Franko Memorial thread!

[wraith]

LD had no dogma. Oh, wait a minute, you said it too.

So what, exactly, are you getting from Franko?

A view from a tower....

 

[Upchurch]

Things that are indescribable as well as unfathomable do, that's so. What "description" of energy do you feel is useful in understanding what it is?

Easy. Physics - the study of force and energy.

To be a little more specific, let's name some energies:

• Potential
• Kinetic
• Heat
• Pressure
• Electrical
• Magnetic
• Chemical
• Wave

And that's the short-short list. Hardly indescribable. edited to add: nor is it unfathomable. I'll avoid making any jokes about why I think you find it to be so.

And, in anticipation of a reply along the lines of, "that just describes how energy behaves, not what it IS," let me point out that you cannot know what a thing is without first knowing how it behaves. Once you understand how it behaves, you begin to understand what it is.

"Life"is also interesting to contemplate: it seems to me it is more akin to "energy" than "matter".

hm. Not matter, but couldn't exist without it; that would seem to fit. Not transferable from one form to another; that doesn't fit. It's not a too bad analogy, but there is one thing that really throws it off: Life is not conserved. It's possible to destroy or create a bit of life. (I use the word "bit" because I don't know what the unit of life is) Whereas, you cannot destroy or create a Joule of energy.

Just answer the question "How could the non-physical effect or affect the physical?".

As I said, I haven't really pursued this line of thought, but an idea, which I'm open to the possiblity of having it's own, non-physical reality, can cause physical people to behave a differently than if they didn't have the idea. However, if you look at this situation in purely physical terms (i.e. "ideas" are made up of chemical chains and electrical impulses in the human brain), then the "idea" itself doesn't have a reality unto itself....

So, I guess I'm coming to the conclusion that it really couldn't, as long as you term things in physical cause and effect.

 

[Upchurch]

All the current theories of gravity stem from a "matter creates consciousness" view point. Im interested in what the theory of gravity would look like if you view it from a "consciousness creates matter" point of view.

So, are you assuming that point of view is valid and true or are you going to justify it by coming up with an experiment that shows that a result that could only be true if consciousness creates matter?

Assumptions?

Do you see the "operations" of consciousness (eg the "choices" that you make) as being random or deterministic or neither or both?

Yes, assumptions. In fact, I think a better place to start from would be that the choices we make are neither purely random nor purley deterministic, but rather probabilistic

Do you or dont you obey TLOP?

I act in accordance with the nature of the universe.

Sorry
I still dont get you.

Okay. Well, the most recent example is that Franko said that, according to LD logic, relativistic velocities add linearly (v1 + v2 = vtotal) rather than relativistically ((v1 + v2)/(1 + (v1 v2)/c^2) = vtotal). This is counter to observed phenomena of relativistic velocities adding relativistically. How do you explain the difference between Logical Deism logic and observed phenomena in this specific case?

 

[Upchurch]

If there was no consciousness around, there would still be "trees" "stars" and "planets"?

I'd say so. Seems to me that, as far as we can show, planets, stars, and trees have been around long before there was consciousness. If there were no stars and planets, would there still be consciousness?

I thought matter was one form of energy?

Consider light. As much a form of energy as anything. But look at it closely and you see that it begins to behave like a series of particles. Wouldn't you say that energy is one form of matter?

Kidding aside, It's like asking if ice comes from water or if water comes frim ice. They are both different forms of dihydrogen oxide. One is not a more fundamental form of the other, but rather the form taken at the moment specified. You and hammegk are trying to force it into a hierarchy that really isn't there.

 

[Tricky]

Just go to the site
http://skepdic.com/begging.html[/I]

I see you found a definition (which shows that what you were calling "question begging" was completely incorrect). Now see if you can support your claim that I was "begging the question" by showing us an example? Can you even construct an example of question begging?

....at least be honest and say that you have nothing to base your beliefs on.

LOL. Would that you could show such honesty. On what, exactly, do you base your beliefs? We've already established that it is not science and it is not logic.

