Franko Memorial thread! [Archive]

neutrino_cannon

12th April 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by wraith
HAHAHAHA

It's quite simple n.cannon. Your choices are simply the product of your MPB. You dont choose anything. It's an illusion.

Frank simply used colour to demonstrate this. You perceive "red" when photons oscillate. Without someone to perceive oscillating photons, there is no "red"

I see you din't read the post carefully. Franko said that electrons oscillate, not photons. The fact is, both are true, after a fashion. The electrons of the atom are stimulated, thus releasing photons, which in turn stimulate chemical/electrical interactions that make the eye, not to mention everything else, work.

To say that you perceive "red" when photons oscillate is simply wrong. Perception is a function of electrical and chemical interactions in the brain, photons are not involved.

So I guess Franko got this one right, as far as particles are concerned.

To say that the "red" isn't there is just wrong. The red is there all right, in the form of those troublesome photons oscillating in the air (why oscillating, and not just travelling, I don't know). If photons oscillating at 5250 AU isn't red, then nothing is.

The Fool

12th April 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by wraith
suck it up ladies and gents :cool:
haha
Sockpuppet.
Are you planning to stick to the one username, or are we to see the gradual return of your other characters? To be fair, If you were to decide to stick to one....Muscleman was the most entertaining, how about you just do that character? The Franko one had degenerated into endless repetition, The Wraith character is way too variable, you need to work on more consistantcy with the wraith character, he keeps slipping into Franko when under stress. And Franko gets a bit like Muscleman when contradictions are exposed... Nope...all in all, Muscleman is the most original and entertaining...you should bring him back.

Tricky

12th April 2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by wraith
HAHAHAHA
The clowns just keep on walking in :rolleyes:

Well, I think that you athiest rather like the idea of a "Franko-less" period. What a time to spread the one true faith preached by the cult of Pessimism without Resistance!!
And where the hell have YOU been, son? Lot's of people would take your simultaneous disappearances to mean that you and Franko were the same person, but I don't buy that story. I think you were afraid to post without your Big Dog to protect you when you made ludicrous statements. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Baker

12th April 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

And where the hell have YOU been, son? Lot's of people would take your simultaneous disappearances to mean that you and Franko were the same person, but I don't buy that story. I think you were afraid to post without your Big Dog to protect you when you made ludicrous statements. Feel free to prove me wrong.

He had better not be Franko that would rune a perfectly good thread.
Then again, it could be just free will.

c4ts

12th April 2003, 11:20 PM

Wait, if he hijacks threads again, he'll get banned this time!

wraith

13th April 2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
I see you din't read the post carefully. Franko said that electrons oscillate, not photons. The fact is, both are true, after a fashion. The electrons of the atom are stimulated, thus releasing photons, which in turn stimulate chemical/electrical interactions that make the eye, not to mention everything else, work.

Fine. Electrons then. It doesnt hinder my point.

To say that you perceive "red" when photons oscillate is simply wrong. Perception is a function of electrical and chemical interactions in the brain, photons are not involved.

Are you saying that we can perceive "red" without photons or an eye?

To say that the "red" isn't there is just wrong. The red is there all right, in the form of those troublesome photons oscillating in the air (why oscillating, and not just travelling, I don't know). If photons oscillating at 5250 AU isn't red, then nothing is.

How so? The reality is the oscillating photons. Where is the "red"?

wraith

13th April 2003, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Sockpuppet.
Are you planning to stick to the one username, or are we to see the gradual return of your other characters? To be fair, If you were to decide to stick to one....Muscleman was the most entertaining, how about you just do that character? The Franko one had degenerated into endless repetition, The Wraith character is way too variable, you need to work on more consistantcy with the wraith character, he keeps slipping into Franko when under stress. And Franko gets a bit like Muscleman when contradictions are exposed... Nope...all in all, Muscleman is the most original and entertaining...you should bring him back.

ahhh yes, the down town Jester!...I do enjoy your antics, as it embodies some great mad cap humour :rolleyes:

wraith

13th April 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

And where the hell have YOU been, son? Lot's of people would take your simultaneous disappearances to mean that you and Franko were the same person, but I don't buy that story. I think you were afraid to post without your Big Dog to protect you when you made ludicrous statements. Feel free to prove me wrong.

If it helps you to see it that way then go ahead ;)

Ive been in a state of rest from this board...."recharging" if you will lol

Lay anything you want on me tough guy :cool:

wraith

13th April 2003, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Baker

He had better not be Franko that would rune a perfectly good thread.
Then again, it could be just free will.

haha

No we cant have the dire words spoken by the cult of the one true faith go unchallenged! Thats just not on!

wraith

13th April 2003, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by c4ts
Wait, if he hijacks threads again, he'll get banned this time!

"hijacks"?
hahaha

I think you mean that Frank exposes punks like yourself ;)

Tricky

13th April 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by wraith
Ive been in a state of rest from this board...."recharging" if you will lol

Lay anything you want on me tough guy :cool:
Okay.

What is dreamworld matter (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338145&highlight=dreamworld+matter#post338145). How is it different from regular matter?

c4ts

13th April 2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by wraith

"hijacks"?
hahaha

I think you mean that Frank exposes punks like yourself ;)

Originally posted by Hal Bidlack
-On Trolls and Trolling: In multiple conversations with Mr. Randi, Linda, Jeff, Hal, and Andrew, it was decided that trolls whose only purpose is to troll are counterproductive to a successful educational forum. It is the JREF’s desire that the forum exist as a venue for the sharing of ideas and concepts, not as caldron of incivility. We certainly recognize that the forum, in addition to being of educational value, it is also an online community that welcomes pure fun and entertainment as well. It is the stance of the JREF that trolling enhances neither. Therefore, trolling is not permitted. Trolling is a difficult concept to define, and therefore and only in the most egregious cases, will suspension or banning be considered as the sanction. Only forum administrators have the power to suspend or ban, and only after consultation with one another.

Just so you know, "exposing punks like ourselves" is counterproductive to the punk talk for which this board exists.

wraith

13th April 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Okay.

What is dreamworld matter (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=338145&highlight=dreamworld+matter#post338145). How is it different from regular matter?

This "dreamworld" matter is matter.
Only that you see matter as this "hard stuff" while I see it as patterns of energy.

wraith

13th April 2003, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Just so you know, "exposing punks like ourselves" is counterproductive to the punk talk for which this board exists.

bah
cant take a little heat?

Ban me if you must....it just highlights my point.

But then again, from your point of view, it's completely justified...

how strange :cool:

CWL

14th April 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by wraith

This "dreamworld" matter is matter.
Only that you see matter as this "hard stuff" while I see it as patterns of energy.

Do you see Gravitons as "matter" or are they merely "patterns of energy"?

Do Gravitons differ from other "matter"?

If so, how?

RonSceptic

14th April 2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by wraith

I think you mean that Frank exposes punks like yourself ;)

Welcome back Mr Information Minister. Pleased to see you made it out of Baghdad. Hope those caves in Syria aren't too cold.

Tricky

14th April 2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by wraith

This "dreamworld" matter is matter.
Only that you see matter as this "hard stuff" while I see it as patterns of energy.

Does how you perceive matter have any effect at all on the characteristics of that matter? Will you be unharmed by a bowling ball falling on your foot simply because you perceive it as a pattern of energy? If not, then your distinction of "dreamworld matter" versus "hard stuff" is a meaningless distinction.

You can see matter as patterns of energy or as an arrangement of microscopic Presbyterian pangolins, but unless you can demonstrate that your "vision" has some significant bearing on how matter behaves, then what you call it makes no difference.

So perhaps I'd better rephrase the question. "In what way does "dreamworld matter" behave differently from "ordinary matter"?

c4ts

14th April 2003, 03:13 PM

Start another thread, don't hijack this one.

wraith

14th April 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Do you see Gravitons as "matter" or are they merely "patterns of energy"?

Do Gravitons differ from other "matter"?

If so, how?

In reality, all that exists is consciousness. Matter is simply "what is" when consciousnesses communicate.

Now we can go right on in and plough over the "hard problem" and unearth the nature of consciousness. LD possess that consciousness is the source of gravity ( or is it the other way around...I get them mixed up :cool: ) and the other 3 forces of nature are controlled by God. In this, your soul/you source of "I"/consciousness is gravity. A particle in reality that perceives.

So to answer your question, Gravitons are matter, but it's the only matter in reality. Matter such as a rock or your tree is energy that you interpret as a "rock" and a "tree".

wraith

14th April 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Welcome back Mr Information Minister. Pleased to see you made it out of Baghdad. Hope those caves in Syria aren't too cold.

ahhhh....something like that :rolleyes:

wraith

14th April 2003, 07:17 PM

Tricky

wraith: This "dreamworld" matter is matter. Only that you see matter as this "hard stuff" while I see it as patterns of energy.

