• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Matter Really Exist?

cyborg said:
Eh? The mind is not subject to physical reality (as if there was any other type) because it couldn't perceive the 'truths' of it (whatever that might mean in Iacchus land) otherwise.
Click to expand...
The mind is merely the means by which to observe it.
 
Hi Iacchus,

I know its hard to get a thread this long back to the op, but since you want to return there, If we assume that Plank is quoted accurately, I have to shrug and say so what.

Plank was certainly a brilliant mind, and an authority on the molecular world. However I do not know that he had any inside knowledge on the nature of the divine, and how it plays out in the physical universe. If Plank was sure that some type of god was hidden in the electron shell of atoms, then that is his choice. I see no evidence for it. Why “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” is not obvious to me. It has been a long time since my college chemistry classes, but the atomic structure, and molecular bonding made sense to me with a physical explanation, no need for god.

This seems to be a case of someone who is an authority on one subject, being quoted on a topic where he is not an authority. For chemistry, I will listen to Plank, but for theology, I think I will look elsewhere, unless I’m given more evidence than his assumptions.

Can you add to why you think Plank (according to the quote) saw the divine in the electron shell Iacchus?
 
Mercutio said:
You are quite simply wrong.

Your claim, as you are blissfully unaware, is against copious evidence collected over more than a century. Start with G.T. Fechner (who, by the way, was attempting to prove the idealist monism correct) and his experiments on visual perception. To his delight, he found that perception is describable by a mathematical relationship (first, the Weber fraction, then Fechner's logarithmic improvement on that) with environmental stimuli.

More than a century of work after that continues to show that our minds, by any definition, are subject to physical reality as it is understood. (once again, the monism is irrelevant to the relationship, in case you try to pull that one again.)

You are quite simply wrong, and ignorant of over 100 year's worth of evidence which goes against your claim.
Click to expand...
The mind transcends the phyiscal processes of the body, therefore making it objective, at least with respect to the body. This is the beginning of "self-awareness," hence the origin of (our) objectivity.
 
Iacchus said:
The mind transcends the phyiscal processes of the body, therefore making it objective, at least with respect to the body. This is the beginning of "self-awareness," hence the origin of our objectivity.
Click to expand...

Iacchus, the brain is a part of your body. It has metabolic needs, and is quite fragile. The slightest damage to any small region of an adult's brain can have dramatic consequences. Time and hard work can often help, but a person suffering from a lesion in their brain, causing them Broca's aphasia is not going to be able to "tanscend" their inability to speak coherrently, which has a physical cause. The brain is a physical object.
 
Iacchus said:
The mind transcends the phyiscal processes of the body, therefore making it objective, at least with respect to the body. This is the beginning of "self-awareness," hence the origin of (our) objectivity.
Click to expand...
So you assert, without the slightest bit of evidence, and in utter ignorance of the evidence that is available.

You are quite simply wrong.
 
Mercutio said:
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the "other folks" who pass around this quote interpret it in the same manner in which you do. Given the vastness of the internet, you may find one or two, but frankly I doubt it.
Click to expand...
I can think of two sources right off hand, that PBS program (which, is what started it all), and this guy named Gregg Braden. While I'm sure there are any number of people who have bought into this concept by these two sources alone.
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
Iacchus, the brain is a part of your body. It has metabolic needs, and is quite fragile. The slightest damage to any small region of an adult's brain can have dramatic consequences. Time and hard work can often help, but a person suffering from a lesion in their brain, causing them Broca's aphasia is not going to be able to "tanscend" their inability to speak coherrently, which has a physical cause. The brain is a physical object.
Click to expand...
The brain is a piece of meat.
 
Tormac said:
Can you add to why you think Plank (according to the quote) saw the divine in the electron shell Iacchus?
Click to expand...
Apparently he had his own religious convictions but, he was also quoted as saying the two should be maintained separately. Perhaps this was a relapse on his part?

From this link ...

Yet, Planck made a clear distinction between science and religion stating that:

"Religion belongs to that realm that is inviolable before the laws of causation and therefore closed to science" (Planck 1959, p. 121).
Click to expand...
 
Iacchus said:
I can think of two sources right off hand, that PBS program (which, is what started it all), and this guy named Gregg Braden. While I'm sure there are any number of people who have bought into this concept by these two sources alone.
Click to expand...
Really?? I have seen Wayne Dyer's infomercial on PBS--there is very good reason why PBS viewers have organized protest against it. It is nonsense, feel-good tripe. Looking at Braden's website, it is equally ludicrous.

Interestingly, though, the two of them do not agree with one another. (I will leave it to you to discover the details of this; it is very clear, though.) How can they both agree with you, if they do not agree with one another? From what I know of your musings, neither of them would agree with you. As I said, the burden of proof is yours. Can you deliver some quotes from each of them, compare them with your "book", and demonstrate that there are at least three of you in agreement?

Thus far, I would say the evidence you yourself present is working against you.
 
Mercutio said:
I dunno...the monstrous odds are there, certainly, but when I lay on my back in a field and look up at the vastness of the night sky, and realize that far beyond my sight the hubble has found countless galaxies, each with more stars than I can see with my poor eyes...the vast amount of space required to contain all that, and the only life we are certain exists is here in this infinitessimal speck of that space...

...to the best of our reckoning, nowhere in the stars that I can see unaided is there another Mercutio looking up at the night sky and wondering the same. We can suppose that there is, and I believe that there must be, but my point is that these "monstrous odds" are quite obviously applied to an even more monstrous universe. I have quite an ego, but not sufficient to think that all that wasted space was put there just for me to marvel at it.

It is so magnificent, so awe-inspiring, it forces us to come up with concepts like "god" in order to adequately express its magnitude. For me...I am happy to jettison the god concept and look directly at the universe. It is far more impressive.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Mercutio. That just made my day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom