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 possibility of metephysical intervension. but that's only is you trust The Scriber-Bantam English Dictionary.

(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 perceived 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 perceived 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 accommodate 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 perceived 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? preferably 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? preferably 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, 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]

Can the physical and metaphysical interact?

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 perceived 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, occurring 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, occurring 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]

Nothing is real

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 occurred 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.