Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

All Is Physical


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 966 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2012 17:32:44 BDT
Huck Flynn says:
Hi ThulŽatan
i'm right behind you on this one
the brain is a meat machine just like the heart as far as our human science can tell. that's good enough for me. Consciousness is really neural states in time fed by messages from other nerve sources, in different parts of the brain. A fascinating realm and possibly more profitable to explore than outer space. Maybe we'll eventually find god hiding in there :-)

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2012 20:27:03 BDT
kraka says:
Hi Huck,

You say, " Maybe we'll eventually find god hiding in there"

Why not enter therein and confirm, you may just prove to yourself that you hit the nail on the head. You won't know if you don't look.

Mind how you go..................................kraka

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2012 20:47:17 BDT
"I agree nobody should take what others say without question, but often there is common ground with experiences."

But without you telling me about your experiences there is no hope of even starting to see if there is any common ground.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2012 20:52:08 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2012 21:00:59 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2012 21:05:54 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2012 21:09:56 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Oct 2012 23:05:22 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"This is another excellent illustration of why it is such a colossal waste of time bothering with you."
Yes, you've written more and everybody is still unsure of what you mean. That's pretty poor.

"You asked for elucidation, I gave it. Your criticism . Word salad."
Yes, that's what happened.

"I gave illustrations of the words you wanted defined, and in the first instance you call them word salad. ]"
Word salad was a comment of the piece as a whole. It was all just rephrasing your beliefs not much of an elaboration of reasoning. I did the best to unpack what I could. Some was incoherent. Some was too undefined to be of use and the rest was logical fallacies. As you say, a collossal waste of time and words.

"I really can't help your ignorance Ryan."
You mean Drew... again!

"The will controls the intellect and you embarass yourself at these farcical responses."
The will controls the intellect? If that were so your desire to be the intellectual behemoth of these threads would lead you to make sense and see the stupidity in appealing to the power of simplicity over complexity with superfluous language.

"Dawklings. The funny thing is, the metaphysical schema is all there , such that anyone half awake could apprehend it."
It's there alright. Maybe DB could pick it up and run with it too, shall we see?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 04:21:56 BDT
light says:
Spin,

So if science says that everything is connected and some religions believe this, then Jesus was right on by saying, "Everything we do or neglect to do for others, we are doing to him", right?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 10:04:37 BDT
AJ Murray says:
-"Anything that is composed, say a symphony or pine cone, or a puck, or anything down to the quark level is seen to be composite."

So anything that is composed is composite. Just as anything that is red is reddish and anything that is opposed is opposite.

Nice 'logic' there Tom M.

-"As in molecules, protons and electrons have boundaries; natural properties that constitute the reality of their being compositions."

Quarks have boundaries too, does that make them composite, is the same true for photons? Everything we see ultimately is derived from discreet quanta of energy. Those quanta are bounded.

What components does a quark possess Tom?

You're basically pointing at a few select examples then declaring those examples to embody a universal law, this is more commonly know as the fallacy of composition. Quarks for example, are not composite, yet still have boundaries.

-"One is left then with that principle which is the sine qua non of the relationsip of composition."

One is left with impression that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

-"the ordering or final cause, the same variety of principle that makes action at a distance possible with electrons."

Can you elaborate on this, how does the declaration of a final cause relate to 'action at a distance with electrons'? Final causes presupposes teleology, and that isn't included in the science which are using to illustrate your examples, there it becomes artificially imposed upon the system, which rather leads you to circular reasoning; 'it's present because i say it's present and my argument requires it to be present therefore it's present because i say it's present...'

-"Such an event makes no sense in terms of immediate physical forces, but is no problem at all within a metaphysic that acknowledges formal causes."

So you claim, but as we know formal causes are very shaky philosophically speaking (dependent as they are on plato's forms) and have been abandonded by science.

-"Formal causes , without being named such of course are essential to the possibilty of science. But I digress."

Are they indeed. You're quick to claim victory, yet we've seen nothing that would require a formal cause.

-"The composite thing is a united, but bounded thing and a boundery is a limit and principle of individuation. Whatever the ultimate entity is , it cannot , virtually by definition, be bounded."

You've not demonstrated the logic that boundaries are linked to composition or that simplicity requires a lack of boundaries.

-"It must be simple. To be simple is to not exclude but to be unbounded and inclusive."

Inclusivity is just another add-on that you have neither defined nor argued for, this is sounding more like theology than philosophy.

-"Some, considering the particle / wave duality of light have said that light is simple and includes both bounded realities. I'm not sure how I think about this off the top, but it does provide the possibility of an illustration if not model."

As an illustration it renders you previous statements to be nonsensical. The quanta of energy that makes up light is bounded, and thus by your own schema it must be composite.

-"I hope that helps. We are not used to examining the metaphysical properties in such matters."

Metaphysical properties? I get the impression that you think that metaphysics dictates what is possible in physics, when in actual fact it the other way round metaphysics supervenes onto physics.

-"As I think of it, the action at a distant of electrons moving away from each other at the speed of light..."

What are the electrons acting upon? Each other? Are you talking about their mass?