Tricky: Does how you perceive matter have any effect at all on the characteristics of that matter? Will you be unharmed by a bowling ball falling on your foot simply because you perceive it as a pattern of energy? If not, then your distinction of "dreamworld matter" versus "hard stuff" is a meaningless distinction.

You can see matter as patterns of energy or as an arrangement of microscopic Presbyterian pangolins, but unless you can demonstrate that your "vision" has some significant bearing on how matter behaves, then what you call it makes no difference.

So perhaps I'd better rephrase the question. "In what way does "dreamworld matter" behave differently from "ordinary matter"?

No not all. Matter will "act the same" to both of us, regardless of our beliefs on what matter "does".. However, because of our differences in belief, we are going to take different paths in our lives. With one path being "closer" to the Truth than the other.

wraith

14th April 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Start another thread, don't hijack this one.

If you want to post somehting about Franko's memorial, then go for it! Considering the seriousness of the topic, I dont think that anyone really cares if the thread goes "off track".

.....one at every party :rolleyes:

Q-Source

15th April 2003, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by wraith

In reality, all that exists is consciousness. Matter is simply "what is" when consciousnesses communicate.

Could you define again Matter?
What do you mean by "what is" ?

If you say in reality there is only consciousness then, it is impossible that there is also matter....

So you have to decide what reality is made of.
a)only matter
b) only consciousness
c) both

Now we can go right on in and plough over the "hard problem" and unearth the nature of consciousness. LD possess that consciousness is the source of gravity ( or is it the other way around...I get them mixed up )

Oh, you are not a fast graviton ;)
Let's hope Franko doesn't notice that confusion :cool:

and the other 3 forces of nature are controlled by God. In this, your soul/you source of "I"/consciousness is gravity. A particle in reality that perceives.

As far as I know, Frank says that only Gravity is conscious

So you agree that TLOP =/= conscious

So to answer your question, Gravitons are matter, but it's the only matter in reality.

Again, is consciousness the only reality?
are gravitons made of matter?
if this is the case, then reality is not made of consciousness only.

Matter such as a rock or your tree is energy that you interpret as a "rock" and a "tree".

Are you saying that a Graviton is not energy as well?

If graviton = consciousness = gravity

and you claim that graviton = matter then,

it implies that matter = consciousness :confused:

Q-S

MRC_Hans

15th April 2003, 05:08 AM

Rather pertinent points, I think, QS. I have only one more:

Now we can go right on in and plough over the "hard problem" and unearth the nature of consciousness. LD possess that consciousness is the source of gravity ( or is it the other way around...I get them mixed up ) Whichever it is, it does not compute. There is no correlation between the gravity of an object and its consciousness. So what is the difference between the gravity of a human and the gravity of a rock, according to LD?

Hans

hammegk

15th April 2003, 06:02 AM

I forget if I ever heard what Franco's definition of a "graviton" was. Does anyone recall?

CWL

15th April 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by wraith

In reality, all that exists is consciousness. Matter is simply "what is" when consciousnesses communicate.

Now we can go right on in and plough over the "hard problem" and unearth the nature of consciousness. LD possess that consciousness is the source of gravity ( or is it the other way around...I get them mixed up :cool: ) and the other 3 forces of nature are controlled by God. In this, your soul/you source of "I"/consciousness is gravity. A particle in reality that perceives.

So to answer your question, Gravitons are matter, but it's the only matter in reality. Matter such as a rock or your tree is energy that you interpret as a "rock" and a "tree".

Hmmm. I shall go into lurk mode for a while, awaiting your response to Q-Source's and Hans' respective replies to the above.

Tricky

15th April 2003, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by wraith
So to answer your question, Gravitons are matter, but it's the only matter in reality. Matter such as a rock or your tree is energy that you interpret as a "rock" and a "tree".
Sorry, Grasshopper, but you didn't learn very well at the foot of your master.
You could say:

Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)

or you might even say:

gravitons are memes (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704)

Or even gravitons are souls. But nowhere does The List (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12112&perpage=40&highlight=tenets%20logical%20deism&pagenumber=22) indicate that gravitons are matter. Of course, if you want to argue that matter is made of time... well, that would be just about as intelligent as anything else you have said.:D

Originally posted by wraith
Tricky

No not all. Matter will "act the same" to both of us, regardless of our beliefs on what matter "does".
Then you agree there is no useful distinction between ordinary matter and "dreamworld matter"? If so, why even mention the latter?

Originally posted by wraith
However, because of our differences in belief, we are going to take different paths in our lives. With one path being "closer" to the Truth than the other.
At least you had the good sense not to indicate which one of us was closer to Truth. :p

CWL

15th April 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

or you might even say:

gravitons are memes (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704)

[/lurk mode]

... and memes are (of course) quite simply distinct packages of information (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704).

Does that mean that a "distinct package of information" is the same as "matter" in LD cosmology? What if the information is not "distinct" - is it not "matter" then?

Moreover, what makes an information package "distinct"? Is it wrapped in special meme wrapping paper?

Tricky

15th April 2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by CWL

[/lurk mode]

... and memes are (of course) quite simply distinct packages of information (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704).

Does that mean that a "distinct package of information" is the same as "matter" in LD cosmology? What if the information is not "distinct" - is it not "matter" then?

Moreover, what makes an information package "distinct"? Is it wrapped in special meme wrapping paper?

So let's see what we have so far:

Gravitons = souls = memes = time = energy = information = matter.

Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah, the real definition of
gravitons (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?Gravitons).
From Merriam-Webster
a hypothetical particle with zero charge and rest mass that is held to be the quantum of the gravitational field

wraith

16th April 2003, 02:50 AM

Q-Cumber ;)

wraith: In reality, all that exists is consciousness. Matter is simply "what is" when consciousnesses communicate.

Q-Source: Could you define again Matter?
What do you mean by "what is" ?

Matter is a meme. An idea. If you and I were consciousnesses floating around in space, how would we communicate? We could exchange energy (ie an idea) and perceive it in the form of what we call matter. Such as "tree" or "rock" or "Q-Source's sofa" :cool:

The way in which we perceive this universe could be the same as a character's perception of the universe in one of your dreams (assuming that the character in your dream could perceive) perhaps Im one of those charaters? Maybe you are aswell :eek: ;)

Q-Source: If you say in reality there is only consciousness then, it is impossible that there is also matter....

So you have to decide what reality is made of.
a)only matter
b) only consciousness
c) both

Matter is a meme/idea.
As we talk to each other, we are exchanging memes, only we need TLOP to do this so it is relayed to God then to you.

wraith: Now we can go right on in and plough over the "hard problem" and unearth the nature of consciousness. LD possess that consciousness is the source of gravity ( or is it the other way around...I get them mixed up )

Q-Source: Oh, you are not a fast graviton ;)
Let's hope Franko doesn't notice that confusion :cool:

lol
....not at the expense of the Truth, in that, I hope that he does ;)

wraith: and the other 3 forces of nature are controlled by God. In this, your soul/you source of "I"/consciousness is gravity. A particle in reality that perceives.

Q-Source: As far as I know, Frank says that only Gravity is conscious

So you agree that TLOP =/= conscious

Yes exactly. Gravity/Soul/Consciousness.
TLOP is conscious YES!

Again, is consciousness the only reality?
are gravitons made of matter?
if this is the case, then reality is not made of consciousness only.

You may have heard Franko say that LDs (remember Christians and Muslims....or any other believer in God/s, Karma (Fate), responsibility for ones actions can be seen as an LD) are the true materialists.

The Soul/Graviton is matter. However it's not the same as what you perceive as "normal matter" like a tree or a rock.

Are you saying that a Graviton is not energy as well?

If graviton = consciousness = gravity

and you claim that graviton = matter then,

it implies that matter = consciousness :confused:

lol
and thats absolutely correct....
We are the true materialists ;)
The difference between us and a rock is that we can perceive and a rock cant. It's a meme thought up by God/Goddess.

Q-Source

16th April 2003, 10:11 AM

Wraith,

Your post is full of inconsistencies and incoherences, I don't know even how to respond.

Originally posted by wraith

Matter is a meme. An idea. If you and I were consciousnesses floating around in space, how would we communicate? We could exchange energy (ie an idea) and perceive it in the form of what we call matter.

You are redefining what we all understand by "matter" .

If meme is an idea, then why you call it matter?

Yes exactly. Gravity/Soul/Consciousness.
TLOP is conscious YES!

No, I think that you need to read again my question.

Gravity is the only LOP that is conscious according to you. If we have 4 LOP, then it means that TLOP cannot be conscious... unless all of them are conscious!!

You may have heard Franko say that LDs (remember Christians and Muslims....or any other believer in God/s, Karma (Fate), responsibility for ones actions can be seen as an LD) are the true materialists.

Yeah, sure :rolleyes:

The Soul/Graviton is matter. However it's not the same as what you perceive as "normal matter" like a tree or a rock.

