What you said that I said:
“All matter takes on certain forms in given circumstances...”
is fundamentally different from what I said:
"matter is nothing but consistent patterns..."
I'm not sure if you're just trying to validate your accusation or if you honestly are overlooking the difference. If I said "iron is nothing but
a style of dancing charged space" and then you repeat back to me "all iron does a dance in given circumstances.", where do you get that you're the one being unfairly corrected?
I’m gathering more evidence that your use of words is solely to impress and would point out that “nuomenal” is spelled “noumenal.”
Sorry, I transpose that sometimes. I don't even like that word, I just don't have a better one to mean 'what the universe is really doing independent of our observations of it'
So laws are based on lesser laws and patterns are based on lesser patterns… Are patterns are determined by a law?
Some patterns are determined by laws, some laws are determined by patterns. It's just a semantic distinction. They are simple, casual terms (therefore potentially inviting broad misunderstanding).
"All shadow is produced by light, and not the other way around" makes perfect sense. .Hmmm… shadows are not produced by light. They are the result of a lack of light.
Wow. Sorry, but is this really that hard?
There is no such thing as a lack of X without X. Conversely, the lack of X does not produce X. A person can see that a tree blocks the sunlight, making shade. A shadow. If rip out their eyes, they will no longer see that shadow, or any shadows ever again. No eyes = a lack of light...and yet...NO SHADOWS.
Black and white are linguistic concepts based on subjective conditions, so not appropriate for characterizing a category which is common to both interior and exterior phenomena
…and order and disorder are not linguistic concepts?
Yes, they are, but not based only on subjective conditions. I was trying to make the distinction that Black and White are idealized essences rather than concrete conditions. Linguistic maybe wasn't a useful qualification. I was in a hurry.
I am hopeful that beneath all the metaphysical garbage, there may be something worth having. However, my optimism is at an all-time low.
Well, my ideas obviously aren't everyone's cup of tea. You can read Chalmers stuff
instead if the formal credentials make it easier to swallow.
Disorder is just the word 'order' with a prefix. Do you have any proof or a shred of evidence for that wild statement?
Not sure what you mean. Like this?
(assimilated as dif- before -f-), prefix meaning 1. "lack of, not" (e.g. dishonest); 2. "do the opposite of" (e.g. disallow); 3. "apart, away" (e.g. discard), from O.Fr. des-, from L. dis- "apart," from PIE *dis- "apart, asunder" (cf. O.E. te-, O.S. ti-, O.H.G. ze-, Ger. zer-).
Entropy comes from entropy… really?
That's what I'm trying to show you that you are really saying by avoiding the question of what the move towards entropy is moving away from in the first place. Isn't the answer that order must, in all cases, precede and define entropy, just as light precedes and defines a shadow?
What about these properties of the matter that came into existence? Where did they come from?the atomic structure.
Isn't atomic structure a property of matter? Where did that come from. The whole idea of an atom, it's structure and properties, how it must interact with other instances of itself, how it's properties change when it combines with those other instances...where does that come from, and, since we're talking about the beginning of time, when did it come from?
Did I mention an explosion? I thought I said, ‘expansion’. As far as where it came from, I offer you two answers: (i) God did it (ii) I don’t know and neither do you.
Well, (i) doesn't work because where did God come from?
(ii) is just accepting mystery, which I respect, but I could think of a few others though:
(iii)It doesn't come from somewhere, somewhere comes from it.
(iv)the Big Bang isn't an event in timespace, it's the locus which generates the possibility of events in timespace and is better described as 'the opposite of Now' or the hub or nucleus around which timespace expands.
(v)the big bang is just one side of the big bang/big crunch cycle. It's eternal and omnipresent, a fundamental condition of existence.
Ah! At last! Someone who knows what happened before the Big Bang; before the start of time. PM me, I’ll get you the ‘phone number of CERN and the Nobel Institute.