Ask Stimpy for some help if you want. He seems to be the Atheist Top Gun

Yes, I freely admit that Stimpy is much smarter than I. You should pose your questions to him.... if you want to be bored to death. (j/k, STC )

What you say is True by default if you have the label of "scientist" ?[/I]

LOL. Don't be silly. Everything a scientist says is not necessarily true. In fact, it isn't necessarily science.

I can't give you a comprehesive description of what science is, but here is a good rule-of-thumb to follow. To see if something is scientific, you have to be able to define an experiment whose results will either support or fail to support a claim.

Here is an example. The claim: Gravitons have charge.
The experiment: Make a gravity map of an area (perhaps know that gravitational pull is not constant on all places on the Earth). Now, place a strong electromagnetic source in the area. Remake the map. If gravitons (the quantum of the gravitional field) have charge, then they will be distorted by the large electromagnetic field, as all charged particles are. The new map should show how the gravity field has been distorted.
The result: Gravity is not distorted by EM fields (I have found this to be the case, because I use gravity maps in my work.)
The conclusion: The claim is not supported.

Notice I do not say the claim is proved wrong. There are other possibilities, like gravitons have a special kind of charge that is unaffected by EM fields, or that gravitational warping by EM fields is counterbalanced by other forces, or... lots of other possibilities. If you were determined to prove that gravitons had charge, you would then have to design experiments to test all of these other possibilites. However, most scientists would use Occam's Razor to say that these other possiblities were so unlikely as to not be worth testing.

Does this help you understand how science works, Wraith?

Matter creating consciousness is a bit "over the top" for me...

Then design an experiment to test it. Now it is quite clear that all matter does not create consciousness, only very special kinds of matter. First, identify what kinds of matter have consciousness. Let's take as an example, humans. Now, let's see how consciousness develops in the human: An unconscious embryo becomes more conscious as it adds special kinds of matter (neurons, brain cells etc.) Remove or alter those special kinds of matter, and the consciousness is removed or altered. Thus, the claim that matter makes consciousness is supported.

There are many many such experiments in neurological journals with far greater complexity than this.

Now, here is your quiz. Design an experiment to show how consciousness makes matter. First you must identify and isolate a consciousness that exists in the absence of matter. (There's a good reason why there aren't many experiments like this.)

School me...

I hope you have learned from the above. I am not a professional teacher, but I believe I have presented this in a way that an inquisitive person could understand.

mmm data collection is based on logic

No it is not. Here's another example for you:
***
Count the number of pens in your house:
Now count the numbers of televisions in your house:

Tabulate the data: (I am guessing that you will have more pens than televisions)
***

That is data collection and tabulation, which is an important part of science, but there is no logic whatsoever to it. The logic comes when you try to find meaning in the data. For example, you might conclude that "you need more pens than televisions". You might also conclude that "televisions cost more than pens." Both of those conclusions could be true. You could also come to some incorrect conclusions, like, "pens reproduce faster than televisions".

Are you writing all this down? (Want to borrow a pen?)

Trix, you were arguing that we didnt obey TLOP, am I correct?

(sigh) No, grasshopper. I was saying that the statement "We obey TLOP" could be true (depending on how you define "obey"), even though the syllogism was invalid.
(That will be on the test, so write it down.)

Are you also saying that False = True?

Question 14: "How exactly did you come to that conclusion?" (Show your work.)

Because thats a fallacy of composition!
The conclusion is not necessarily true. It doesnt continue from the premises.

You are correct that the conclusion (which we know IS true) does not follow from the premises, however it is not a fallacy of composition. Extra credit if you can give me an example (a NEW example) of a syllogism containing a fallacy of composition.

Trix dodging the question

Okay, Wraith, against my better judgment, I've answered all your questions. I am guessing that this was a waste of my time, but if you learn something... anything... from it, then it will have been worthwhile.

 

[Tricky]

No offence cats, but youre like a turd that wont flush

Don't take it personally, Wraith, but you are like deja vu all over again. Please try to be original.
From 12/12/2002.