-"...provides a better example. A formal cause, a principle uniting their actions outside of the possibility of their mutual effect is simpler; less bounded as it is inclusive of both particles at a distance."

What formal cause are you talking about? Delcaring formal causes to be present in a system and then not going on to explain what these are supposed to be to is incredibly asinine. You're just saying that they exist apropos of nothing.

The whole idea of formal causes is on very shaky ground to begin with, it is sort of uneccessary entity that is done away with by Ockham' razor. There is not a formal cause present in a quark in addition to essential makeup - indeed you witter on about there being some overriding simplicity that is unbounded (and inclusive) which itself would require a formal cause - thus making it composite.

Or are you now claiming that your simple, unbounded, inclusive entity - that you then assert is God - doesn't require a formal cause? If that is the case, then we are justified in dispensing with it altogether since it adds nothing to the explanations of what we observe.

-"Does this do it? Do you catch a sense of it?"

Not even close. You appear to have read something but rather than having a good understanding of the concepts being used in that discussion, have simply accepted the authority of your source and what we get reproduced here is the weak, lacklustre reflection of what has been said by others.

You cannot defend this schema, because you don't understand it well enough to even talk about it sensibly.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 10:06:47 BDT
AJ Murray says:
He is referring to concepts within philosophy, but is mangling them and assuming their truth without due thought - he also is attempting to tie these to scientific observations which the ignores the fact that teleology and platonic forms are simply ignored by science. They are superfluous to explanation.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 10:19:18 BDT
"One is left with impression that you don't actually know what you are talking about."

Absolutely!

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 11:16:28 BDT
Huck Flynn says:
thanks Krakpot
i've known for some time that god is all in your mind. i'm ok with that.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 16:19:52 BDT
Spin says:
Light: Well, from a philosophical persepective, I would have to say that since the physical world affects the non-physical mind, I suppose a christian could argue that physical events in the universe, particularly events which are of a moral or immoral nature, affect the immaterial being of a deific messiah. But that concept opens other questions concerning the nature of God, the universe, and human consciouness; questions which lie in the realm of theology, christology and metaphysics.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 16:35:57 BDT
Huck Flynn says:
the "non-physical mind" - have you ever seen one not in captivity ?

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 19:37:33 BDT
richard says:
after escaping it was last not seen lurking anywhere physical you can think of.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 19:54:46 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 20:15:10 BDT
I just tried running this through google translate to swahili and got this:

"Kama kweli tu hawezi 'kuona' kutumia nzuri Humean sitiari, kwamba kuamuru mambo ni pamoja na ndani ya kanuni kuagiza kwamba ni ontologically kabla, basi faini .. unaweza tuone hii. Wewe ni wa kushoto na unintelligible kitu.

Nice mantiki huko. Na naamini upinzani wako ulikuwa Kidokezo tautological ya kile aliandika na hivyo ukosoaji wako lazima kuwa wamekwenda sunda, mantiki si. Watu wengi kuwavurugia mbili."

To be honest, it's actually no less intelligible than the original.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 20:21:59 BDT
Tom M says:
Hi Spin

I am glad you qualified your comments on the new 'dimensions' that can explain 'everything' and are therefore accused of explaining nothing. THe well known phrase, "Not even wrong" has been ascribed to String theory and to date it has accomplished nothing. This is not to say that I have an informed opinion on it long term, but Hawking's latest and terrible book is built upon this 'foundation' predicated on the notion that the universe behaves like an electron.

A rather difficult thesis to test empirically or scientifically.

And I also like your mentioning of the most fundamental principle, which is that everything is indeed related. Wolfgang Smith's book goes to this point, and suddenly the quantum 'weirdness' problems go away.

I showed in my response to Ryan that he labled "word salad' that the action at a distance problem of twinned electrons can easily be resolved within the framework of a simpler agency that transcends ...obviously.. the difficulties of composite matter being "related " while moving away from each other at the speed of light.

So much for salad. So nice to see agnostic intelligence in action. So scientific and evidence based.

Cheers

Posted on 26 Oct 2012 20:31:54 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 20:37:26 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Oct 2012 21:07:09 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"I *claimed* in my response to *Drew* that he *labelled* "word salad"..."
FTFY.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 21:04:06 BDT
John, you are a genius!

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2012 22:02:11 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 27 Oct 2012 01:19:39 BDT
light says:
Thuleatan,

Has the Op lost interest in his thread?

If all is physical, then what should one make of the saying, "mind over matter?" Should the saying be, "matter over matter?" Which matter would prevail? The strongest, the wisest, the matter that is most able to adapt?

Looking at evidence of the Tibetan Monks, the mind is able to change the body so that it can heat and dry wet towels.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Oct 2012 01:26:40 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Oct 2012 02:47:07 BDT
light says:
Spin,

Yes the physical world affects the mind but who is to say the the mind does not have an affect on the physical world?

The brain has electrical currents so the currents would also be in the mind since the mind is in the brain. If lightning rods draw lightning toward it then maybe there is something that draws the electrical currents in our brain toward it too? Why not?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  33
Total posts:  966
Initial post:  19 Oct 2012
Latest post:  1 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions