Franko Memorial thread!

[Tricky]

Demonstrably exist? Easily studied? You must be joking.

No, If I were joking I'd say, "A horse walks into a bar and the bartender says, 'Why the long face?'"

But seriously, Ham. Sociologists study ethics and morals all the time. It is as simple as taking a poll with such questions as, "do you believe that it is okay to kill someone if they have killed a family member". If you do this, you will find lots of ethnic and regional variation in the answers. That is studying ethics and morals. If you want to study the source of ethics and morality, you have to go to history books. For example, when did the US decide that Communism was so bad? It was certainly after WWII, probably a meme that hung on from the fiery rhetoric of Joseph McCarthy.

Why do you think they are so difficult to study?

I do have one incontrovertible-to-me data point. *I* think -- that is hpc.

No it isn't. Saying that *I* is somehow different from the processes occurring in your brain/body is HPC. You can say it is different until you turn blue (and you should be a nice shade of cyan by now) but there is still no proof or even evidence that the *I* exists separate from your body. In fact, all the evidence goes against it. Only the tremendous ego of Man makes him believe that he must be more than this mere meat.
Nice alliteration, wot?

For the sake of discussion I'll even agree you do also.

Very kind of you. If you will pardon the atrocious grammer, all evidence says "I" is my brain.

 

[whitefork]

Tricky: If you will pardon the atrocious grammer, all evidence says "I" is my brain.

I go with "my body". That there brain needs a support mechanism.

 

[hammegk]

Saying "my perceptions derive from a reality which exists individually of myself " is no more begging the question than postulating that "I think therefore I am". Any epistemology needs an axiom, the question is whether or not the axiom is reasonabe.

Agreed. You think something called "matter" exists objectively, and creates life, and finally you. I'm not 100% sure that is correct.

Whereas, *I* think is my prime tautology. Appologies to Whitefork & Tricky; what is certain?

Are you both still counting on an indivisable, material, A-tom? Science is not finding it.

Where does this "figment" thingy enter into it again?

The problem of denial of solipsism.

 

[Upchurch]

Hammegk,

Sorry I've not posted in a while. Busy, busy, busy.

Just to clarify something in my own head, do you consider energy to not be physical and/or material?

 

[whitefork]

Certainty is a question of degree. I claim no absolute certainty about anything, including my own mind.

 

[Dancing David]

Ummm, and would they be forming from -- energy perhaps??

Or are we back to the string as The Material A-tom?

Well since energy and 'matter' are essentialy the same in current theories, I would say that strings are matter and energy. The concepts that apply to particles we consider to be matter, also apply to particles we consider to be energy. Conversely the concepts we apply to energy we can apply to matter.

I think that at this point is comlogy and cosmogeny there is no theory that does more than describe possiblities of what might have happened.

As far as the A-tom (uncuttable?) there are the nucleons which by current axioms of quark theory are indivisible by definition. I am not sure that any body has found a way to reduce lepton to smaller particles.

However I believe myself that it is all just energy and that the things we conceptually apply to the notions of matter are actually the manifestation of fields that can again be percieved as either energy or matter.

If there was a god he had a great sense of humor.

Peace
dancing David

 

[hammegk]

Well since energy and 'matter' are essentialy the same in current theories, I would say that strings are matter and energy.

It's a favorite stance alright -- yeah, that's it -- matter & energy are "essentially" the same.

Yup. About the same as static is to dynamic, non-life to life, particles to waves! How did I ever miss it!

However I believe myself that it is all just energy and that the things we conceptually apply to the notions of matter are actually the manifestation of fields that can again be percieved as either energy or matter.

If there was a god he had a great sense of humor.

Peace
dancing David

I can agree with that ....

 

[Upchurch]

Yup. About the same as static is to dynamic, non-life to life, particles to waves! How did I ever miss it!

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the existance of particle/wave duality? Einstien won the Nobel Prize in physics for the photoelectric effect, which demonstrates partical/wave duality. Do you know something the scientific world at large does not?

 

[Dancing David]

It's a favorite stance alright -- yeah, that's it -- matter & energy are "essentially" the same.

Yup. About the same as static is to dynamic, non-life to life, particles to waves! How did I ever miss it!

I hope that isn't sarcasm, sniff, you might hurt my feelings.

So here I see where the paradox arises, static vs. dynamic.
Since I percieve the solidity of 'matter' it must be static while 'energy' is not.
In a block of steel the little molecules and 'atoms' vibrate, yet on the large scale it seems to be static.
I don't fall through my chair, not because there are two static surface(ooops paradoxical pun) that interact with each other. We may percieve that there is a solid surface to me and the chair and therefore they don't interpenetrate. Actualy it is a field effect of the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms. The electrons don't interpentrate each other very well, and thats what keeps me sitting on my chair. A field effect is commonly considered to be 'energy' yet it lends matter it's solidity.