Twisty, dont take it personally but HELL!
Youre like a turd that wont flush

 

[Guest]

Foolosophy vs. Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[MRC_Hans]

Foolosophy vs. Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

Don't be too harsh on Wraith, he's trying.

Hans

 

[Guest]

Don't be too harsh on Wraith, he's trying.

Hans

You too.

Thanks,
S&S

 

[c4ts]

When Im not working, studying criminal justice, playing counter strike, listen to some tunes, hanging with ma budz, looking at hoties that walk past me, eating or sleeping, I like to read my science mags, reading the boards *such as this one*...Ive just finished a book called "philosophy made easy" LOL

I wonder how well he's studying criminal justice. I have not seen him post anything about the subject. But I hope he's better at it than physics. Perhaps a discussion on criminology could be more enlightening than his philosophistry.

So, Wraith, regarding racial profiling, do you consider race a factor in juvenile arrests? Or is it just that there are more poor african americans, poverty as a whole creating crime-generating conditions? And, if poverty is not to blame, do you think it is a problem of misrepresentation from the behavior-legal perspective?

Are you familiar with the theories of Beccaria's On Crimes and Punishments? Why does he say rewarding virtue, rather than criminal punishment, prevents crime? And if so, does that make despotic crime prevention impossible? What are morality and justice to Beccaria? Especially justice, since he does not condone pecuniary punishments...

 

[wraith]

wraith: All the current theories of gravity stem from a "matter creates consciousness" view point. Im interested in what the theory of gravity would look like if you view it from a "consciousness creates matter" point of view.

Churchy: So, are you assuming that point of view is valid and true or are you going to justify it by coming up with an experiment that shows that a result that could only be true if consciousness creates matter?

Why assume? Just look look at the logic ....firstly, you have this sense of "I" interpreting information via our senses, if matter did create consciousness, then where is this sense of "I"? You might aswell say that youre a rock.

secondly, when you say that matter creates conscious, arent you saying that a rock (or anything with a "consciousness value" of 0) can become conscious?

wraith: Do you see the "operations" of consciousness (eg the "choices" that you make) as being random or deterministic or neither or both?

Church: Yes, assumptions. In fact, I think a better place to start from would be that the choices we make are neither purely random nor purley deterministic, but rather probabilistic

Whats the probability running a red light at a busy intersection when you want to live?

wraith: Do you or dont you obey TLOP?

Church: I act in accordance with the nature of the universe.

So.......you obey TLOP or you dont or neither?

Okay. Well, the most recent example is that Franko said that, according to LD logic, relativistic velocities add linearly (v1 + v2 = vtotal) rather than relativistically ((v1 + v2)/(1 + (v1 v2)/c^2) = vtotal). This is counter to observed phenomena of relativistic velocities adding relativistically. How do you explain the difference between Logical Deism logic and observed phenomena in this specific case?

holly cow...ahh farked if I know
Do you still have that link where you, Franko and Stimpy where debating this point?

Whats an example that demonstrates visually what youre saying? With space rockets or something

 

[wraith]

wraith: If there was no consciousness around, there would still be "trees" "stars" and "planets"?

Church: I'd say so. Seems to me that, as far as we can show, planets, stars, and trees have been around long before there was consciousness.

Well, maybe if you assume that matter creating consciousness is True.

What is a tree without a conscioiusness to call it a tree?

If there were no stars and planets, would there still be consciousness?

Someone had to put them there...unless ofcourse TLOP is non-conscious...eh you can kiss this sense of "I" out the window

wraith: I thought matter was one form of energy?

Consider light. As much a form of energy as anything. But look at it closely and you see that it begins to behave like a series of particles. Wouldn't you say that energy is one form of matter?

What are the other forms of matter?

Kidding aside, It's like asking if ice comes from water or if water comes frim ice. They are both different forms of dihydrogen oxide. One is not a more fundamental form of the other, but rather the form taken at the moment specified.

