room to be heard above the din in a thread full of physics junkies. It is acceptable to make what is termed a physical observation as far as I am concerned. I just mark it as if there were an asterisk by conforming it to a purely conceptual enterprise. Physicality to me is no more than an illusion once the trick be known.

What about the notion of 'Essential Propperty or Substance' of a given term or entity of reality?

 

[Dr.Yes]

If the universe is exclusively a physical entity, there is no doubt that it can only be explained by physics (Case closed), and it would seem that most people agree with this. I consider the universe to be entirely conceptual, but there is no room to be heard above the din in a thread full of physics junkies. It is acceptable to make what is termed a physical observation as far as I am concerned. I just mark it as if there were an asterisk by conforming it to a purely conceptual enterprise. Physicality to me is no more than an illusion once the trick be known.

One has to remember that an illusion can only happen if you have a brain. This denotes a binding dependence on the physical as a frame of reference for your illusions. This definition of illusion uses biophysics, physics and common sense in its explanation.

Using pure physics to explain an illusion could very well produce quite a beautiful equasion, as far as equations go.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Yes, Dr. Yes, you'r substantially right, if not wholly so! And many people on this PF would equally agree with you, despite the current controversy over the 'UNEXPLAINABLE REMAINDER' heavily contested and implied on this very thread.

But philosophy has started to ask some very serious metaphysical and epistemological questions about this. Now, here are the problems:

1) NON-ELIMINATIVE REDUCTIONISM

The following staments suggest 'Non-eliminative realism':

(a) Water is H2O
(b) Man is matter

As argued by some philosophers, these reductive statements or propositions are non-elimnative in scope and in substance. This has the logical structure 'A is B'. That is, B does not pre-suppose the elimination of A, even after A has been reduced to B in the propostion.

2) ELIMINATIVE REDUCTIONISM

The following statements or propositions seem to suggest 'Eliminative Realism:

(b) Evil Demons are Viruses or Diseases
(b) Mind is Matter

On the other side of the argument it is argued that these reductive statements are eliminative in scope and in substance. Logically and quantitativelly, 'As are Bs' implies we can reductively do away with 'As', leaving in our reality only Bs. The same is true of 'A is B'. The question now is, why did we epistemologically venture into the notion of 'As' or 'A', when all there is to the human reality is the notion of 'Bs' or 'B'? Are we being metaphysically deceived into this epistemological pitfall? How did we get ourselves into this position in the first place?

NOTE: Note also that the problem with (1) is that it also pushes a prospective truth-tracker into the bottomless pit of Inter-scale or Inter-layer Reductionism that I mentioned in my previous posting above. If as you said 'All topics would benefit greatly through being explained by pure physics', if follows that a prospective truth-tracker must somehow track all the truths of a given term of reality across all layers or scales of reference or explanation. Up or down the pathway, he or she must grasp the language and logic of explanation in each layer or scale as he/she moves from one layer or scale to the next? Should everyone therefore learn physics (or the language of physics) as the last layer of explanation?

The reason I think using physics as a base explanation and reductive definition of all things is because I've seen and heard so many people explain subjects with the "fear of god" or "karma" or "lordy lordy" and other explanations that reek of the hormones of fear and exhaltation etc... the influence of their physiology has clouded their response to the wonders of this universe.

Without physics to use as a reference point, everything really is an illusion and can become whatever one decides it is with whatever reserves of adrenilin or endomorphines, acetecholine, seritonin or dopamines they have that haven't already transformed and left their body through entropy etc...

Physics is simply one aspect from which to view the way things are. "Pure physics" is but one degree on an infinite compass of vantage points from which to study this universe.

When we say Man = Matter... we can also separate this equasion, as is promoted in Fractal Physics and we can look at the components and find an infinite variety of potentials in each of these. Matter has the potential to become "Man" and Man has the potential to fly like a bird and operate a linear accelerator... among many other options.

Anyone stupid enough to consider discarding either of the subjects in an equation suchas "A is B" deserves the loss of the component so that they can appreciate it in its absence.

When its said that "Mind = Matter" its preferable to remember the old addage of "Mind over Matter" because it seems to have happened that the mind can go beyond the perception of matter toward the construct and concept of the amorphic fields.

Whether or not the amorphic fields etc... are just an illusion or not, remains something that may be provable through physics... or perhaps already has been proven... but... let's remember the opposite of reductionist theory when we read these simple words...

..."sum of the parts". Can physics wholey explain this concept? Probably with a very long equasion.

But, most humans can't read really long equations so, will it be a valid explanation if the physicists explain "the sum of the parts" with one... or even two unimaginably long formuli?

 

[Dr.Yes]

If we find the root definition of "explanation" or "explain" we run into problems with the question put forth by this thread.

An adequate explanation requires that the people communicating ideas and explanations are able to understand them. If everything were explained by pure physics I believe that would encompass about .0005 percent of the population of the globe that would "get" the explanation.

 

[Castlegate]

Why would you think this?

Is it just your gut feeling? A twist of percerption based on a personal philosophy? Or something else?

I no longer consider this a gut feeling, although I can't prove that which can't be proven. It can only be accepted through logical procedure.

In the process of inquiry of what the universe is, one takes on as many possibilities as one can conceive, and the possibility that all of reality is conceptually oriented was given its chance to rise or fall on it's own merits. So far I haven't regretted taking this avenue of approach, nor the ride that ensued. I'm still on that path with no major accidents as of yet.

The consideration here is that the universe begins from nothing. and nothing is a concept only. I.E. No physical representation whatsoever. There really is only one road available, that of conceptual reality through geometric representation.

 

[Castlegate]

What about the notion of 'Essential Propperty or Substance' of a given term or entity of reality?