Didn't you say before that matter is a meme?

If a tree or a rock are not "normal matter" then they are not matter!

Make your mind and answer the question again: what is matter?
what makes a person a true materialist?

and thats absolutely correct....
We are the true materialists

If you accept that consciousness= matter that does not make you a true materialist, that just makes you an idealist, a mentalist.

Q-S

wraith

18th April 2003, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Rather pertinent points, I think, QS. I have only one more:

Whichever it is, it does not compute. There is no correlation between the gravity of an object and its consciousness. So what is the difference between the gravity of a human and the gravity of a rock, according to LD?

Hans

That's a good question actually.

Well consciousness is the source of gravity while a rock is a meme. The strength of one's consciousness (gravity) can be seen on how effective you are at influencing one's Fate.

Speaking of the gravity generated from a rock, does not imply that it's conscious. It's simply an idea (generated by TLOP).....

I want to come back to this question when Im more equipped to answer it fullly, so stay tuned Hanny :cool:

wraith

18th April 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
I forget if I ever heard what Franco's definition of a "graviton" was. Does anyone recall?

Hi Hammegk

Graviton = Soul = Consciousness

wraith

18th April 2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Hmmm. I shall go into lurk mode for a while, awaiting your response to Q-Source's and Hans' respective replies to the above.

roger that ;)

wraith

18th April 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Sorry, Grasshopper, but you didn't learn very well at the foot of your master.
You could say:

Gravitons are made of time (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=311266&highlight=information+gravitons#post311266)

or you might even say:

gravitons are memes (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704)

Or even gravitons are souls. But nowhere does The List (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12112&perpage=40&highlight=tenets%20logical%20deism&pagenumber=22) indicate that gravitons are matter. Of course, if you want to argue that matter is made of time... well, that would be just about as intelligent as anything else you have said.:D

WELL TRICKS!
A Graviton is made of Time and a Meme (or multiples of memes?) How can you have a Soul or "a sense of I" without history or time?

Then you agree there is no useful distinction between ordinary matter and "dreamworld matter"? If so, why even mention the latter?

Because you beliefs sets your path in life. Our perceptions on what matter is, is just one of these beliefs, that will yield outcomes different to each other. With one of us being closer to the Truth than the other :eek:

At least you had the good sense not to indicate which one of us was closer to Truth. :p

HAH

Let Time speak for itself ;)

wraith

18th April 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by CWL

[/lurk mode]

... and memes are (of course) quite simply distinct packages of information (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=334704&highlight=meme#post334704).

Does that mean that a "distinct package of information" is the same as "matter" in LD cosmology?

Yes. Take a rock. That's information transmitted to you and interpreted by you.

What if the information is not "distinct" - is it not "matter" then?

Moreover, what makes an information package "distinct"? Is it wrapped in special meme wrapping paper?

Im not sure on this one.
This is one for Franko when he gets back ;)

wraith

18th April 2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Wraith,

Your post is full of inconsistencies and incoherences, I don't know even how to respond.

really? ;)

You are redefining what we all understand by "matter" .

If meme is an idea, then why you call it matter?

call it something else if you dont like the word :) It's still something that we interpret.

Gravity is the only LOP that is conscious according to you. If we have 4 LOP, then it means that TLOP cannot be conscious... unless all of them are conscious!!

3 of the 4 forces is controlled by God. Why are there 4 forces? Right now, I dont know. This question ties with the question that Hans asked before in relation to the differences between the gravity of a rock and a human.

When my understanding about the subject is sufficient, I will rant on haha, for now stay tuned ;)

Didn't you say before that matter is a meme?

If a tree or a rock are not "normal matter" then they are not matter!

Make your mind and answer the question again: what is matter?
what makes a person a true materialist?

You see matter as this "hard stuff" all around the universe. It's this "matter creating consciousness" idea that youre looking at the universe with.

Isnt matter something that "stimulates" one or more of your senses that you interpret as something?

If you accept that consciousness= matter that does not make you a true materialist, that just makes you an idealist, a mentalist.

Ever seen the Matrix? An observer in the matrix, perceived the simulated dreamworld as "matter" :eek:

MRC_Hans

18th April 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by wraith

That's a good question actually.

Well consciousness is the source of gravity while a rock is a meme. The strength of one's consciousness (gravity) can be seen on how effective you are at influencing one's Fate.

Speaking of the gravity generated from a rock, does not imply that it's conscious. It's simply an idea (generated by TLOP).....

I want to come back to this question when Im more equipped to answer it fullly, so stay tuned Hanny :cool: Yuck! Thats a lot of hot air. A rock is a meme? How does it have gravity, then. Can I hit you on the head with a meme (rock)? Do you really know what you are talking about, or are you just smoke-screening?

Sorry, Wraithie, I was looking for logic (as in Logical Deism, heheh), not babble. Not exactly gonna stay tuned, but I'll probably notice if you should start talking sense some day.

Took you a long time to really burn out, but it seems to have happened after all. Well, it was fun while it lasted.

Hans :rolleyes:

CWL

18th April 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Ever seen the Matrix? An observer in the matrix, perceived the simulated dreamworld as "matter" :eek:
There you go. Thank you for finally revealing the source of the Logical Deist cosmology.

Upchurch

18th April 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Ever seen the Matrix? An observer in the matrix, perceived the simulated dreamworld as "matter" :eek:
Ha! I knew it. Just yesterday I was reading through this garbage and thinking, "man, this sounds like he pulled it from The Matrix." I almost posted something to that effect but I didn't have the time yesterday.

I wonder if Franko sees himself as Morpheus or Neo?

c4ts

18th April 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Ha! I knew it. Just yesterday I was reading through this garbage and thinking, "man, this sounds like he pulled it from The Matrix." I almost posted something to that effect but I didn't have the time yesterday.

I wonder if Franko sees himself as Morpheus or Neo?

And I thought I was the only one making fun of it... oh, he's serious, isn't he?

hammegk

18th April 2003, 08:53 AM

Iff you assume Wraith's matrix has "the real world" outside it, either dualism is true, or materialism is true. Is that not logically correct?

c4ts

18th April 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Iff you assume Wraith's matrix has "the real world" outside it, either dualism is true, or materialism is true. Is that not logically correct?

You mean it's not a materialistic explanation for dualism?

Tricky

18th April 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by wraith
WELL TRICKS!
A Graviton is made of Time and a Meme (or multiples of memes?) How can you have a Soul or "a sense of I" without history or time?
Ever hear of "new souls"? Unless souls have always been here, (i. e. no creation) then at some point they had no history. Besides, you also said gravitons are matter. According to the Sage, they must be, because they have charge and spin, properties which are only associated with matter. Seems to me that you like to call a graviton just about anything you like. It changes depending on the question. What a protean thing a graviton is!

Originally posted by wraith
Because you beliefs sets your path in life. Our perceptions on what matter is, is just one of these beliefs, that will yield outcomes different to each other. With one of us being closer to the Truth than the other :eek:
Well, that clarifies things quite a bit. Dreamworld matter exists for you because of the way you perceive matter. You must be dreaming.

Originally posted by wraith
Let Time speak for itself ;)
Of that I have no worries. The "science" of Logical Deism will almost certainly go no further than these boards, whereas Einstein, Hawking and other real geniuses will be studied forever, because their theories have scientific basis, a concept that is completely alien to Logical Deists.

I'm guessing for you, Wraith, Time will help you grow out of this silly game you are playing. Come join us in the real world, Wraith. RPGs are fun, but they accomplish nothing.

hammegk

18th April 2003, 09:09 AM

Perhaps. And if so I think that is one of the more far-fetched and un-parsimonious ideas I've ever run across.

Do you find solace in it?

c4ts

18th April 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Perhaps. And if so I think that is one of the more far-fetched ideas I've ever run across.

Do you find solace in it?

No.

Upchurch

18th April 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Perhaps. And if so I think that is one of the more far-fetched ideas I've ever run across.
Actually, given the context of The Matrix, it would be a materialist explination of dualism, i.e. the spirit of the avatars (matter) in the matrix are physical in the "real world".

And yes, it is far-fetched because, you know, a movie.

hammegk

18th April 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Actually, given the context of The Matrix, it would be a materialist explination of dualism, i.e. the spirit of the avatars (matter) in the matrix are physical in the "real world".

And yes, it is far-fetched because, you know, a movie.

Um, OK. And if that isn't a good analogy for materialist dualism, what is a better one?

c4ts

18th April 2003, 09:33 AM

Well, there was that thread where I posted my half-assed brain in a tank philosophy, but it's pretty much the same thing.

whitefork

18th April 2003, 11:34 AM

Hmmmm. "Half-assed brain". Does it only have only one lateral lobe of the cerebellum or something?

Q-Source

18th April 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by wraith

When my understanding about the subject is sufficient, I will rant on haha, for now stay tuned

wraith,

The most important thing that you must always remember is that you have to find the Truth for yourself. Do not make the mistake of accepting everything that someone who seems to be smart tells you to accept.