Peace
dancing David

 

[hammegk]

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the existance of particle/wave duality? Einstien won the Nobel Prize in physics for the photoelectric effect, which demonstrates partical/wave duality. Do you know something the scientific world at large does not?

Nope. I acknowledge that given experiments will see particles OR waves -- never both, but prefer to think of it as a dichotomy. You tell me, is a photon static matter, or dynamic energy?

If you can convince yourself that anything can be a duality in a meaningful way that makes you happy, I'm happy for you.


David, I'd agree "field effect" seems to be as precise as we can get. Again, energy, not matter.

 

[CWL]

Nope. I acknowledge that given experiments will see particles OR waves -- never both, but prefer to think of it as a dichotomy. You tell me, is a photon static matter, or dynamic energy?

If you can convince yourself that anything can be a duality in a meaningful way that makes you happy, I'm happy for you.


David, I'd agree "field effect" seems to be as precise as we can get. Again, energy, not matter.

What then in your opinion is "life/consciousness"? Is it energy or "something else"?

 

[wraith]

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?

See the examples?

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.

I believe that there is a conscious entity generating this universe and has control over it. (ie TLOP is conscious. A conscious force controlling conscious entites)

You believe that a non-conscious force came from nothing (after a "no-time" state) that started to create conscious entities. Now were you saying that you didnt obey TLOP yet maintained that there were correlations between mental and brain states?

You being more conscious than TLOP is valid yet to say that a car is more conscious than you is invalid?

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 )

I just may.
But I want your answer since youre the one claiming to have the evidence. So what is it?

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?.

Great reply

All im saying is that im not going to believe something unless I see the logic to it....no matter how much the majority rules

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

Tricky: 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.

That DOESNT support matter creating consciousness...you have shown that life creates life and the correlations between matter and consciousness. The very first life form in this universe had to "jump" from lifeless matter to "life matter"....you have not shown how this is possible...if it was, then there shouldnt be in problem in showing the logic

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.)

I dont have an experiment. Just logic.

Conscious force (TLOP) has control over conscious enties (our consciousness)

TLOP > YOU > CAR

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.

Still dodging the questions.....geez

wraith: mmm data collection is based on logic

Tricky: 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?)

Are you saying that without logic, you can still do all that mentioned above?

(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.)

Do atoms obey TLOP?

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

Didnt you say that the conclusion could still be true, even if the premises were false?

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.

It's true, but it's not true by necessity...

That syllogism is an example of composition

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.

LOL....if that's what you tell yourself.....

 

[wraith]

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...

Well, what you have asked is more a question on ethics in law where I study the actual legislation. Not to mention that I dont live in the States haha

But im happy to give you my take on the questions asked if you want

 

[Loki]

wraith,

You believe that a non-conscious force came from nothing (after a "no-time" state) that started to create conscious entities.

So what's your explanation of where the first conscious entity (TLOP, goddess, whatever) came from? What "started to create conscious entities" in your worldview? Don't you (like everyone else) have only 3 possible answers?

1. Nothing 'created the first consciousness' - it "just is", and has always been that way.
2. Something (or some process) created the first consciousness, and that something (which by definition can't have been conscious) was _____________ (please fill in details)
3. Don't know.

Now, which one is your answer?

 

[CWL]

TLOP > YOU > CAR

Wraith, old boy. I understand that the above is supposed to prove that TLOP is conscious - i.e. the existence of "God". The snag is that it doesn't, since it presupposes that the proposition that "less conscious things are always controlled by more conscious things". Franko has however never offered any proof as to this assertion.

"TLOP > YOU > CAR" hence proves nothing.

 

[Upchurch]

Nope. I acknowledge that given experiments will see particles OR waves -- never both, but prefer to think of it as a dichotomy. You tell me, is a photon static matter, or dynamic energy?

Stickin' the ol' noggin' in the sand, eh?

This is a perfect example of picking and choosing your facts. You're accepting the ones you like and rejecting the rest. This practice will only give you an incomplete picture of the world around and is a disservice to yourself.

If you can convince yourself that anything can be a duality in a meaningful way that makes you happy, I'm happy for you.

Here's is the kicker. I haven't convinced myself. I've read the books, done the experiments, and let the facts do the convincing for me.

You, on the other hand, seem to have an idea in your head (e.g. "dualities are an impossibility") and you're picking and choosing the facts that fit that idea. Reality dictates theory, hammegk. Theory never dictates reality. If reality doesn't agree with theory, it is the theory that must change.