In a conceptual universe no substance is required, a geometric form will do nicely without the need to have something to sink your teeth in.

 

[Dr.Yes]

The consideration here is that the universe begins from nothing. and nothing is a concept only. I.E. No physical representation whatsoever. There really is only one road available, that of conceptual reality through geometric representation.

Geometry thrives on the construct of "nothing". Without "nothing" the "illusion" of the universe would be too crowded to make out any specific geometry. A "cat's cradle" would be impossible to achieve without the concept, construct and existence of "nothing".

Simple parallel lines could not exist without "nothing" contrasting and identifying where a line is and where there is "no line"...ie "no-thing".

 

[Dr.Yes]

The physical world can be explained by physics in terms of how is it here?, when was/is/will it be here? and where can we find it?.

Why is the physical world here? is a question that physics - pure, semi-pure, slightly dirty or down right corrupt, can not answer except to say that:

the physical world is here to support physicists and their claims all over the world... and, no doubt, elsewhere.

(Eyes roll-up) Physicists are in the process of building a physical universe for all of humanity. They're not using hammers and nails but they employ illusionary techniques by spouting equations and ideas about distance and physical property.

Every time a physicist uses their perceptive powers a new law of physics is projected by their drive to out-do Newton and Einstein in halucenogenic, illusionary prowess. They're not observing anything, really, they're projecting biogenetically programed and excreted holograms and they're fooling everyone on the planet. See that hot, round, white thing in the sky? See it move from horizon to horizon? That's really just Akenaten Moses' left-over illusion still stimulating your collective unconsciousness and making you believe there is a sun.

etc...

 

[Castlegate]

Geometry thrives on the construct of "nothing". Without "nothing" the "illusion" of the universe would be too crowded to make out any specific geometry. A "cat's cradle" would be impossible to achieve without the concept, construct and existence of "nothing".

Simple parallel lines could not exist without "nothing" contrasting and identifying where a line is and where there is "no line"...ie "no-thing".

I think you,re missing what I'm trying to get across. Simple lines can exist without the physicality. It is the very nature of a conceptual geometric construct, and it can never get to crowded if the geometries are shared., that's how you can take a trillion galaxies and put them into something the size of a pinhead. There is no upperbound limit on shared geometry in a non-physical conceptual reality.

 

[Dr.Yes]

I think you,re missing what I'm trying to get across. Simple lines can exist without the physicality. It is the very nature of a conceptual geometric construct, and it can never get to crowded if the geometries are shared., that's how you can take a trillion galaxies and put them into something the size of a pinhead. There is no upperbound limit on shared geometry in a non-physical conceptual reality.

That's an interesting view of geometry. I always go off when I see the word "nothing". I'm still arriving at a definitive definition of that word. Don't mind me.

I agree that geometry is a conceptual construct (which [as far as I know] requires an actual physical brain to be aware of it). Geometry is a process or invention that has come into being in a manner similar to how any language might do so. Geometry is used to describe what we think we see or what we have derived from life while being alive, with a brain. Much like any language.

Perhaps what I'm saying is that all explanations of all things can be reduced to pure language(s). Because every discipline concerning the study of every phenomenon has a unique language of its own. Each of these languages is used to convey specific information about what it has discovered from its vantage point in the universe.

The languages of each of all the disciplines at first seem very different from each other. But, each discipline slowly begins to borrow data from the next and the languages progressively begin to meld. Soon you get these explanations of certain phenomena that sound like Creole or Pidgeon because they have a smattering of medical physics, kineticphysics, psyhoanylitics and neurolinguistic terminology. Chheers.

 

[Castlegate]

I agree that geometry is a conceptual construct (which [as far as I know] requires an actual physical brain to be aware of it).

My contention would be that our brains are not physical, nor anything else that exist. We see signs of this in the quantum arena. If we break down a human to fundamental constituents and I do consider that fundamental units do exist, what could possibly be known about them other than conceptual understanding? They will not show signs of any physical existence ... they can't. The fundamental level is the end of the line, and if these fundies can't be understood by any means other than conceptual comprehension, we are forced to accept that the entire panoply is conceptual in nature.

 

[Paul Martin]

The fundamental level is the end of the line, and if these fundies can't be understood by any means other than conceptual comprehension, we are forced to accept that the entire panoply is conceptual in nature.

And,...taking the next step, aren't we forced to accept that there must exist some sort of fundamental mind or consciousness in which these concepts are (were) conceived? After all I don't think concepts can exist apart from their conception, can they?

Paul

 

[Castlegate]

And,...taking the next step, aren't we forced to accept that there must exist some sort of fundamental mind or consciousness in which these concepts are (were) conceived? After all I don't think concepts can exist apart from their conception, can they?

Paul

I would say that the use of the word mind is a bit misleading, as if to say something on the order of contemplation takes place. I would argue that there is a first geometric concept by which it is different from all others in that there are no other concepts by which it can interact. The first concept essentially interacts with itself, and this is the cause by which all other concepts are conceived.

 

[Dr.Yes]

My contention would be that our brains are not physical, nor anything else that exist. We see signs of this in the quantum arena. If we break down a human to fundamental constituents and I do consider that fundamental units do exist, what could possibly be known about them other than conceptual understanding? They will not show signs of any physical existence ... they can't. The fundamental level is the end of the line, and if these fundies can't be understood by any means other than conceptual comprehension, we are forced to accept that the entire panoply is conceptual in nature.

The illusion is an illusion.

In your illusionary world is there anything to compare it to such as "no illusion" or "illusion free zones"?

If the illusion is all there is in that world, with nothing other than illusion to be compared to... the grand illusion singularity... then the illusion must be real or what is often termed "reality".