No matter how much you admire that person, do not take his word for it. He may be wrong!

Think for yourself, ask questions, read more, listen to other people's opinions... and then if you are convinced then you will know why you are convinced.

You are such a very sweet guy (being wrong does not make you a bad person :p ), but you -as many people including me- have many things to learn before making your mind.
Good luck.

Q

c4ts

18th April 2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by whitefork
Hmmmm. "Half-assed brain". Does it only have only one lateral lobe of the cerebellum or something?

It means I forgot to hyphenate "brain-in-a-tank," that's what it means.

wraith

19th April 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Yuck! Thats a lot of hot air. A rock is a meme? How does it have gravity, then. Can I hit you on the head with a meme (rock)? Do you really know what you are talking about, or are you just smoke-screening?

Just pick up a rock and through it at me :rolleyes:

Smoke screening? No, I say what I believe. I dont have to hide anything.

Sorry, Wraithie, I was looking for logic (as in Logical Deism, heheh), not babble. Not exactly gonna stay tuned, but I'll probably notice if you should start talking sense some day.

Took you a long time to really burn out, but it seems to have happened after all. Well, it was fun while it lasted.

Hans :rolleyes:

haha
I dont know everything there is that LD has to offer. If you expected more of me, then in a way Im touched :cool:

If it makes you feel better about your own beliefs, then be my guest. ;)

wraith

19th April 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by CWL

There you go. Thank you for finally revealing the source of the Logical Deist cosmology.

The source?

It was simply an analogy haha

wraith

19th April 2003, 06:14 PM

wraith

19th April 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Ever hear of "new souls"? Unless souls have always been here, (i. e. no creation) then at some point they had no history. Besides, you also said gravitons are matter. According to the Sage, they must be, because they have charge and spin, properties which are only associated with matter. Seems to me that you like to call a graviton just about anything you like. It changes depending on the question. What a protean thing a graviton is!

Well if you can logically explain how there can be a "no-time" period, then youre on the ball. But you can't. So keep thinking :rolleyes:

Perhaps there could have been a "no-time" period? If there was, my bet is that there was no consciousness.

Well, that clarifies things quite a bit. Dreamworld matter exists for you because of the way you perceive matter. You must be dreaming.

......still a flat earth believer huh :cool:....

Of that I have no worries. The "science" of Logical Deism will almost certainly go no further than these boards, whereas Einstein, Hawking and other real geniuses will be studied forever, because their theories have scientific basis, a concept that is completely alien to Logical Deists.

I'm guessing for you, Wraith, Time will help you grow out of this silly game you are playing. Come join us in the real world, Wraith. RPGs are fun, but they accomplish nothing.

To base a belief on matter creating consciousness with NOTHING to back it up? You would have to be a complete looney to believe in something like that...no offence ;)

But if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, while your beliefs seem to hold the default position of being True, then so be it. Whatever gives you your jollies monfre :cool:

wraith

19th April 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

wraith,

The most important thing that you must always remember is that you have to find the Truth for yourself. Do not make the mistake of accepting everything that someone who seems to be smart tells you to accept.

No matter how much you admire that person, do not take his word for it. He may be wrong!

Thats exactly right.
Thank God for logic ;)

Think for yourself, ask questions, read more, listen to other people's opinions... and then if you are convinced then you will know why you are convinced.

Ill do what I can :cool:

You are such a very sweet guy (being wrong does not make you a bad person :p ), but you -as many people including me- have many things to learn before making your mind.
Good luck.

awww you can always turn a frown upside-down;)

Tricky

20th April 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by wraith
Well if you can logically explain how there can be a "no-time" period, then youre on the ball. But you can't. So keep thinking :rolleyes:
Actually I (and numerous others) have explained a "no time" state several times (as well as why it is an oxymoron to say "no time period"), and it is logical. I know that you have a very short attention span, but if you have learned how to use the search function, you can go back and refresh your memory. However, I am not claiming there was a "no time" state. I am saying it is possible.

Originally posted by wraith
Perhaps there could have been a "no-time" period? If there was, my bet is that there was no consciousness.
Well Duh. If there was a no time state, it is because there was nothing, absolutely nothing else either. No matter, no energy, no consciousness. But at least you are making progress. Now you have proposed at least one "no time" scenario. Good for you, lad!:D

Originally posted by wraith
......still a flat earth believer huh :cool:....
Golly, Scarecrow! That rebuttal was AMAZING! Just think what you could do if you only had a brain.

Originally posted by wraith
To base a belief on matter creating consciousness with NOTHING to back it up? You would have to be a complete looney to believe in something like that...no offence ;)
Nothing except science to back it up. I know you don't place much trust in science, what with re-inventing physics and all, but many of us think it works pretty well.

Originally posted by wraith
But if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, while your beliefs seem to hold the default position of being True, then so be it. Whatever gives you your jollies monfre :cool:
My beliefs have changed many times based on new information, or perhaps I should say reliable new information. When I was growing up, the asteroid/comet theory of the disappearance of the dinosaurs was, to say the least, controversial. Today it is accepted by most (including myself) because of the enormous amount of evidence gathered to support it.

When you start showing me some evidence for your descriptions of gravitons, dreamworld matter and the like, then perhaps I may revise my beliefs again. Now can you explain again how

Gravitons = souls = memes = time = energy = information = matter

or do you prefer to remain in your warm and fuzzy dreamworld, monfre?:rolleyes:

c4ts

20th April 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by wraith

The source?

It was simply an analogy haha

So what is the source?

oceansize

21st April 2003, 07:31 PM

buh blah blah... dont get me wrong, i beg to differ with as much that franko said as the next atheist/materialist, but guys, just admit it, franko scared the **** out of most of you. ;)

c4ts

21st April 2003, 08:18 PM

MRC_Hans

21st April 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by oceansize
buh blah blah... dont get me wrong, i beg to differ with as much that franko said as the next atheist/materialist, but guys, just admit it, franko scared the **** out of most of you. ;) Scared?? Why on earth should anybody be scared of Franko/Wraith? Intrigued, yes. Puzzled, sure. Addicted, slightly at times. Irritated, certainly. Pissed off, at times. But scared, ---- not exactly.

He has been a good exercise in confronting a persistently dishonest debater. Speaking strictly for myself, I have had difficulty realizing that some people could be so consistently dishonest, but now I'm prepared for next time somebody like this shows up. --- So thanks, Franko/Wraith, it has been an interesting learning experience.

Hans

c4ts

21st April 2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Scared?? Why on earth should anybody be scared of Franko/Wraith? Intrigued, yes. Puzzled, sure. Addicted, slightly at times. Irritated, certainly. Pissed off, at times. But scared, ---- not exactly.

He has been a good exercise in confronting a persistently dishonest debater. Speaking strictly for myself, I have had difficulty realizing that some people could be so consistently dishonest, but now I'm prepared for next time somebody like this shows up. --- So thanks, Franko/Wraith, it has been an interesting learning experience.

Hans

I don't think he was being serious.

MRC_Hans

22nd April 2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

I don't think he was being serious. Doh! Damn them crappy Wallmart irony detectors! Keep blowing out. Or is it this forum overloading them?:D :cool:

Hans

Tricky

22nd April 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Doh! Damn them crappy Wallmart irony detectors! Keep blowing out. Or is it this forum overloading them?:D :cool:

Hans
Next time you're at WalMart, buy some duct tape to hold them together. Works for my bugzapper.

MRC_Hans

23rd April 2003, 01:42 AM

Well, actually, thank gawd, I'm half a planet away from the nearest Walmart.

Hans

CWL

23rd April 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, actually, thank gawd, I'm half a planet away from the nearest Walmart.

Hans

Perhaps you can get a new irony detector at your nearest IKEA instead. Of course, you will have to assemble it yourself (and a few screws are bound to be missing).

wraith

23rd April 2003, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Actually I (and numerous others) have explained a "no time" state several times (as well as why it is an oxymoron to say "no time period"), and it is logical. I know that you have a very short attention span, but if you have learned how to use the search function, you can go back and refresh your memory. However, I am not claiming there was a "no time" state. I am saying it is possible.

The "logic" that you use is insufficient. Im sorry if that hurts you :rolleyes:

Well Duh. If there was a no time state, it is because there was nothing, absolutely nothing else either. No matter, no energy, no consciousness. But at least you are making progress. Now you have proposed at least one "no time" scenario. Good for you, lad!:D

So your position that TLOP warped in from the void is different from a Christian saying that God was the Beginning?

Your double standards are amusing....at least for a while :eek:

wraith: ......still a flat earth believer huh ....

Trix: Golly, Scarecrow! That rebuttal was AMAZING! Just think what you could do if you only had a brain.