Nothing has to have 'happened' before the Big Bang, but the order which defines the conditions which give rise to the big bang seems like it would have to exist in some way within, beyond, or perpendicular to timespace. If you make a big bang happen, you need a universe which first allows banging.
So basically there’s this noumenal order where there is nothing, not even time, but ‘order of itself’ sits there. Doesn’t seem too likely to me. Nevertheless, tell me more…
We can't ever know what the noumenal, naked comsos looks like - at least not while we're these animals spinning around. What we can infer is that all phenomena is informed by specific order but not all order is limited to a particular phenomena.
you are never changes regardless of how your body or mind may change. Your name and birthdate will always be yours, even if you take a new name or fake your birthdate.
Forms like a circle or square are common to both material substance and imagination, but there was never any point which the circle or square had to be invented.
Music or images can be transmitted through many mediums, electronic, digital, and analog yet the music itself is not limited to being transmitted by any particular medium. Whether it's on the radio or nobody has played it in a hundred years, a song is a song - it's potential to exist is not limited to physical media.
You know, you’re just making this up. I must say you’re doing a fine job, the technical language is excellent. It gives every impression that you actually have something behind this, yet all you have is something built on sand.
Thanks, I guess. I don't know what you think it has to be behind this other than what it is. I'm not building anything, I'm just describing the sand.
Here’s a nice quote, “An ontological argument for the existence of God attempts the method of a priori proof, which uses intuition and reason alone.”
It fails. The ontological argument was best before 1720.
Well intuition and reason don't suggest the existence of a God but they do suggest the existence of intuition and reason.
Irrelevant whether or not I would say it. I repeat my argument, “The statement, “subjective bias people like subjectivity” is trivial.”
That's your miscaracterized version of my statement "People with a subjective bias are more likely to accept subjective-biased ideas
and to reject objectively-biased evidence. " I never said “subjective bias people like subjectivity”. You are putting trivial words in my mouth and calling them trivial. Now that's
Refer yourself back to the first point in this post, and weep.
Yeah, not weeping. Twice now in this comment I'm pretty sure that you've misconstrued what I've said, substituted your meaning for mine, and then announced that you've caught me in a deception of some kind.
There are many types of cell in the body; most do not transmit anything we could call “consciousness.”
That's true. I would reserve the word consciousness to refer to the interiority of complex meta-cellular organizations of nerve cells within animals. The cells themselves, if they have some kind of subjectivity, would be very different. If consciousness is comparable to every symphony ever written, the subjective scope of a cell might be a single note. It's not particularly useful to speculate on the subjectivity of our own neighbors, let alone subordinate forms of life. Subjectivity isn't accessible from the outside.
I think you have answered the question immediately above – the neural network does the job – not every cell.
Yes, but the neural network is nothing but every cell. Like a wall is every brick. Each brick contributes to what the wall is.
Not really, or if there is a grain of substance in it, it is but a minor irritant. If you want to be really wacko about it, you could suggest that we can never know another person’s perceptions, and thus have only our own perceptions, which might be completely delusional.
We can't know another person's perceptions with objective certainty, but we share our perceptions all the time through expression, communication, gesture.
It may be that you’re the only sane man in the asylum.
Sanity is precious and overrated at the same time.
On the other hand, wading in with technical words, spouting metaphysics and believing that sitting gazing at your navel can reveal the mysteries of, and the answer to, life, the universe and everything, may have something to do with it.
Yeah, all that fancy thinkin and worderatin' never lead to much.
There is a convention: if you are asked for evidence, you either provide it or admit you have none. No one here is required to produce evidence for or against you, you’re the one making the claims.
Oh I understand that. It's part of the OMM mantra. I'm just saying that all these people scoffing at me have yet to produce any evidence which flattens any of my bold claims. Not saying they have to, but I'm surprised they haven't, you know, just for fun. It's almost as if they were using this convention as a security blanket for themselves and a blunt instrument for me. I guess I'd have to have evidence of that though.
so there is no evidence…
It's not a mechanical principle, it's a philosophical observation.