Furthermore, in this equasion, if/when the illusion is real then it must be true that the many sights and sounds we see and hear every day are real sights and sounds. The sensations from the 5 or six senses we have are real and feelings of hunger and puking are real... if everything is an illusion and its the only game you got going it might as well be real because there's no other option.

 

[Paul Martin]

I would say that the use of the word mind is a bit misleading,

I agree. And I would say that all other words we use are also a bit misleading, 'mind' being no moreso.

as if to say something on the order of contemplation takes place.

I would say that something on the order of contemplation definitely takes place any time a concept is conceived or pondered. If you consider a concept is still a concept after it has been reduced to language and written, say, on paper, then in those cases concepts might exist apart from contemplation. But to be conceived in the first place, or to be thought about, some kind of contemplative capability is necessary.

I would argue that there is a first geometric concept by which it is different from all others in that there are no other concepts by which it can interact.

I think that's a good guess. I would suggest that another possibility for the first concept might be audible rather than visual or tactile like geometric concepts. That way, the very beginning, as I think Pythagoras suggested, might have been music, starting with basic clicks, and progressing to tones, rhythms, melodies, harmonies, etc. In any case, I agree with you that whatever it was, the beginning of physical reality was nothing but concepts.

The first concept essentially interacts with itself, and this is the cause by which all other concepts are conceived.

I think there are only two ways in which concepts can interact. One is within that contemplative mind we talked about, in which the thinker (i.e. the owner/operator of the mind) imagines the concepts to interact. The other is if the concepts are rendered into something permanent like a physical structure (the paper I mentioned earlier) and the phsical embodiments of the concepts interact physically, e.g. balls rolling down a plane in a gravitational field.

What I am trying to say is that I don't see how the first concept can interact with itself. I think it requires a mind to do the interaction or it requires some kind of implementation which in turn requres a mind to pull off.

Those are just my humble opinions.

Paul

 

[Castlegate]

In your illusionary world is there anything to compare it to such as "no illusion" or "illusion free zones"?

I would say that most people, and not necessarily the scientific community would use something like a rock up against air, or matter to space as a means by which we percieve or indentify that which exist. In a purely conceptual universe I would describe a fundamental conceptual unit like this - Consider a balloon and for the sake of discussion consider that there is nothing within the balloon and nothing outside it. The material of the balloon isn't a material at all, and has no thickness. It is the concept (thought). For comparison sake the balloon is the same as (one) up against (nothing), and this is the means by which identity is understood for all things big and small that exist. What makes anyone thing different from any other thing is the form of the concept.

If the illusion is all there is in that world, with nothing other than illusion to be compared to... the grand illusion singularity... then the illusion must be real or what is often termed "reality".

The only reality in this world is the Reality of Non-Existence (Remember this world of mine comes from nothing). The balloon (concept) or otherwise known as a conceptual geometric amounts to in some other words (A thought of (one) nothing). These geometries (thoughts) are in effect conscious to the extent of what they are, and act in accordance with universal laws.

Furthermore, in this equasion, if/when the illusion is real then it must be true that the many sights and sounds we see and hear every day are real sights and sounds. The sensations from the 5 or six senses we have are real and feelings of hunger and puking are real... if everything is an illusion and its the only game you got going it might as well be real because there's no other option.

Your senses are quite real and in my opinion conceptually real. I just can't buy the hammering of the nail analogy to reality anymore. Rather than things banging into each other ... I prefer to think of things acting on one another to whatever effect.

 

[Dr.Yes]

I would say that most people, and not necessarily the scientific community would use something like a rock up against air, or matter to space as a means by which we percieve or indentify that which exist. In a purely conceptual universe I would describe a fundamental conceptual unit like this - Consider a balloon and for the sake of discussion consider that there is nothing within the balloon and nothing outside it. The material of the balloon isn't a material at all, and has no thickness. It is the concept (thought). For comparison sake the balloon is the same as (one) up against (nothing), and this is the means by which identity is understood for all things big and small that exist. What makes anyone thing different from any other thing is the form of the concept.

Using the words "concept" and "thought" like they were a universally occurring phenomena is confusing to me (there are places where thoughts do not exist). One requires the "illusion" of a brain to generate them. I believe your reasoning is in reverse where you have to use physical examples to explain the "illusion" of your reality.

I'll agree that... as the universe evolves, expands, slows in its expansion or whatever, our brain must make adjustments to the changes in its environment... in order to maintain a brief survival.

The only reality in this world is the Reality of Non-Existence (Remember this world of mine comes from nothing). The balloon (concept) or otherwise known as a conceptual geometric amounts to in some other words (A thought of (one) nothing). These geometries (thoughts) are in effect conscious to the extent of what they are, and act in accordance with universal laws.

First the illusion of everything is a reality... now the illusion of nothing is a reality. Through all of this illusion, thoughts happen by themselves, with no physical brain generating them.

I beg to differ. Our brain adapts to the congruencies and consistencies it derives from the surrounding, very real, physical environment. Adaptation is a result of the interaction between a physical brain and its physical environment... no "banging of heads". "Geometry" is simply another language (like physics, math, Hungarian and carpentry etc...) by which our brain describes its environment to itself and others. Our many languages are simply our derived explanation of observed interactions and juxtoppositions. We are rarely correct in our observations because everything keeps changing. (ie: change = universal law)

Your senses are quite real and in my opinion conceptually real. I just can't buy the hammering of the nail analogy to reality anymore. Rather than things banging into each other ... I prefer to think of things acting on one another to whatever effect.

The way things influence one another bespeaks of the nature of physcial reality... that there is separation that there are separate elements.