If it helps you see it that way....;)

wraith: To base a belief on matter creating consciousness with NOTHING to back it up? You would have to be a complete looney to believe in something like that...no offence

Trix: Nothing except science to back it up. I know you don't place much trust in science, what with re-inventing physics and all, but many of us think it works pretty well.

Yeah here we go :rolleyes:
What "science" are you referring to?

My beliefs have changed many times based on new information, or perhaps I should say reliable new information. When I was growing up, the asteroid/comet theory of the disappearance of the dinosaurs was, to say the least, controversial. Today it is accepted by most (including myself) because of the enormous amount of evidence gathered to support it.

When you start showing me some evidence for your descriptions of gravitons, dreamworld matter and the like, then perhaps I may revise my beliefs again. Now can you explain again how

Gravitons = souls = memes = time = energy = information = matter

Evidence for consciousness creating matter you say?

wraith

23rd April 2003, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

So what is the source?

?
What's your source? :eek:

wraith

23rd April 2003, 03:23 AM

wraith

23rd April 2003, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

I don't think he was being serious.

dont bet on it

MRC_Hans

23rd April 2003, 03:27 AM

CWL:
Yeah, or, more likely, I will walk all over their d*mn decoration maze, finally finding just the model I want, only to realize that just this model is presently out of stock.

I recently moved, and while we have some years ago moved on from IKEA furniture as such, they are the source for low-price, durable closets in a wide range of sizes, combinations and looks. It only took us five visits over three weeks before we got all the doors, shelves, etc. which were alternately out of stock :rolleyes: ..... no screws missing this time, though :)

Hans

MRC_Hans

23rd April 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Im not finished with you....

muhaha Mmmm, actually it is more a question of whether I am finished with you. :rolleyes:

But anytime you have something new, or interesting .... or both ....

Hans

CWL

23rd April 2003, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by wraith

?
What's your source? :eek:

No, no, no. You see, c4ts asked you what is generally known as a "question". When faced with such a phenomenon, the idea is to attempt to provide something called an "answer", not to ask another "question".

Seriously Wraithy, where may one learn more about the Logical Deist cosmology? Surely there must be a written source. Where can it be acquired?

Or do you mean to say that you and Frankster have made it all up from scratch? Perhaps it is simply the result of a lengthy D&D session? :eek:

wraith

23rd April 2003, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Mmmm, actually it is more a question of whether I am finished with you. :rolleyes:

But anytime you have something new, or interesting .... or both ....

Hans

..isnt it time that you sat down and took a breather pops? ;)

wraith

23rd April 2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by CWL

No, no, no. You see, c4ts asked you what is generally known as a "question". When faced with such a phenomenon, the idea is to attempt to provide something called an "answer", not to ask another "question".

Seriously Wraithy, where may one learn more about the Logical Deist cosmology? Surely there must be a written source. Where can it be acquired?

Or do you mean to say that you and Frankster have made it all up from scratch? Perhaps it is simply the result of a lengthy D&D session? :eek:

Logic ofcourse...what else ;)

CWL

23rd April 2003, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Logic ofcourse...what else ;)

"Logic", without considering inter alia the Fallacy of Composition... :rolleyes:

Seriously though, who came up with the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess"?

Upchurch

23rd April 2003, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Logic ofcourse...what else ;)
If only.

I'm curious "wraith", what is your background in logic? Do you have any formal education in the subject or is it "common sense"?

Also, what are the assumptions and techniques you have used to derive at your conclusion of "Logical Deism"? Frankly, I am skeptical of your (or rather, Franko's, as if there were a difference) results because they don't agree with observed phenomena. Do you have a method for explaining the discrepencies?

The Fool

23rd April 2003, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Perhaps it is simply the result of a lengthy D&D session? :eek:
Dind, Ding, ding, ding, ding. Silver tickertape and balloons fall from above as a shapely girl comes on with a large novelty cheque. CWL has won the prize for discovering the origin of the whole thing.

Franko/wraith uses JREF as a free online roleplaying game.

hammegk

23rd April 2003, 06:14 AM

Linear thinking, stay-in-the-box, literalists wouldn't recognize an allegory if it bit them on the ass. ;)

CWL

23rd April 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Linear thinking, stay-in-the-box, literalists wouldn't recognize an allegory if it bit them on the ass. ;)

... and roleplaying woo-woo trolls wouldn't recognize the importance of backing one's assertions with sources and evidence if they were stuck with it in an elevator for a week. :)

wraith

23rd April 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by CWL

"Logic", without considering inter alia the Fallacy of Composition... :rolleyes:

Seriously though, who came up with the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess"?

So it's the fallacy of composition?
So you dont obey TLOP?
Thats what youre saying?

CWL

23rd April 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by wraith

So it's the fallacy of composition?
So you dont obey TLOP?
Thats what youre saying?

Not gonna go there, Syllogism Man.

But tell me, who came up with the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess"?

wraith

23rd April 2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

If only.

I'm curious "wraith", what is your background in logic? Do you have any formal education in the subject or is it "common sense"?

Not really.
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

Universe in a nutshell was a good read.
Currently reading "Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified"

I did a subject called Logic in high school......the teacher was loco mind you :rolleyes:

...anything else mr nosey parker? ;)

Also, what are the assumptions and techniques you have used to derive at your conclusion of "Logical Deism"?

-MPB
-We obey TLOP
-We're not more conscious than TLOP

Frankly, I am skeptical of your (or rather, Franko's, as if there were a difference) results because they don't agree with observed phenomena. Do you have a method for explaining the discrepencies?

Observed phenomena?
LIke what?! :eek:

wraith

23rd April 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Dind, Ding, ding, ding, ding. Silver tickertape and balloons fall from above as a shapely girl comes on with a large novelty cheque. CWL has won the prize for discovering the origin of the whole thing.

Franko/wraith uses JREF as a free online roleplaying game.

Hey chump change...

let the big boys handle this one ok? ;)

wraith

23rd April 2003, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Not gonna go there, Syllogism Man.

alright :cool:

But tell me, who came up with the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess"?

Im not sure...
Though LD does not contain dogma.

ANYWAY
We shall continue this tomorrow. It's 00:20 over here and Im going to catch some zzzs...catch ya on the flip side :cool:

CWL

23rd April 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Im not sure...
Though LD does not contain dogma.

ANYWAY
We shall continue this tomorrow. It's 00:20 over here and Im going to catch some zzzs...catch ya on the flip side :cool:
You must have some idea where the terms came from. Where did you personally learn about them? I eagerly await your further response.

Upchurch

23rd April 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Universe in a nutshell was a good read.
Currently reading "Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified"So, you've read a some popularized science books and came up with an alternative theory of gravity and rejected quantum theory? Is that the gist of it?
-MPB
-We obey TLOP
-We're not more conscious than TLOP
I believe there are more assumptions than this (e.g. the special nature of gravity, determinism, etc.), but it's a good start, I suppose, as long as you realize that they are assumptions and the truth-value of LD is based on the truth-value of those assumptions.
Observed phenomena?
LIke what?! :eek: Quantum pheomena, for one. Relativistic phenomena, for another.

Can you account for these?

Tricky

23rd April 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by wraith
The "logic" that you use is insufficient. Im sorry if that hurts you :rolleyes:
Then would you mind demonstrating the fallacious arguments, oh master of logic? I am truly curious to see how well you have learned this 'logic' stuff.

Originally posted by wraith
So your position that TLOP warped in from the void is different from a Christian saying that God was the Beginning?

Your double standards are amusing....at least for a while :eek:
If you can point out where I took that position, then perhaps I'll address it, scarecrow.

But see if you can tell the difference in these two positions.
1) The universe appeared out of the void.
2) God made the universe appear out of the void.

(Hint: It starts with "G")

Originally posted by wraith
Yeah here we go :rolleyes:
What "science" are you referring to?
Okay, Wraith, I'll make it easy for you. Find me one legitimate science book that defines gravitons the way you do (including souls, memes, time etc.) I only require one. If you can, then I will concede that your "science" has some basis. Until then, you must admit that my version of "science" is superior to yours.

Originally posted by wraith
Evidence for consciousness creating matter you say?
No, I do not say. I have shown you evidence for matter creating consciousness, but not the reverse. I'm still waiting on your evidence.

Sundog

23rd April 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, you've read a some popularized science books and came up with an alternative theory of gravity and rejected quantum theory? Is that the gist of it?

Is this an unfamiliar pattern to you? ;)

I don't know which is the more interesting question - why people whose education appears to be drawn entirely from books by Herbert S. Zim want to debate physics, or why people with actual knowledge in the subject like yourself waste your time on them.

The real world is so much clearer. When an amateur boxer steps in the ring with a heavyweight, the winner is obvious even to the loser. The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head.

Skeptical Greg

23rd April 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Sundog
The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head.

This is good.. I think I'll use it.

Sundog

23rd April 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Originally posted by Sundog

This is good.. I think I'll use it.

