Well it’s you who said that at its base level, iron dances.
Noooo. For the last time - I said, and still say, that iron IS A dance (not that IT dances). There's a difference. The whole point of my continuing with this is to point out that important difference. On a truly objective level, there is no such thing as iron, we know that it's just an arbitrary, mathematically inevitable configuration of charged vectors that behaves, moves, or 'dances' for us in an IRONIC way, heh. (A little bit of meta-irony for you).
There is no underlying matter, just materialized patterns of mass, spin, charge, etc. It's almost entirely movement and empty space - the remainder is just a placeholder, having no particular properties of it's own - it's just a cursor of physicality - nothing but a needle's point in the process of making a needlepoint.
How matter appears to us
How matter would appear if completely static (point of the pin only)
Like the image on your screen right now. The screen itself has a layer of pixels, but it's what the one active pixel is doing which makes the image, not the pixel-ness of the pixel, but our ability to transmit visual information using that pixel activity of racing across the screen fast enough to fool our eye.
Yet there you have used a phrase that is clear to everyone! Please use more words and fewer words with meanings that are almost solely the province of the philosopher of the 60s.
So philosophy of the 1780s is good, 1960s bad. So much for human enlightenment progressing over time I guess.
I accepted the invitation, please give a definitive list of the patterns governed by laws and the laws governed by patterns so I will not accept the same invitation again.
Even Republicans don't expect to be able to tell their opponent to filibuster themselves.
I don't define words for adults, unless they are obscure terms. You provide a list and I'll tell you where I agree. Not that it matters. Why care about the difference between law and pattern? Where do you want to go with this?
There is no such thing as a lack of X without X.I would think that a lack of X implied there was no X.
If there was no X, how can there be a lack of it? A lack of what? X doesn't exist.
Light can be modeled as creating the possibility of our subjective visual experience of hue, chroma, and value.source
Shadow, which is what I'm talking about (as opposed to white v black) is a relative term that just means 'lower Value'. It's not the absence of all light - which would be neither light, shadow, black, white, nor colored, but literally invisible.
No, even surrounded by blind men, I still see light. They may not, but indeed it is still there. (It’s not like the tree in the forest.)
I like my example better because it emphasizes that no light means no possibility of light, but fine, we'll go with the simpler example I was going to use first.
A person can see that a tree makes a shadow during the day. If you take that tree and put it into a completely dark and sealed room...is there still a shadow of that tree? Even if you're blind and even if you are on the side of the world bathed in daylight, there is no visible tree or shadow without the presence of light.
If you turn the example around, and try to make shadow supervene upon light, it doesn't really work, does it? If you shine a bright light on a shadow, the shadow disappears...because it doesn't exist, it's only a pattern of relative
lack of light.
Your claim is that food produces hunger which does not seem to stand up to scrutiny.
The existence of food does produce hunger. Bricks have no food. Are they hungry? Where is this scrutiny? Bring it on.
No. Your point that Entropy comes from entropy is far from made. Please explain how entropy manages to get up off its arse.
No, I'm saying that entropy coming from entropy is YOUR point. I'm asking you to explain where entropy comes from and you're trying to cover for the lack of an answer. My answer is that obviously entropy and syntropy, teleology and teleonomy are all parts of the same process.
Or is matter a property of atomic structure?
What's the difference? Semantics.
Where did that come from.No idea. Have you?
I think that the cosmos is literally made of order. It doesn't come from somewhere else, order is what the cosmos is - what it always has been and likely always will be.
I’m sure we can get to an answer if we simply say Omm enough times. Or, failing that, we can sit in philosophy class and work it out without actually making any scientific observations. I’m sure the absolute truth is in all of us.
That's not how I got my answer, but I think mine works just fine. I suppose I could try to get another answer by going online and telling people that whatever they say is wrong, senseless, and unprovable and see if it works better.
So, does all this garbage about “order” help us at all?
It's your enlightenment, do with it what you want. Or don't.
If you make a big bang happen, you need a universe which first allows banging.There are problems with the human mind. It can’t grasp infinity, it seems stuck in 3 dimensions and it seems to be hung up on cause and effect in the 3D world. It’ll be that way forever.
Sounds like something out of a church sermon. The human mind isn't limited to 3 dimensions. Cosmologists seem comfortable with 10 or more. I like 10 too but a different 10.
Your claim there is valid only if the universe is basically like the human’s view of their neighbourhood. It probably isn’t.
It's not a claim, it's observations and ideas. I've never said that the human's view of their neighborhood is basically like the universe, I'm saying that all we'll ever know is that neighborhood, so for all intents and purposes, that is the universe. What happens outside of our neighborhood isn't accessible to us.
Hold it right there! May I suggest that if we can never know, then any inference is bound to be false.
False relative to the noumenal univese, maybe, but again, unknowable and irrelevant. False to our phenomenal view, not at all, if the inference has explanatory power then what's the problem?
In view of my last statement, “no.”
in view of my last statement about your last statement, "yes"
This is true for anything that exists and can be described. I feel the words, “square” and “circle” had to be coined though.
Of course the words were coined. They were coined for the purpose of referring to a pattern which as always potentially existed.
Intuition is what we have as a result of not bothering to reason for a lifetime.
Reason is only a type of intuition. Intuition is primary.
After acceding to the idea that only nerve cells communicate meaning fully, you then try to escape from your admission. For Shame!
Human meaning is the communication of nerve cells, but those meanings are their (our) communication of cellular meaning with other cells, which are based on molecular communications with other molecules and energies.
Back to the protocol stack. We are an application. Our meaning is color, words, feelings, thoughts, images, archetypes. Those meanings ride on top of a cultural presentation layer, which is built on an anthropological session layer, a physiological transport layer, a biological network layer, a chemical datalink layer, and an atomic physical layer. All of those layers are communicating order, pattern, or 'meaning' in their own language.
That’s probably because you are incapable of expressing yourself in common English.
If I want to order lunch, I use common English. If I want to discuss the cosmos, I have to use whatever forms of English I deem appropriate.
I’ll say it again, you are capable of dispensing with a specialised vocabulary – you did it above in defining noumenal or at least using a phrase that does not send people rushing to dictionaries and causing further problems over a precise definition.
I don't work for you. I don't have a suggestion box. Like I said, read Chalmers instead if you like.
If you expressed your ideas clearly (No, really clearly and it is not clear when you throw uncommon words and concepts about) you may have more fish biting. I’m sure most people don’t mind one or two strange words in a page, but 5 per sentence is wearing.
Sorry, but again, I don't know my audience. I do this for me. If you get something out of it, great. There are millions of publications that I have no interest in reading, but I've never once thought of that as the author's problem.
My wife is a philosopher, her comment was, “I’ve seen hundreds like him, it’s all pointless, he plays with words. I doubt he really knows what he intends to say.” But then she can be harsh.
If that's what you think, why keep reading and responding?
Look, I’m trying to be helpful here, a Dutch Uncle if you will. The concepts you are putting forward may or may not have validity but if no one can tell, you might as well give up.
Hahaha. More like a Dutch Oven.
Was it Wittgenstein who said, “Of that we do not know, we should not speak.”?
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
* Translated: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (7)
* Also: About what one can not speak, one must remain silent.
I agree, language and logic are limited. We can only express a finite scope of our experience through speech and writing.