Quantum reality, as simultaneious as it may be, acts similarily where there is influence from various regions but, the influences are simultanieous and are non-local. By region I mean within each element exists all other elements and they are all influencing one another... at the same time. Otherwise, the universe would pop in an explosion of disunity and disonance! Its like having dual carbs on a motor. If they're not properly scoped and in sync, the motor becomes disfunctional and quits, quickly.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Definitions of illusion (need I say more?):

* an erroneous mental representation
* something many people believe that is false; "they have the illusion that I am very wealthy"
* delusion: the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas
* magic trick: an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* An illusion is a distortion of a sensory perception. Each of the human senses can be deceived by illusions, but visual illusions are the most well known. Some illusions are subjective; different people may experience an illusion differently, or not at all.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion
* An illusion is something that tricks your eyes. impact crater Impact craters are the remains of collisions between an asteroid or meteorite and the Earth. imp An imp is a mischievous child. impala The impala is a high-jumping, lightly-built antelope from southern Africa. in The bird is in the cage.
www.enchantedlearning.com/Iisfor.shtml
* Fibre: Silk. Weave: Gauze or made on bobbinet machine or knotted. Characteristics: A very fine, all-silk tulle which originated in France. It has a cobweb appearance. Hexagonal open mesh. Made in 52 inch and 72 inch widths. Uses: Veilings, particularly for weddings, trimmings. Back To Top
www.ntgi.net/ICCF&D/silk.htm[/URL]
* In Occultism everything finite (such as the Universe and all in it) is called Illusion or Maya.
[url]www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-glo2.htm[/url]
* A perception, as of visual stimuli, that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality. Elizabeth has the illusion that Zeely is a Watutsi queen. See the excerpts from Hamilton's article on "Illusion and Reality."
theliterarylink.com/definitions.html
* A gown with a yoke of sheer net and an often ornately decorated satin band, fitting snugly on the neck creating a choker effect.
[PLAIN]www.weddingchannel.com/ui/buildArticle.action[/URL]
* The deceit of the bodily eye by false or unreal appearances, or the mental eye by false prospects, statements; something that deceives or deludes by producing a false impression; an inaccurate perception, misinterpretation of sensory impressions; in memory, a subjective falsification by addition, omission or substitution in recall of a past experience; a fixed illusion is a delusion; the misrepresentation of reality by individuals or personalities.
miriams-well.org/Glossary/
* presentation of a false or misleading idea, as in: The magician gave the illusion of sawing the woman in half.
[url]www.business-words.com/dictionary/E.html[/url]
* the experience resulting from negative polarity imbalance. A fragmented experience of reality which is based on duality and separation.
[PLAIN]www.synchronicity.org/Glossaryp.html[/URL]
* a misinterpreted perception that is caused by mistaking something present for something it is not. Illusions commonly occur with information that is seen or heard. For example, a common illusion is misinterpreting the noise made by wind for a voice. By contrast, a hallucination is a strong sensory perception that one has of an object or event while awake, when no such object or event exists. Whereas illusions involve misperceptions, hallucinations do not. Thus, an example of a hallucination would be hearing voices that are not really there and are not misinterpretation of the wind or any other noises.
[PLAIN]www.dbs-stn.org/glossary2.asp[/URL]
* A Very Fine Sheer Fabric Usually Of Nylon Or Silk.
[url]www.justsaywhen.com/Vintage-101-Glossary.htm[/url]
* A misperception or misinterpretation of a real external stimulus, such as hearing the rustling of leaves as the sound of voices. See also hallucination.
suicideandmentalhealthassociationinternational.org/mhglossary2.html
* modified or wrong interpretation of the outer world, which the individual accepts as reality; it may affect one or more senses
library.thinkquest.org/C0115926/glosary.htm
* An (intentional or unintentional) element of an entity only present as a perception by an observer.
ceh.kitoba.com/glossary.html
* Everything finite (like the Universe and all in it) is called Illusion or Maya. All that which is subject to change through decay and death, and which therefore has a beginning and an end, is regarded as illusion. That alone which is Changeless and Eternal is called "Reality". Illusion is primarily the characteristic of a distorted attitude of mind.
[PLAIN]www.revelation37.freeserve.co.uk/contents/glossary.htm[/URL]
* A false interpretation of an external sensory stimulus, usually seen or heard, such as a mirage in the desert or voices on the wind.
yourmedicalsource.com/library/schizophrenia/SCH_glossary.html
* 1.)A semi-sheer net-type fabric, Illusion is often used for skirts and in some veils. It may also be called Net or Tulle. 2.) Any style neckline which is covered with chiffon or netting.
www1.bridesave.com/glossary.cfm
* A distorted perception, such as interpreting shadows to be an intruder; common in delirium.
[PLAIN]www.ohiohealth.com/healthreference/reference/DF34B32F-6F85-45E0-8FE85ECACDD48CC0.htm[/URL]
* is a distorted perception of reality.
[url]www.a2zpsychology.com/psychology_guide/mental_illness_terminology.htm[/url]
* something false taken to be true. Usually applied to the difference between being materially identified and spiritually directed. The impermanent or material is considered illusive as it is doomed to change while the management of the form, the spirit resulting from alignment with the soul, and the soul itself is considered eternal as it refers to the invariance of selfawareness and the reality of change, time itself.
[url]www.theorderoftime.com/ned/spiritueel/terms.html[/url]
* An unreal image; A deceptive appearance HOME This site was created by Lisa Marini. Last Modified: May 15, 1997. If there are any problems with this site, or if you have any comments, please send them to: [email]lmarin1@tiger.towson.edu[/email]
[url]www.towson.edu/~sallen/COURSES/SURREAL/STUDENTS/MARINI/Glossary.html[/url]

 

[Castlegate]

the beginning of physical reality was nothing but concepts.