Yes, it's H20 in different states. Though, they are both dependent on energy.
You can have ice and water by themselves.
Can you have ice without energy?
What about water?

You and hammegk are trying to force it into a hierarchy that really isn't there.

So you can have water and ice without energy?

 

[wraith]

Tricky and Cats, Ill reply to your posts, hopefully by tomorrow.

Im going to round me up some zzzs

...'night people

 

[Upchurch]

Why assume? Just look look at the logic ....firstly, you have this sense of "I" interpreting information via our senses, if matter did create consciousness, then where is this sense of "I"? You might aswell say that youre a rock.

Logic, in and of itself, is insufficent to show that an idea is true. The rules of D&D are logical but that doesn't make them true. How do you show that consciousness makes matter?

My quicky proof for matter makes consciousness is that consciousness is dependent on the existance of matter, but matter is not dependent on the existance of consciousness. your example of a rock (matter without consciousness) is a wonderful example. Can you produce or point to a consciousness without matter?

secondly, when you say that matter creates conscious, arent you saying that a rock (or anything with a "consciousness value" of 0) can become conscious?

No, I didn't say all matter creates consciousness, just like you didn't say that all consciousness creates matter. (or, if you did, Randi's got some money waiting for you, if you can demonstrate it)

Whats the probability running a red light at a busy intersection when you want to live?

Small, but non-zero. Consider the probability of your breaks failing or the probability of the guy behind you pushing you out into traffic. Like I said, the probability is small, but non-zero.

So.......you obey TLOP or you dont or neither?

Listen closely, I act in accordance with the nature of the universe.

holly cow...ahh farked if I know
Do you still have that link where you, Franko and Stimpy where debating this point?

uh, sure. It starts near the bottom of this page and goes until almost the last page. But be careful, Franko last posted on this thread and never came back!

Whats an example that demonstrates visually what youre saying? With space rockets or something

or something. More like with the movement of planets, starts, asteroids, etc. Modern astronomy is based on the this stuff and is incredibly accurate in predicting the motion of such things.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, maybe if you assume that matter creating consciousness is True.

What is a tree without a conscioiusness to call it a tree?

You think a tree isn't a tree without someone to call it so? "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound?" and so on? Do you believe the only things that exist are those that you are there to observe? Sounds like you're falling into the trap of "we're nothing but figments of your imagination" that Franko was so fond accusing others of.

"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet"

Someone had to put them there...unless ofcourse TLOP is non-conscious...

By jove, I think he's got it!

eh you can kiss this sense of "I" out the window

Ouch. Nevermind. So close.

*sigh* Alright, why is that?

What are the other forms of matter?

Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. [ba-dum-dump]

Seriously, what are the other forms of matter? Energy. What are the other forms of energy? Matter.

Yes, it's H20 in different states. Though, they are both dependent on energy.
You can have ice and water by themselves.
Can you have ice without energy?
What about water?

*sigh* new word for the day: a-n-a-l-o-g-y

analogy= resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike

In this case, energy and matter are two forms of one thing like ice and water are two froms of the one thing. Notice I'm not saying that energy/matter are identical in every respect to dihydrogen oxide, only that this one aspect is similar. (see also: synonym)

Take good notes, there will be a pop quiz later.

 

[hammegk]

Easy. Physics - the study of force and energy.

....

And that's the short-short list. Hardly indescribable. edited to add: nor is it unfathomable. I'll avoid making any jokes about why I think you find it to be so.

And, in anticipation of a reply along the lines of, "that just describes how energy behaves, not what it IS," let me point out that you cannot know what a thing is without first knowing how it behaves. Once you understand how it behaves, you begin to understand what it is.

I like this "definition" as well.

en·er·gy
The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power. See Synonyms at strength.

Usable heat or power: Each year Americans consume a high percentage of the world's energy.

A source of usable power, such as petroleum or coal.

Physics. The capacity of a physical system to do work.

Maybe we should switch to "energy fields".

Your words "begin to understand" say it all, although we haven't even begun is the problem.