Not back a whole day and already being quoted? Cool. :cool:

That hat looks good on you.

hammegk

23rd April 2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
...
Quantum pheomena, for one. Relativistic phenomena, for another.

Can you account for these?

Do you think anyone can "account" (I take it you mean explain the reason for) for those observations as we and our instruments perceive them? I haven't heard that claim. ;)

And as I've asked before --
How does a materialist maintain the belief in an "atom" made of "matter"? That is, as matter gets scientifically studied more precisely there becomes less & less of it and more & more "nothing" with some bits of "energy" winking in & out of existence?

Upchurch

23rd April 2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Sundog

I don't know which is the more interesting question - why people whose education appears to be drawn entirely from books by Herbert S. Zim want to debate physics, or why people with actual knowledge in the subject like yourself waste your time on them.
I like to think that I "waste" my time on them beause I don't think misinformation should go unchallenged. Of course, it could just be a waste of my time after all.

Orignially posted by hammegk

Do you think anyone can "account" (I take it you mean explain the reason for) for those observations as we and our instruments perceive them? I haven't heard that claim.
You are correct, I did mean "explain" when I said "account". The claim has been made by quite a few people and can be found under headings of "Quantum Physics" and "Relativity Physics" respectively. It has been amazingly well documented and tested.

Regardless, the claims of LD's (as presented by Franko) are contrary to some of these phenomena (velocity addition or the nature of fermions, for example). I was curious how LD's account for, or explain if you like, such phenomena.

Sundog

23rd April 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

I like to think that I "waste" my time on them beause I don't think misinformation should go unchallenged. Of course, it could just be a waste of my time after all.

Just yankin' your chain. ;) I enjoy your posts and admire your energy, as well as your knowledge.

Upchurch

23rd April 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

How does a materialist maintain the belief in an "atom" made of "matter"? That is, as matter gets scientifically studied more precisely there becomes less & less of it and more & more "nothing" with some bits of "energy" winking in & out of existence?
Energy and matter or, more appropriately, mass are equivalent. i.e. E = m.

edited to add:
before someone gets on my case for making a "mistake", in terms of conventional units and scaling:

E = m c^2

but c is a constant so for simplicity's sake, it also valid to just say "E = m"

Upchurch

23rd April 2003, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Sundog

Just yankin' your chain. ;) I enjoy your posts and admire your energy, as well as your knowledge. I dig, but it was a valid question nonetheless. Thanks for the complements, but as far as my knowledge goes, there is by far more that I don't know than what I do know.

edited to add:

You know, it just occured to me that there is one thing that I will miss about Franko being gone. This being a memorial thread, I should mention it.

I love talking science and physics. I really do. However, I rarely get a chance to exercise that "muscle" anymore because what I know isn't applicable on an everyday basis in my life. But with Franko's blatent mistakes and/or misrepresentations, I get to pull out the old books and have some fun again. I like that.

I suppose there is always Jedi Knight if I want to hear some woowoo-pulled-out-of-thin-air science, but he always runs away when you challenge him.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want F to come back although I'm sure he eventually will (unless you count him already being here as wraith). The board is much better off without him.

Dancing David

23rd April 2003, 12:25 PM

I am not sure that any one actually says that matter is made of atoms: in QM, this is a conventional statement used by conventional people. Matter in this case is something that you knock up against, pour or can store in a balloon. Atoms are particles that are believed to exist and are the smallest reduce-able elements in chemestry.

Now can we say without question what are the mechanisms behind the theory of QM: fraid not but does that mean that it is not a useful theory with all sorts of great stuff: no.

I think that people are inherently afraid of the copenhagen model of QM, whats wrong with things being random? There are so many wavicles out there why shouldn't the universe be random.

Peace
dancing david

whitefork

23rd April 2003, 12:53 PM

Random....random.....

Nice word, very difficult to define coherently I've found.

Interesting Ian posed a nice question that led to some question about the nature of randomness, specifically wether the digits of PI are randomly distributed (at least I think that was implied in the question).

Take a very long string of digits that have an appearance of randomness. PI will do. Now, take a small string of digits, such as 12345. Will 12345 occur in the string which is PI? Well, it does, at position 49702 (http://www.angio.net/pi/piquery). Now, how about 123456? yes. But, you get to 123456789, now, that doesn't occur in the first 100 million digits of PI, but it's a pretty near certainty that it does occur somewhere within the first x digits.

OK.

Now, I can construct a number which is PI, but with all occurrences of 12345 removed. Therefore, there's a string that cannot by definition occur there. And, now the question: is the depleted-PI number random?

Well, probably not, because there is now a zero probability of the digit 5 occurring after the string 1234.

Could you discover this deficiency by analyzing depleted-PI?

In other words, is there an algorithmic process for determining whether an (infinite) string of digits is random or not?

Feel free to join the search for the truth over here: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17828

I've pretty much reached the point of flailing about but others might have something to contribute.

Why bring this up here? Well, if we have a hard time deciding whether something as cut-and-dried as PI is random, how much more challenging the question of the nature of the universe as a whole?

CWL

23rd April 2003, 01:25 PM

Shush you guys! You will be confusing the poor lad. I really want to hear from wraith where he himself first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess".

Tricky

23rd April 2003, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Sundog

The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head.

Originally posted by Diogenes
This is good.. I think I'll use it.

Ha! Like you'll ever have a chance to!:D

Just kidding, lamp man

hammegk

23rd April 2003, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

....but c is a constant so for simplicity's sake, it also valid to just say "E = m"

If that does it for you, who am I to argue?

Do I vaguely recall something about "energy neither being created, nor destroyed". Might as well say "matter is neither created nor destroyed", huh? ;)

Good luck finding the indivisible A-tom.

Upchurch

24th April 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Do I vaguely recall something about "energy neither being created, nor destroyed". Might as well say "matter is neither created nor destroyed", huh? ;)

Might as well (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ConservationLaws.html):
Originally posted from the above link
energy/mass: conserved except on short time scales for which they may violate in accordance with the energy-time uncertainty principle.
Note: something being "conserved" means that it "is neither created nor destroyed"
Good luck finding the indivisible A-tom. hammegk,

Despite what was believed for thousands of years (remember, the Greeks first came up with the concept of the "atom"), atoms are not the fundamental building block of matter. If you will remember, atoms are made up of three more fundamental particals, electrons, protons, and neutrons. But those are made up of even smaller particles. Ultimately, you find that fundamental whatever it is behaves like a cross between energy and matter(a.k.a. particle-wave duality). The most famous example of particle-wave duality is light waves (energy) and photons (matter).

So, as long as you keep thinking that energy and matter are two different things, then yes, matter can be destroyed (creating energy). But, then, energy can also be destroyed (creating matter). The sum effect is that the total amount of energy + matter remains constant and, thus, is conserved.

edited to add:
Nice straw man though.

hammegk

24th April 2003, 07:39 AM

Upchurch, Sounds good to me.

Philosophically, are you a 100% materialist? If so how did you reconcile life/non-life & at human level HPC?

Dualist? Nah: "If it effects or affects the physical, it IS physical".

Agnosticism is logical, although I prefer the monism of idealistic deism (or maybe deistic idealism).

Note also -- A-tom -- means "indivisible" to me at least. Now, find us some of this "matter" stuff, which sure seems to be "energy" stuff when we scientifically examine it. Or do you think reality IS mathematical equations?

CWL

24th April 2003, 07:40 AM

Golly. I ask the lad a simple question and he disappears again. I thought he said he would be back today.

I wonder why it is so difficult for our friend the wraith to answer how he himself first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess". I wonder and wonder and wonder...

Skeptical Greg

24th April 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Golly. I ask the lad a simple question and he disappears again. I thought he said he would be back today.

I wonder why it is so difficult for our friend the wraith to answer how he himself first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess". I wonder and wonder and wonder...

Hey! It's kind of hard to hold a memorial service, if the ' memorial-ee' wont stay away..

Upchurch

24th April 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Philosophically, are you a 100% materialist? No, not really. While I believe that physical things are physical, I recognize that abstracts, like ideas and emotions, also have a reality that may or may not have a foundation in physical reality.
Note also -- A-tom -- means "indivisible" to me at least.
As it originally did to the Greeks, but the thing that eventually inhereted the name "atom" turned out not to be the "atom" the greeks conceptualized (i.e. that which could not be broken down any further). But, by the time we realized that atoms (i.e. combinations of electrons, protons, and neutrons) could be broken down further, the name had passed on into common usage. It's a good example of the evolution of word usage, I'd say.
Now, find us some of this "matter" stuff, which sure seems to be "energy" stuff when we scientifically examine it.sigh. Let me say it again. Energy is matter. Matter is energy. Two forms of the same thing. You can refer to matter in terms of energy and you can refer to energy in terms of mass.