If I can't get you to understand that there is no physical reality ... I can't get you to believe that there is no chance for everything to be explained through physics. The idea that I'm trying to get acrosss is that the fundamental building blocks that make the universe what it is, are nothing more than conceptual geometric forms. These fundamental units are more than capable of the universe we see today. The premise here is to make a universe from nothing, without some form of magic act. A universe made of something other than nothing constitutes a magic act from my perspective. The only concievable way to make a universe from nothing that I can tell of, is by conceptual means. Fundamental conceptual geometric forms of nothing are more than adequate to serve as building blocks for anything within this universe. We can come to understanding of this grist mill through observation of the interactions.

I think there are only two ways in which concepts can interact.

I'd be more interested in what you think a thought is.

I consider this postulate in regards to anything that exist.

{All that exist must have form}

Since I cannot deny the existence of thought ... I (must) assume it has form. Can you tell me your idea of what form thought takes?

 

[Castlegate]

I believe your reasoning is in reverse where you have to use physical examples to explain the "illusion" of your reality.

The use of a balloon to explain a fundamental conceptual unit was only to coax you to the form of it. You can note that the balloon is removed, whereby only the form is left. This is a Non-physical entity I'm trying to explain, hence it can't be interacted with by physical means. Interaction between two fundamental conceptual units must occur by conceptual means, such as yes verses no, or positive verses negative. If for instance a fundamental geometrical unit is positive within the form, and negative exterior of it, we can come to an understanding of possible interactions.

First the illusion of everything is a reality... now the illusion of nothing is a reality.

My first post I believe stated that the illusion was that the world was physical. Nothing is not an illusion to me, it comes to you in forms, otherwise known as The Reality Of Non-Existence. It has nothing to hide (a play on words).

 

[Les Sleeth]

If I can't get you to understand that there is no physical reality ... I can't get you to believe that there is no chance for everything to be explained through physics. The idea that I'm trying to get acrosss is that the fundamental building blocks that make the universe what it is, are nothing more than conceptual geometric forms. These fundamental units are more than capable of the universe we see today. The premise here is to make a universe from nothing, without some form of magic act. A universe made of something other than nothing constitutes a magic act from my perspective. The only concievable way to make a universe from nothing that I can tell of, is by conceptual means.

You've not solved anything yet. A thought doesn't get a free ride when it comes to requiring "something" to compose it. What is the composition of a thought? The geometry imagined, as the theme of a concept, may escape having substance, but the concept itself requires something essential to be.

I consider this postulate in regards to anything that exist.

{All that exist must have form}

Not so. In fact, the very essence of existence could be some type of formless "stuff" that was never created, cannot NOT exist, and is the ground state condition of all we see. For more ideas on this (neutral substance monism), check out this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76897

Since I cannot deny the existence of thought ... I (must) assume it has form. Can you tell me your idea of what form thought takes?

Thoughts are not all conscious is, and form is not all that existence is. Since I am a relatively successful meditator, I can state uncategorically that if you can stop thinking, you are still fully conscious (I would say in fact more conscious than when you can't stop thinking). If all is thought, then shouldn't I cease to exist when my thoughts cease?

When I listen to beautiful music, there are two things going on (consciousness -wise). There is recognition of the forms shaping the music, but there is also my appreciation which I believe is formless. My wife is the form, the love I feel is formless. My thoughts about a subject are forms, my understanding is formless. Consciousness for humans is both the ability to think and the ability to feel.

 

[Dr.Yes]

There is recognition of the forms shaping the music, but there is also my appreciation which I believe is formless.

My wife is the form, the love I feel is formless.

My thoughts about a subject are forms, my understanding is formless. Consciousness for humans is both the ability to think and the ability to feel.

Love/Appreciation/Understanding is/are the sum of the parts that are involved in adrenal, testosterone, estrogen and other hormonal release plus neurotransmitters being released because of stimulus that is either memory (chemical and genetic configurations representing stored information about external stimulus) induced or because of external stimulus in real time. It also involves the evolution of a species and the maturation of an individual among many other "parts".

Love/Appreciation and Understanding are each composed of a lot of physical parts. I'm not sure if because they are a result of so many physical conditions... it makes these "feelings" or "conditions" physical... or if they are "above" physical in that they are "the sum of the parts".

 

[Les Sleeth]

Love/Appreciation/Understanding is/are the sum of the parts that are involved in adrenal, testosterone, estrogen and other hormonal release plus neurotransmitters being released because of stimulus that is either memory (chemical and genetic configurations representing stored information about external stimulus) induced or because of external stimulus in real time. It also involves the evolution of a species and the maturation of an individual among many other "parts".

Love/Appreciation and Understanding are each composed of a lot of physical parts. I'm not sure if because they are a result of so many physical conditions... it makes these "feelings" or "conditions" physical... or if they are "above" physical in that they are "the sum of the parts".

Well, that's your physicalist theory. I couldn't disagree more. I experience love, understanding, and appreciation as something singular. It is not part-dependent even if what leads to the experience has been preceded by numerous steps. But you are certainly free to think of yourself as the result of chemicals and brain physiology.

I dropped out of this thread a long time ago because the physicalists think one day they will fully account for human consciousness with the brain, and I (among others) are quite certain we experience something inside which is brain-independent. The physicalists can't prove their theory, and the subjective certainty of the introspectionist can't be made available for objective evaluation by others. So really it seems the discussion is destined to go nowhere.

I stepped in for my last post just to challenge Castegate's notion that a universe which is only thoughts somehow gets around the something-from-nothing dilemma.