Energy: The intent of god. There -- that is at least a definition, as we both know science will never prove or disprove it, only talk around it.

hm. Not matter, but couldn't exist without it; that would seem to fit. Not transferable from one form to another; that doesn't fit. It's not a too bad analogy, but there is one thing that really throws it off: Life is not conserved. It's possible to destroy or create a bit of life. (I use the word "bit" because I don't know what the unit of life is) Whereas, you cannot destroy or create a Joule of energy.

Unfortunately, the ability to destroy is not the ability to create. What do you know of that is more quintessentially "energetic" than life?

Re energy, shall we now chat about Heisenberg, energy content of universe equalling (or not) to zero, etc?

As I said, I haven't really pursued this line of thought, but an idea, which I'm open to the possiblity of having it's own, non-physical reality, can cause physical people to behave a differently than if they didn't have the idea. However, if you look at this situation in purely physical terms (i.e. "ideas" are made up of chemical chains and electrical impulses in the human brain), then the "idea" itself doesn't have a reality unto itself....

So, I guess I'm coming to the conclusion that it really couldn't, as long as you term things in physical cause and effect.

Well, that's a start. Have you concluded anything else by following that thought? Question: do you "think" you have libertarian free will? I seem to. IFF I'm correct, what is a possible mechanism that 'could' make it so?

 

[Upchurch]

Maybe we should switch to "energy fields".

Energy fields are still just another way to describe energy. Might as well switch to kinetic energy or electrical energy.

Your words "begin to understand" say it all, although we haven't even begun is the problem.

I beg to differ. Collectively, we have more than begun. When I used the phrase "you begin", I was speaking of the individual in pursuit of understanding, not that science, in general, has just begun.

Energy: The intent of god. There -- that is at least a definition, as we both know science will never prove or disprove it, only talk around it.

That is a definition? It is one the most ambiguous definitions I've ever read, then. The only reason that science will never prove or disprove it is because there isn't enough there to prove or disprove.

It's like saying, "Energy is Youlabat" Who can prove it since there is no unambiguous definition of Youlabat to prove or disprove.

Unfortunately, the ability to destroy is not the ability to create.

True, but that doesn't negate the fact that life can be destroyed and, therefore, is not conserved.

What do you know of that is more quintessentially "energetic" than life?

How much life? Let's take all the life on Earth (and I'm not quite sure how to quantify that) and compare it to, say, the Sun. Which do you think has more energy?

Re energy, shall we now chat about Heisenberg, energy content of universe equalling (or not) to zero, etc?

Tad off topic, isn't it? Or maybe you're shooting for a connection I'm not seeing?

Well, that's a start. Have you concluded anything else by following that thought? Question: do you "think" you have libertarian free will? I seem to. IFF I'm correct, what is a possible mechanism that 'could' make it so?

I honestly don't know enough about neurophysiology or neurophsyics to know exactly how the physical mechanisms work within the brain to answer that question. If one does have libertarian free will, however, I would imagine that the physical mechanism exists in the brain somewhere. Where or what it is, I have no idea.

 

[hammegk]

Energy fields are still just another way to describe energy. Might as well switch to kinetic energy or electrical energy.

I beg to differ. Collectively, we have more than begun. When I used the phrase "you begin", I was speaking of the individual in pursuit of understanding, not that science, in general, has just begun.

That is a definition? It is one the most ambiguous definitions I've ever read, then. The only reason that science will never prove or disprove it is because there isn't enough there to prove or disprove.

I agree. What did you say your scientific definition -- falsifiable of course -- is. I missed it.

True, but that doesn't negate the fact that life can be destroyed and, therefore, is not conserved.

That implies you know what life is. I'd be interested in your scientific -- falsifiable -- definition of life.

How much life? Let's take all the life on Earth (and I'm not quite sure how to quantify that) and compare it to, say, the Sun. Which do you think has more energy?

Is the sun more "alive" in your opinion then?

Tad off topic, isn't it? Or maybe you're shooting for a connection I'm not seeing?