I don't know how else to say it to you aside from, perhaps, showing you the derivation (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html) (equation 9)
Or do you think reality IS mathematical equations? Of course I don't think reality is mathematical equations. I do believe that mathematics is the proper language by which we describe reality. And mass/energy equivalency does seem to be accurate considering we've been able to utilize it in the form nuclear power.

Incidently, what point are you trying to prove? In this quote,
Do I vaguely recall something about "energy neither being created, nor destroyed". Might as well say "matter is neither created nor destroyed", huh? ;)

Good luck finding the indivisible A-tom.You seem to be implying that finding the indivisible atom is impossible, but in this quote,
A-tom -- means "indivisible" to me at least.you imply that atoms must be indivisible.

What are you trying to get at here?

MRC_Hans

24th April 2003, 08:51 AM

What are you trying to get at here? If you are ever to find out what hammegk is getting at, it will be a sensational first :rolleyes:

Sorry, this should be in the flame section.

Hans

Upchurch

24th April 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Dualist? Nah: "If it effects or affects the physical, it IS physical".
This line has me stimied. Are you asking if I'm a dualist or are you claiming that there is no partical/wave duality?

CWL

24th April 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Hey! It's kind of hard to hold a memorial service, if the ' memorial-ee' wont stay away..
Well, in such case he should make up his mind.

hammegk

24th April 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
...
As it originally did to the Greeks, but the thing that eventually inhereted the name "atom" turned out not to be the "atom" the greeks conceptualized (i.e. that which could not be broken down any further). But, by the time we realized that atoms (i.e. combinations of electrons, protons, and neutrons) could be broken down further, the name had passed on into common usage. It's a good example of the evolution of word usage, I'd say.
Actually that's why I wrote A-tom rather than atom.

sigh. Let me say it again. Energy is matter. Matter is energy. Two forms of the same thing. You can refer to matter in terms of energy and you can refer to energy in terms of mass.
Yup, but is one form supervenient to the other? I suggest energy is the root cause, with "matter" as we perceive it being illusory.

This line has me stimied. Are you asking if I'm a dualist or are you claiming that there is no partical/wave duality?

By the definition of "physical" I've mentioned, both wave and particle are "physical". Or are you suggesting mind/body duality is expressed by "waves" & "particles"?

But yes I'm stating duality (mind/body interaction) is not logical.

Incidently, what point are you trying to prove? In this quote,
You seem to be implying that finding the indivisible atom is impossible, but in this quote,
you imply that atoms must be indivisible.

What are you trying to get at here?
What I'm getting to is that "matter" per se is a nonsensical idea.

The more science examines it, the less of it there is -- all that ever remains is (indescribable) "energy".

Upchurch

24th April 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Yup, but is one form supervenient to the other? I suggest energy is the root cause, with "matter" as we perceive it being illusory.

[snip]

What I'm getting to is that "matter" per se is a nonsensical idea.

The more science examines it, the less of it there is -- all that ever remains is (indescribable) "energy".
I suppose that might be one way to interpret it, but I see no reason to think that matter is nonsensical or that energy is indescribable. (Especially the latter since it's been described in numerous fashions already)

But hey, whatever trips your trigger.
By the definition of "physical" I've mentioned, both wave and particle are "physical". Or are you suggesting mind/body duality is expressed by "waves" & "particles"?
Well, I agree that waves and particles are both physical and that mind and body cannot be described as wave and particle duality. So.... I guess I agree with you :eek:

;)

But yes I'm stating duality (mind/body interaction) is not logical.
I haven't really pursued that line of thought, but I'd be interested in hearing your rational for that statement.

c4ts

24th April 2003, 08:26 PM

Wraith:

A Buddhist says Buddhism came from the teachings of the Buddha.
A Jew will tell you Juddaism comes from the authors of the Torah.
A Muslim will tell you Islam comes from Mohammed and the Koran.
A Christian will tell you Christianity comes from Jesus's teachings in the Bible.
A Scientologist will tell you Scientology comes from L. Ron Hubbard.

And so on.

The thing is, "Wraith," I don't believe Logical Deism is an organized religion at all. I think it's a bunch of crazy crap you made up, that it doesn't hold a candle to a real religion at all. The fact of the matter is, I've looked all over the web, and the only "Logical Deist" I found on the internet so far was you posting on Deism.org under the name "Serpent." And, by the way, even regular Deism acknowledges its source as Thomas Paine, and his book "Age of Reason." You say you are not the founder of Logical Deism, but a member, as if it were an organized religion. You say it has members. You say they are all over the web, that it is gaining popularity, and I intend to test that.
I will ask you again:
WHERE DID LOGICAL DEISM COME FROM?

Here is your chance to prove me wrong. It's a very simple task:
Post the url of 1 Logical Deist website.
I only need a specifically LD website, or a website about religions that contains information about Logical Deism specifically. The reason I am asking that it contain information is so I can check to see if it has anything to do with what you've been posting all over these boards.
But there's a catch. I have already run an internet search for Logical Deism and recorded the results. If you post a website, I will try the search again and expect to see the same results.

Do you accept my challenge? If not, why?

Tricky

24th April 2003, 08:30 PM

Hey, C4ts! Wait your turn, dammit!:mad:
Originally posted by Tricky
Okay, Wraith, I'll make it easy for you. Find me one legitimate science book that defines gravitons the way you do (including souls, memes, time etc.) I only require one. If you can, then I will concede that your "science" has some basis. Until then, you must admit that my version of "science" is superior to yours.

c4ts

24th April 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
Hey, C4ts! Wait your turn, dammit!:mad:

Sorry, I didn't see that. I just noticed that he didn't answer my question in the first place. Well, let's all hit Franko up for evidence that his religion is organized like he says it is at once until he answers one way or another. We could keep a calendar for how long it has been since we've asked our questions, like Randi did with Sylvia Browne.

Tricky

24th April 2003, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Sorry, I didn't see that. I just noticed that he didn't answer my question in the first place. Well, let's all hit Franko up for evidence that his religion is organized like he says it is at once until he answers one way or another. We could keep a calendar for how long it has been since we've asked our questions, like Randi did with Sylvia Browne.
Don't sweat it, Catmandieux. Anyone waiting for a straight, logical or reasoned answer from Wraith will have to wait a long time. ;)

c4ts

24th April 2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Don't sweat it, Catmandieux. Anyone waiting for a straight, logical or reasoned answer from Wraith will have to wait a long time. ;)

Fortunately, I'm not asking for any of that, as I've found him incapable since I first tried to reason with him. I'm just asking for a frikkin' URL! No logic necessary, just copy and paste. And he does seem to have a certain amount of skill in that.

Tricky

24th April 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Fortunately, I'm not asking for any of that, as I've found him incapable since I first tried to reason with him. I'm just asking for a frikkin' URL! No logic necessary, just copy and paste. And he does seem to have a certain amount of skill in that.
Actually, I've rarely seen Fraith post any links, other than http://www.infidels.org. I think you may be overestimating his skills.

c4ts

24th April 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Actually, I've rarely seen Fraith post any links, other than http://www.infidels.org. I think you may be overestimating his skills.

I've seen "YOU are made of ATOMS. ATOMS obey TLOP!" so often on this board that it seems unlikely he would type it out every single time. That and his rejection of quantum physics simultaneous with his acceptance of the graviton, as the graviton is a theoretical quantum particle, indicates he's not even reading what he's writing, just going back to find the next of his old posts to copy and paste.

MRC_Hans

24th April 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

*snip*
What I'm getting to is that "matter" per se is a nonsensical idea.

The more science examines it, the less of it there is -- all that ever remains is (indescribable) "energy".
Call it matter, call it a form of energy; it's the kind of stuff that if it hits you on the head, it hurts. What is the point of discussing whether we should call it one or the other, when the two forms evidently act very differently?

Hans

CWL

25th April 2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Hey, C4ts! Wait your turn, dammit!:mad:

Whoa there guys! Why can't it be my turn? I would simply like to know - from the poster currently known as "wraith" - where he personally first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess".

Help me out here people. There's no reason why he shouldn't be able to answer this one.

hammegk

25th April 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

I suppose that might be one way to interpret it, but I see no reason to think that matter is nonsensical or that energy is indescribable. (Especially the latter since it's been described in numerous fashions already)

But hey, whatever trips your trigger.
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?

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

I haven't really pursued that line of thought, but I'd be interested in hearing your rational for that statement.

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

c4ts

25th April 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Whoa there guys! Why can't it be my turn? I would simply like to know - from the poster currently known as "wraith" - where he personally first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess".

Help me out here people. There's no reason why he shouldn't be able to answer this one.

I've got an idea: let's all send private messages with our questions to his Wraith and Franko accounts, too!

wraith

25th April 2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, you've read a some popularized science books and came up with an alternative theory of gravity and rejected quantum theory? Is that the gist of it?

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.