 

[Dr.Yes]

Well, that's your physicalist theory. I couldn't disagree more. I experience love, understanding, and appreciation as something singular. It is not part-dependent even if what leads to the experience has been preceded by numerous steps. But you are certainly free to think of yourself as the result of chemicals and brain physiology.

I dropped out of this thread a long time ago because the physicalists think one day they will fully account for human consciousness with the brain, and I (among others) are quite certain we experience something inside which is brain-independent. The physicalists can't prove their theory, and the subjective certainty of the introspectionist can't be made available for objective evaluation by others. So really it seems the discussion is destined to go nowhere.

I stepped in for my last post just to challenge Castegate's notion that a universe which is only thoughts somehow gets around the something-from-nothing dilemma.

Well, that's your introspectionistic theory for you. It is an illusion (as in ill-conceived notion... as in ignorant of all the facts) to imagine love, whatever and whatever as singular and separate from the chemicals from which they are spawned.

But, for a collection of rocks that can talk, you're not doing too badly with your (deluded) powers of reasoning.

 

[Castlegate]

You've not solved anything yet. A thought doesn't get a free ride when it comes to requiring "something" to compose it. What is the composition of a thought?

A thought or thoughts would be composed of a form of nothing.

The geometry imagined, as the theme of a concept, may escape having substance, but the concept itself requires something essential to be.

I fail to see why from my perspective. Are you saying something physical is an absolute requirement?

As far as essentials go, all that is necessary is nothing and the concept of it. In fact - From the link you posted, I coulndn't help thinking your requirements for Esse fit nothing to a T.

When I listen to beautiful music, there are two things going on (consciousness -wise). There is recognition of the forms shaping the music, but there is also my appreciation which I believe is formless. My wife is the form, the love I feel is formless. My thoughts about a subject are forms, my understanding is formless. Consciousness for humans is both the ability to think and the ability to feel.
__________________

I disagree with this completely. Pain, pleasure, love, hate, you name it will be recognized in some form or another, just as a hat, dog, red, and Pez dispensers come to you in a form. Form is the fundamental base to all things that exist. Perhaps you can explain how it is you feel, without of course some sort of mystical explanatory expression.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Are you saying something physical is an absolute requirement?

Not something physical, just something.

As far as essentials go, all that is necessary is nothing and the concept of it. In fact - From the link you posted, I coulndn't help thinking your requirements for Esse fit nothing to a T.

I don't see how. Let's say all that exists is water. When resting peacefully as an ocean you call it nothing, but when it freezes into "forms" like icebergs then you call that something. But how can you call water "nothing" just because it is in an unformed condition?

If nothing else, the formless condition is absolute potentiality, and that's hardly "nothing." Forms have to be composed of "something."

I disagree with this completely. Pain, pleasure, love, hate, you name it will be recognized in some form or another, just as a hat, dog, red, and Pez dispensers come to you in a form. Form is the fundamental base to all things that exist. Perhaps you can explain how it is you feel, without of course some sort of mystical explanatory expression.

From what you said, I don't see how we disagree yet. I didn't say the feelings you list come unattached to form, I said there is 1) the form, and there is 2) the feeling that comes with the form . . . that feeling is formless. It's like the musical note C can be mentally identified by its place on a structured scale, but the experience of C is something different, it's structureless.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, that's your introspectionistic theory for you. It is an illusion (as in ill-conceived notion... as in ignorant of all the facts) to imagine love, whatever and whatever as singular and separate from the chemicals from which they are spawned.

But, for a collection of rocks that can talk, you're not doing too badly with your (deluded) powers of reasoning.

I was resisting your abrupt way of saying "this is how it is," rather than explaining it as merely your opinion.

What determines our opinions? If you had lived in a desert all your life and didn't know there was any other sort of landscape, then your opinion of what planet Earth is like will reflect the extent of your experience. I can accept that, based the life experience you've had, it seems reasonable to assume you are chemistry and brain physiology.

I also have all my life experiences under my belt, and mine have given me a different view of what I, as consciousness, am at the core. I am not "ignorant of the facts" of my life in a physical body. I simply have had experiences which have convinced me I am not my body, but rather am entwined in it.

I don't ask you to accept my view as the truth . . . only to be aware that people might have experiences you don't and therefore different opinions than you.

 

[Dr.Yes]

I was resisting your abrupt way of saying "this is how it is," rather than explaining it as merely your opinion.

What determines our opinions? If you had lived in a desert all your life and didn't know there was any other sort of landscape, then your opinion of what planet Earth is like will reflect the extent of your experience. I can accept that, based the life experience you've had, it seems reasonable to assume you are chemistry and brain physiology.

I also have all my life experiences under my belt, and mine have given me a different view of what I, as consciousness, am at the core. I am not "ignorant of the facts" of my life in a physical body. I simply have had experiences which have convinced me I am not my body, but rather am entwined in it.

I don't ask you to accept my view as the truth . . . only to be aware that people might have experiences you don't and therefore different opinions than you.

I don't mean for you to take what I've said as an abrupt statement. That sort of interpretation is left up to the audience. I expect people to read what I say as my opinion and as a repository of my experience rather than as a megalomaniacle decree of the land. What else could what I say be other than my opinion?

Now you're entwined in your body.

Your body isn't you and you aren't your body... but you two are entwined. How about someone else's body? Would that figure in the entwinement? How about the freeway outside the window... is that intertwining along with the body and the you?

If by entwined you mean that these states, "you" and "body" etc... are influencing one another I certainly agree. However, only one component of the two is fully dependent on the other. The body can exist without the you... but the you cannot exist without a body.

This brings me to my opinion, as it were, that "source" is a large part of explaining all things (in keeping with the thread and topic). When researching the cause of an emotion or a motive or a word or anything we examine its source.This is a form of reductive reasoning that often ends up in the realm of physics.

However, I don't believe everything can be reduced to pure physics because it would be completely useless to do so. Eg.

Someone asks why apples always fall down. You tell them its because the apples have become heavier as they ripen and their stem eventually let's them fall. You can tell them the fallen fruit also helps nourish the apple tree through the winter. You can tell them the fruit carries the seed of the tree so it can be reproduced, elsewhere.


If someone asks why an apple just flew out of that tree and you give them Newton's modified idea of gravity ie: F = G- m1 m2 over r2 no one is wiser but you feel as though you've explained everything there is to be explained about an apple falling out of a tree.

What's missing in Newton's or anyone's mathematical approach to explaining a function is the research into how the function every came into being in the first place. Researching the sources and resources involved in the creation of "the you" or the falling apple demands that we stray from the fundimental physics of a subject, and look closer at the conditions that have given rise to the subject and related functions, etc..

 

[Castlegate]

I don't see how. Let's say all that exists is water. When resting peacefully as an ocean you call it nothing, but when it freezes into "forms" like icebergs then you call that something. But how can you call water "nothing" just because it is in an unformed condition?

If nothing else, the formless condition is absolute potentiality, and that's hardly "nothing." Forms have to be composed of "something."

Now let me cover this ground from my perspective, within my conceptual model. First off you don't say {Let's say all that exists is water.} and follow with {When resting peacefully as an ocean you call it nothing} and then this comes about {but when it freezes into "forms" like icebergs then you call that something. But how can you call water "nothing" just because it is in an unformed condition? }

The problem here is that you are stuck on your model trying to explain your understanding of mine with yours. It would seem you are trying to use a context that you figure I would use (and you got that wrong), and also in actuality you slip in some of your own. Let me fill in the blanks for greater understanding.

So when you say {Let's say all that exists is water.} I assume this is what you figure is my start gun. Let me replace that by pulling the trigger with this {Non-Existence}. Not only are we not on the same page, but far from the same book. I can't expect you to follow the reason of my logic if your eye isn't on the bullet.

At any rate I am bone tired. Thats because I've been up and down ladders all day, and I ain't no spring chicken no mo. My head is screwed on with stripped threads at the moment, because it's been gettin screwed since 2am. So I'll pick this up at a later time. I feelin a little grumpy. Can you tell?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Now let me cover this ground from my perspective, within my conceptual model. First off you don't say {Let's say all that exists is water.} and follow with {When resting peacefully as an ocean you call it nothing} and then this comes about {but when it freezes into "forms" like icebergs then you call that something. But how can you call water "nothing" just because it is in an unformed condition? }

The problem here is that you are stuck on your model trying to explain your understanding of mine with yours. It would seem you are trying to use a context that you figure I would use (and you got that wrong), and also in actuality you slip in some of your own. Let me fill in the blanks for greater understanding.

So when you say {Let's say all that exists is water.} I assume this is what you figure is my start gun. Let me replace that by pulling the trigger with this {Non-Existence}. Not only are we not on the same page, but far from the same book. I can't expect you to follow the reason of my logic if your eye isn't on the bullet.

At any rate I am bone tired. Thats because I've been up and down ladders all day, and I ain't no spring chicken no mo. My head is screwed on with stripped threads at the moment, because it's been gettin screwed since 2am. So I'll pick this up at a later time. I feelin a little grumpy. Can you tell?

All I can say is . . .
:!)

Great post even though it didn't make a lick of sense to me. Have a beer, eat some pizza, love your wife (or signficant other). Welcome to PF!

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't mean for you to take what I've said as an abrupt statement. That sort of interpretation is left up to the audience. I expect people to read what I say as my opinion and as a repository of my experience rather than as a megalomaniacle decree of the land. What else could what I say be other than my opinion?

I like your answer lots, but I, like Castlegate, am too tired to answer with any competence. Tomorrow then!

 

[Paul Martin]

The body can exist without the you... but the you cannot exist without a body.

I happen to doubt both of these assertions. Can you give me any support for either one of them which you think is compelling? Before you do, though, I would like you to tell me your definition of 'you'. We also need to understand the definition of 'body' but I think this is less of a problem. I suspect we both agree on what 'body' means.

 

[Bobby R]

I've watched this forum. Would someone first define Physics. I thought mathematics was one of many working tools but not necessarily on par with physics.
We’re mixing apples and oranges again. One example of representing ‘A’ as H2O and ‘B’ as Man omits content of each. And even if you look at composition can you explain away thought as a function of physics.
Explain why an elm tree does not possesses a single leaf of average size and shape to its other leaves. We like to put square pegs in square holes which is good, but sometimes it is not necessary to explain everything with physics.
Abstract comes from thought and often lends itself to explaining the unknown. For example, why stop at our Universe? What about our galaxy? There are millions of galaxies out there which I suspect are not alike. A good analogy would be to pour a bucket of pain in a big bowl and drop a bowling ball in it. Freeze the result at maximum expansion and do it again a million or so times and you will have a pretty good representation of outer-space with all the galaxies. I’d like to know what our galaxy is rotating around. Is it rotating around something? Mathematic Reasoning and physics suggests it should.
Bobby R Sends

 

[Dr.Yes]

You're all entitled to your wonderful opinions, however... I'm right.

Now I won't continue to bore you all because I've been up late with two twisted twin sisters who raised their own brother who has to deal with FAS and ADS and who can't seem to make it on his own.

Whoop whoop whoop whoop, as Dr. Zoiberg would say.

 

[quantumcarl]

Whoop whoop whoop whoop, as Dr. Zoiberg would say.

I've always wanted to quote myself... you see, PF wants me to be quantumcarl for some reason... so, I am reverting to my very old name from god knows when it started...something like 2000, pre-reichstat housen berning.

Now, since Carl Sagan has become a quantum entity, like he always has been... and saturated my Dr. Yes potential with his self directed way of explaining the universe... I'd better get on to plasma physics and simplified calculus etc... however, philosophy always seems to have enough gravity to drag me back here... thank you...

 

[quantumcarl]

I don't mean for you to take what I've said as an abrupt statement. That sort of interpretation is left up to the audience. I expect people to read what I say as my opinion and as a repository of my experience rather than as a megalomaniacle decree of the land. What else could what I say be other than my opinion?

Now you're entwined in your body.

Your body isn't you and you aren't your body... but you two are entwined. How about someone else's body? Would that figure in the entwinement? How about the freeway outside the window... is that intertwining along with the body and the you?

If by entwined you mean that these states, "you" and "body" etc... are influencing one another I certainly agree. However, only one component of the two is fully dependent on the other. The body can exist without the you... but the you cannot exist without a body.

This brings me to my opinion, as it were, that "source" is a large part of explaining all things (in keeping with the thread and topic). When researching the cause of an emotion or a motive or a word or anything we examine its source.This is a form of reductive reasoning that often ends up in the realm of physics.

However, I don't believe everything can be reduced to pure physics because it would be completely useless to do so. Eg.

Someone asks why apples always fall down. You tell them its because the apples have become heavier as they ripen and their stem eventually let's them fall. You can tell them the fallen fruit also helps nourish the apple tree through the winter. You can tell them the fruit carries the seed of the tree so it can be reproduced, elsewhere.


If someone asks why an apple just flew out of that tree and you give them Newton's modified idea of gravity ie: F = G- m1 m2 over r2 no one is wiser but you feel as though you've explained everything there is to be explained about an apple falling out of a tree.

What's missing in Newton's or anyone's mathematical approach to explaining a function is the research into how the function every came into being in the first place. Researching the sources and resources involved in the creation of "the you" or the falling apple demands that we stray from the fundimental physics of a subject, and look closer at the conditions that have given rise to the subject and related functions, etc..

I totally agree.

 

[moving finger]

Now you're entwined in your body.

This already implies a dualistic perspective. May be incorrect.

Your body isn't you and you aren't your body...

Why not?

How about someone else's body? Would that figure in the entwinement? How about the freeway outside the window... is that intertwining along with the body and the you?

Irrelevant, since I do not accept your first statement.

If by entwined you mean that these states, "you" and "body" etc... are influencing one another I certainly agree. However, only one component of the two is fully dependent on the other. The body can exist without the you... but the you cannot exist without a body.

Disagree. The body creates (is one with) the you. The body (in its entirety) can no more exist without you than you can exist without the body.

Someone asks why apples always fall down. You tell them its because the apples have become heavier as they ripen and their stem eventually let's them fall. You can tell them the fallen fruit also helps nourish the apple tree through the winter. You can tell them the fruit carries the seed of the tree so it can be reproduced, elsewhere.

The latter two are not "reasons why" the apple falls down (unless one believes in teleology).

If someone asks why an apple just flew out of that tree and you give them Newton's modified idea of gravity ie: F = G- m1 m2 over r2 no one is wiser but you feel as though you've explained everything there is to be explained about an apple falling out of a tree.

"no one is wiser"? - I disagree. What is it that you expect from an explanation? It seems that you are seeking "reasons" and not simple a functional explanation (ie you demand to know "why does an apple obey Newton's laws?")

What's missing in Newton's or anyone's mathematical approach to explaining a function is the research into how the function every came into being in the first place. Researching the sources and resources involved in the creation of "the you" or the falling apple demands that we stray from the fundimental physics of a subject, and look closer at the conditions that have given rise to the subject and related functions, etc..

There is something to be answered here.

"What is it that breathes fire into the equations?"

MF

 

[quantumcarl]

This already implies a dualistic perspective. May be incorrect.
Why not?
Irrelevant, since I do not accept your first statement.
Disagree. The body creates (is one with) the you. The body (in its entirety) can no more exist without you than you can exist without the body.
The latter two are not "reasons why" the apple falls down (unless one believes in teleology).
"no one is wiser"? - I disagree. What is it that you expect from an explanation? It seems that you are seeking "reasons" and not simple a functional explanation (ie you demand to know "why does an apple obey Newton's laws?")
There is something to be answered here.
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations?"
MF

There is context missing in the quote I took from myself, in that the quote is in answer to another post and it questions the premise in the post that a body and "you" can be entwined etc...

I'm sort of out of this discussion as it is.

In answer to someone who asked for a definition of a "you" I'd say a "you" is that composite of neuronal response and stimulus set off by the experiences associated with the internal environment of a body as well as its external environment.

 

[moving finger]

In answer to someone who asked for a definition of a "you" I'd say a "you" is that composite of neuronal response and stimulus set off by the experiences associated with the internal environment of a body as well as its external environment.

yes, I would tend to agree with this, but also would suggest that the definition of "you" is context-dependent. An example is Searle's infamous Chinese Room, in the version where Searle "internalises" all of the room's rulebooks etc. In this case, the entity "Searle" can process Chinese questions and respond with rational Chinese answers (and hence it can be argued there is a part of Searle which understands Chinese) but at the same time the conscious entity that calls itself "Searle" is not conscious of any understanding of Chinese. It is important in this context to distinguish between the conscious agent which calls itself Searle and the rest of the physical embodiment of the agent which is Searle.
MF