A big 10/4 on that good buddy.

I honestly don't know enough about neurophysiology or neurophsyics to know exactly how the physical mechanisms work within the brain to answer that question. If one does have libertarian free will, however, I would imagine that the physical mechanism exists in the brain somewhere. Where or what it is, I have no idea.

Nor does anyone else, nor will they ever. Imagination -- what the heck is that "physically"? What is an "idea"? LOL.

Look, science can say something along the lines of, given energy which in some forms "acts like" matter to human perception, and formed into correct dna instructions, and given time to mature, results in a necessary condition for "human consciousness" & all that entails. It gives no hint about what "consciousness" actually is, and at what level of complexity of "matter" consciousness-per-se actually "exists".

 

[Upchurch]

I agree. What did you say your scientific definition -- falsifiable of course -- is. I missed it.

Touche.

I said that energy is a very complex issue and that the most comprehensive definition of it is that which is described by physics. In other words,

• E = Pt, and
• K = (1/2) m v^2, and
• U = -(G M m)/r, and
• E = QT, and
• U = mgh, and
• E = m c^2, and
• etc.

That implies you know what life is. I'd be interested in your scientific -- falsifiable -- definition of life.

Ah, touche again. A very tough question which I don't think I can answer. But I don't think I have to. Let's take a specific example.

Would you agree that living person has life? (I know that's redundent and circular, but I'm talking about a person who is breathing and thinks and moves, etc.) Consider that an event occurs and the person no longer has life (i.e. is dead). If life was conserved, where did it go?

Is the sun more "alive" in your opinion then?

No, but I'm not the one claiming that life is energetic nor the one asking what is more energetic than life. I guess before I can answer the question, I have to ask, How energetic is life? And is all energy life or just some of it? And is all life energy or just some of it?

Nor does anyone else, nor will they ever. Imagination -- what the heck is that "physically"? What is an "idea"? LOL.

Aw, I don't buy that we'll never know all the mechanisms of the brain. Given enough time and resources, it is my belief that we are capable of figuring just about anything out.

Look, science can say something along the lines of, given energy which in some forms "acts like" matter to human perception, and formed into correct dna instructions, and given time to mature, results in a necessary condition for "human consciousness" & all that entails. It gives no hint about what "consciousness" actually is, and at what level of complexity of "matter" consciousness-per-se actually "exists".

Or really that "human conscioussness" does exist rather than being just an illusion.

Again, I assert that just because we don't know doesn't mean we can't know.

 

[hammegk]

I said that energy is a very complex issue and that the most comprehensive definition of it is that which is described by physics. In other words,

...snip...

Takes a lot of forms, anyway, & within uncertainty limits is neither created nor destroyed, yup. What is Gravity? Do you ever wonder?

{Or, conversely, are F (&W) totally insane? }

A very tough question which I don't think I can answer. But I don't think I have to. Let's take a specific example.

Would you agree that living person has life? (I know that's redundent and circular, but I'm talking about a person who is breathing and thinks and moves, etc.) Consider that an event occurs and the person no longer has life (i.e. is dead). If life was conserved, where did it go?

A meaningful question once you have concluded "matter makes life". But again, that is The Question we are discussing, isn't it?

No, but I'm not the one claiming that life is energetic nor the one asking what is more energetic than life. I guess before I can answer the question, I have to ask, How energetic is life? And is all energy life or just some of it? And is all life energy or just some of it?

This is another try at The Question, isn't it? Choose Mind as the monism, and at human-consciousness-level hpc is solved, as is -- though only potentially -- lib. free will.

Aw, I don't buy that we'll never know all the mechanisms of the brain. Given enough time and resources, it is my belief that we are capable of figuring just about anything out.
Or really that "human conscioussness" does exist rather than being just an illusion.

Again, I assert that just because we don't know doesn't mean we can't know.

I only point out that "necessary" is not "sufficient", and I foresee a never-ending god-of-the-gaps problem for science. And, we are yet far far away from that point.