As for meaningful duality, you tell me, is dihydrogen oxide frozen water or liquid ice? (We'll ignore the multiple dualities of gas and plasma.)

edited to add: I never really answered your question. There is nothing "static" about a photon, but a photon is both a particle and a wave, both matter and energy. It may be counter intuitive to our macroscopic world (like much of Quantum Mechanics), but experimentation bears it out again and again and again. It's been shown by every high school and college physics student. Heck, hemmegk, even you can show it if you only wanted to.

So, is it meaningful? I think so. From our macroscopic POV, it is an actual, physical, honest-to-god duality in the flesh, so to speak. How do you get any more amazing than that?

Let me know if you ever decide to come up out of the sand for some air.

 

[The Fool]

wraith,


So what's your explanation of where the first conscious entity (TLOP, goddess, whatever) came from? What "started to create conscious entities" in your worldview? Don't you (like everyone else) have only 3 possible answers?

1. Nothing 'created the first consciousness' - it "just is", and has always been that way.
2. Something (or some process) created the first consciousness, and that something (which by definition can't have been conscious) was _____________ (please fill in details)
3. Don't know.

Now, which one is your answer?

Pointless question loki, good question but pointless.

TPP (the progenitor puppetmaster), when posting as Franko, said that this law stopped at the PS. The progenitor solypsist>godess/tlop>you>car was the end of the line, no superior intelligence exists above the progenitor solipsist.

The equally valid conclusion that if this law could arbitrarily end at the progenitor solipsist then it could just as validly end at "You" (removing the need for godess and Progenitor solipsist) has been ignored by TPP when posting as Franko. When TPP answer this when posting as wraith he generally also ignors it and/or changes the subject and/or answers a strawman...thats what will happen in this case. TPP posting as wraith will ignore your question, change the subject or answer a strawman. (or he may say he doesn't know and will ask Franko)

over to TPP.... Whats the answer from our well loved forum fruitcake?

 

[hammegk]

Stickin' the ol' noggin' in the sand, eh?

This is a perfect example of picking and choosing your facts. You're accepting the ones you like and rejecting the rest. This practice will only give you an incomplete picture of the world around and is a disservice to yourself.

I strongly believe that all of us have an incomplete picture.

Here's is the kicker. I haven't convinced myself. I've read the books, done the experiments, and let the facts do the convincing for me.

Selecting the facts to support your worldview -- again as we all do.

As for meaningful duality, you tell me, is dihydrogen oxide frozen water or liquid ice? (We'll ignore the multiple dualities of gas and plasma.)

Why stop there? What is the duality between a dead (frozen, maybe, Upchurch-as-matter) and a live one?

Is the answer in "matter" or in "energy" since you posit they are "basically the same thing"?

The stopping point is "add energy" or "decrease energy"; the dead Upchurch & the live one weigh the same so far as I am aware.

edited to add: I never really answered your question. There is nothing "static" about a photon, but a photon is both a particle and a wave, both matter and energy. It may be counter intuitive to our macroscopic world (like much of Quantum Mechanics), but experimentation bears it out again and again and again. It's been shown by every high school and college physics student. Heck, hammegk, even you can show it if you only wanted to.

Counterintuitive has a good sound, albeit being only a statement that "I don't know how THAT happens". That's another thing I'm 100% certain of.

Let me know if you ever decide to come up out of the sand for some air.

Sure. Meanwhile, please describe a "matter field".

Originally posted by CWL

What then in your opinion is "life/consciousness"? Is it energy or "something else"?

How about, life & eventually consciousness-as-humans-define-it is the expression of energy given the appropriate, material-as-perceived, conditions.

 

[Upchurch]

I strongly believe that all of us have an incomplete picture.

Of course, but why purposfully ignore any objective information?

Selecting the facts to support your worldview -- again as we all do.

Even if it is something we all do, isn't that something to strive not to do?

Why stop there? What is the duality between a dead (frozen, maybe, Upchurch-as-matter) and a live one?

I don't know that that duality exists. I do know that wave/particle duality does exist. The existance of one doesn't necessarily imply the existance of the other. Just because I can swim doesn't necessarily mean that you can swim too.

Is the answer in "matter" or in "energy" since you posit they are "basically the same thing"?

The stopping point is "add energy" or "decrease energy"; the dead Upchurch & the live one weigh the same so far as I am aware.

There may not (and in my opinon, probably is not) a duality with life and death. I don't know of the existance of something that is both alive and dead at the same time (except for maybe a certain famous cat). I do know of the existance of something that behaves both as matter and energy at the same time though. Lots of things, actually.

Counterintuitive has a good sound, albeit being only a statement that "I don't know how THAT happens". That's another thing I'm 100% certain of.

Heh. Close, but no banana. "Counterintuitive" means opposite or different than your intuition or "common sense" would lead you to believe, not that "I don't know how THAT happens". The latter implies that the mechanism isn't understood or describable. The former just implies that it isn't what you would expect.

And I just checked an online dictionary, you are correct it is one word rather than two.

counterintuitive - contrary to what one would intuitively expect.
intuition - the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

Sure. Meanwhile, please describe a "matter field".

Any matter field? Okay, I've got one to the side of my house. It's comprixed mostly of dirt with vegitable matter mixed in. There is another one just above my head that is comprised on Nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, mostly.

 

[Tricky]

See the examples?

Of course not. You not only have not shown that you understand what "begging the question" is, you have not shown any examples of where I have done it. I can understand why you haven't, because there aren't any examples, but try this: Invent a case of begging the question. It doesn't have to be something anyone has said, just make it up. That should be easy for someone so talented with strawman construction.

I believe that there is a conscious entity generating this universe and has control over it. (ie TLOP is conscious. A conscious force controlling conscious entites)

Yes, I know you believe that. What I'm looking for here is any evidence to support that belief. Your "belief" falls into the classic turtles problem. If human consciousness requires a conscious precursor, (TLOP) then TLOP requires a conscious precursor and that one requires a conscious precursor... You see the endless regression Wraith? At some time one consciousness had to appear without a conscious precursor. I simply let that "one" be the ones we can actually observe as conscious. (TLOP does not satisfy the definition of "conscious")

You believe that a non-conscious force came from nothing (after a "no-time" state) that started to create conscious entities. Now were you saying that you didnt obey TLOP yet maintained that there were correlations between mental and brain states?

(sigh) Is it possible to stick to what I have actually said? At no point did I say we did anything that violates the laws of physics. And BTW, you too believe that a conscious force came from nothing, as I have shown in the "precursor" argument above.

You being more conscious than TLOP is valid yet to say that a car is more conscious than you is invalid?

I am sorry to see you dip back into your dogma rather than addressing the points I have raised.

What is more conscious than TLOP? What is more conscious than the Logical Goddess? What is more conscious than the Progenitor Solipsist? If one extrapolates your theories, these consciousnesses could not have arisen without a superior consciousness to guide them.

Great reply

All im saying is that im not going to believe something unless I see the logic to it....no matter how much the majority rules.

Thank you.

The problem is that you cannot see the logic in something if you do not understand logic. I'm trying to show you some very basic things about logic, but you seem to be protected by a +5 shield of ignorance.

That DOESNT support matter creating consciousness...you have shown that life creates life and the correlations between matter and consciousness. The very first life form in this universe had to "jump" from lifeless matter to "life matter"....you have not shown how this is possible...if it was, then there shouldnt be in problem in showing the logic

Yes, life comes from life, but consciousness is another matter. A zygote has no consciousness. When does it appear? It seems to be correlated to the growth of the neural network. This is not proof, but it is evidence. Can you show me a single piece of evidence (which is different from logic, especially what you call "logic" ) which supports the consciousness-creates-life scenario?

I dont have an experiment. Just logic.

Then why should I believe you? Logic relies on it's postulates. It is the job of science to prove the postulates, via experimentation. One of your postulates is that TLOP is conscious. If you cannot design an experiment to support this postulate, then it is simply a belief, which is not related to or supported by science.

Conscious force (TLOP) has control over conscious enties (our consciousness)

TLOP > YOU > CAR

More beliefs which you admit you cannot support with science. continue it backwards, Wraith. Where did it start?
.....? > ? > PS > LG > TLOP > YOU > CAR

Still dodging the questions.....geez

Wraith, that is a lie and you know it. I spent a great deal of time answering your questions in detail, giving you examples and explaining my logic. I said it might be a waste of time, and I see that I was correct. I hope someday to have a discussion with you when you are not carrying your Shield.

Are you saying that without logic, you can still do all that mentioned above?

Is that the best you can do, Wraith? I just showed you a clear example of the difference between science and logic, and all you can do is fall back on your tired old saw. Can you at least acknowledge that you know the difference between data collection and data analysis?

Do atoms obey TLOP?

Which definition of "obey" are you using?

Didnt you say that the conclusion could still be true, even if the premises were false?

Yes I did, which means that it can VIOLATE LOGIC and still be true. This means that logic is not something that always leads to truth. This means that your beliefs, however logical are not necessarily true. Now do you see why I showed you that flawed syllogism?

It's true, but it's not true by necessity...

And not by logic either. This is why it is so futile to cant your LD syllogisms when you admit that you will accept the conclusion regardless of the correctness of the syllogism. What is the point of trying to employ logic if you say up front that you don't care if it is logical or not?

That syllogism is an example of composition

LOL. Right you are, Wraith. It was composed by Whitefork, whereas your syllogisms are examples of decomposition

Now can you explain the reason why the syllogism is flawed? You don't have to name the fallacy, just show me that you understand it. (Hint: it is not the fallacy of composition)