I believe there are more assumptions than this (e.g. the special nature of gravity, determinism, etc.), but it's a good start, I suppose, as long as you realize that they are assumptions and the truth-value of LD is based on the truth-value of those assumptions.

Assumptions?

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

Do you or dont you obey TLOP?

Quantum pheomena, for one. Relativistic phenomena, for another.

Can you account for these?

Sorry
I still dont get you.

c4ts

25th April 2003, 07:24 PM

Now that you're back

ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS!

POST THE URL OF 1 LOGICAL DEIST WEBSITE!

wraith

25th April 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Then would you mind demonstrating the fallacious arguments, oh master of logic? I am truly curious to see how well you have learned this 'logic' stuff.

You know aswell as I do about your little question begging and double standards.

Feel free to restate any of your arguments that are pro materialism to show the contrary.

If you can point out where I took that position, then perhaps I'll address it, scarecrow.

But see if you can tell the difference in these two positions.
1) The universe appeared out of the void.
2) God made the universe appear out of the void.

(Hint: It starts with "G")

All that you have shown is that you dont like the idea of a God/s.

Okay, Wraith, I'll make it easy for you. Find me one legitimate science book that defines gravitons the way you do (including souls, memes, time etc.) I only require one. If you can, then I will concede that your "science" has some basis. Until then, you must admit that my version of "science" is superior to yours.

HAHAHA
SO what are you saying Trix?
Anything published is True by default?
When I see a book that comes from a "consciousness creates matter" view point, Ill let you know.

If your current understanding of science and consciousness makes you feel as if you have a solid grip on everything then so be it. ;)

No, I do not say. I have shown you evidence for matter creating consciousness, but not the reverse. I'm still waiting on your evidence.

You have shown nothing.
Have the balls to prove me wrong? :cool:

wraith

25th April 2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Sundog

Is this an unfamiliar pattern to you? ;)

I don't know which is the more interesting question - why people whose education appears to be drawn entirely from books by Herbert S. Zim want to debate physics, or why people with actual knowledge in the subject like yourself waste your time on them.

The real world is so much clearer. When an amateur boxer steps in the ring with a heavyweight, the winner is obvious even to the loser. The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head.

Do you want to box?

I bet that Ill kick your ar5e ;)

c4ts

25th April 2003, 07:39 PM

The more you ignore me, the phonier your "religion" becomes. You are the one and only "Logical Deist," and you are pretending to belong to a "religion" of your own creation. You claim not to remember who told you about Logical Deism, but you know soooooo much about your Illogical Goddess and your TLOP ******** that I suggest you respond to our questions on the validity of your religion. Otherwise, members of this board will continue to antagonize you.

wraith

25th April 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Golly. I ask the lad a simple question and he disappears again. I thought he said he would be back today.

I wonder why it is so difficult for our friend the wraith to answer how he himself first learned about the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess". I wonder and wonder and wonder...

Sorry
I was at a strip club last night and at friends the other nights :cool:

I got those terms from Franko.

wraith

25th April 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
sigh. Let me say it again. Energy is matter. Matter is energy. Two forms of the same thing. You can refer to matter in terms of energy and you can refer to energy in terms of mass.

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

I thought matter was one form of energy?

c4ts

25th April 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by wraith

Sorry
I was at a strip club last night and at friends the other nights :cool:

I got those terms from Franko.

You have two options, choose either one or the other:

1. Prove that you are not Franko's sock puppet.
2. Tell us where Franko got them from.

wraith

25th April 2003, 07:52 PM

wraith

25th April 2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Wraith:

A Buddhist says Buddhism came from the teachings of the Buddha.
A Jew will tell you Juddaism comes from the authors of the Torah.
A Muslim will tell you Islam comes from Mohammed and the Koran.
A Christian will tell you Christianity comes from Jesus's teachings in the Bible.
A Scientologist will tell you Scientology comes from L. Ron Hubbard.

And so on.

The thing is, "Wraith," I don't believe Logical Deism is an organized religion at all. I think it's a bunch of crazy crap you made up, that it doesn't hold a candle to a real religion at all. The fact of the matter is, I've looked all over the web, and the only "Logical Deist" I found on the internet so far was you posting on Deism.org under the name "Serpent." And, by the way, even regular Deism acknowledges its source as Thomas Paine, and his book "Age of Reason." You say you are not the founder of Logical Deism, but a member, as if it were an organized religion. You say it has members. You say they are all over the web, that it is gaining popularity, and I intend to test that.

I will ask you again:
WHERE DID LOGICAL DEISM COME FROM?

Not sure.
Ask me in a couple of years time when Im more of a pro.

What are you saying? The size of a religion determines credibility? Interesting.

Here is your chance to prove me wrong. It's a very simple task:
Post the url of 1 Logical Deist website.
I only need a specifically LD website, or a website about religions that contains information about Logical Deism specifically. The reason I am asking that it contain information is so I can check to see if it has anything to do with what you've been posting all over these boards.
But there's a catch. I have already run an internet search for Logical Deism and recorded the results. If you post a website, I will try the search again and expect to see the same results.

Do you accept my challenge? If not, why?

Challenge?
Looks like a walk in the park actually :rolleyes:

A LD website?
Actually.........

c4ts

25th April 2003, 08:02 PM

I am running a search on questions regarding the origins of Logical Deism. I will post one question and the answer you gave each time you continue to ignore me, as it will serve as evidence that Logical Deism is not a valid religion. I may also include some contradictory statements pertaining to the "relgion" itself to further back my claim. You ignore me, but others will not.

c4ts

25th April 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by wraith

Not sure.
Ask me in a couple of years time when Im more of a pro.

What are you saying? The size of a religion determines credibility? Interesting.

Challenge?
Looks like a walk in the park actually :rolleyes:

A LD website?
Actually.........

Very well, POST IT RIGHT NOW IF IT'S SO EASY!!!

You say that LD is an organized religion. More than a few members WILL in fact determine its credibility, as multiple members adhering to the same set of beliefs results from organization.

wraith

25th April 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
The more you ignore me, the phonier your "religion" becomes. You are the one and only "Logical Deist," and you are pretending to belong to a "religion" of your own creation. You claim not to remember who told you about Logical Deism, but you know soooooo much about your Illogical Goddess and your TLOP ******** that I suggest you respond to our questions on the validity of your religion. Otherwise, members of this board will continue to antagonize you.

DAM

This one bites...
hahaa

I have no interest in what you think.
If you think a web site makes something more True then.....you know ;)

Try to control yourself will you? :cool:

c4ts

25th April 2003, 08:05 PM

Are you declining from my challenge? If so, why?

wraith

25th April 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Are you declining from my challenge? If so, why?

What challenge?
There is no "official" web site as far as I know.

Im off...going to do some laps
catch ya on the flip side ;)

wraith

25th April 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

You have two options, choose either one or the other:

1. Prove that you are not Franko's sock puppet.
2. Tell us where Franko got them from.

Na
Ill "choose" not to "choose" any.

...Gravity... interesting ;)

c4ts

25th April 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by wraith

Na
Ill "choose" not to "choose" any.

...Gravity... interesting ;)

YOU ADMIT YOU ARE MAKING A CHOICE?

Sorry, but all your "there is no free-will" arguments just went down the great metaphysical toilet.

Now, explain your actions. Why do you decline my challenge if it is so easy?

c4ts

25th April 2003, 08:28 PM

Come on, it doesn't require a lot of typing to say why you did not post a URL if it's so easy like you said it was.

Why did you back out of my challege? Are you chicken? Are there no Logical Deist websites? Surely, there must be at least 1 website, if it is as popular on the web as you say it is.

This isn't about the validity of your claims about gravity or your Goddess, just the validity of the particular claim that Logical Deism is an organization you belong to.

Tricky

25th April 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by wraith

You know aswell as I do about your little question begging and double standards.
Ah yes! Question begging. Would you like to show me exactly where I have done that, oh master of logic? In fact, can you even tell me what it means?

Feel free to restate any of your arguments that are pro materialism to show the contrary.

LOL. Why should I restate them? So you can ignore them again? Or have you simply forgotten them. (Those "nights on the town" will do that to your memory:D)

All that you have shown is that you dont like the idea of a God/s.
I have no problem with the idea of God(s). What I have a problem with is your evidence. So far you're oh-for-everything at supporting your contentions.

HAHAHA
SO what are you saying Trix?
Anything published is True by default?
Nope. A lot of what is printed is crap. However, anything that is considered real science is printed somewhere. That's why I cut you so much slack. I will even accept the most bogus piece of crap book you can find that supports your view of gravitons. I'm not even asking you to show me some good science, just show me any science. How much more fair can I be?

So are you admiting that there is zero science that supports Logical Deism, or are you just to proud to show any?

When I see a book that comes from a "consciousness creates matter" view point, Ill let you know.
Oh, there are a number of them out there (the Bible is one). However, none of them are science books. You do know what science is, dont you?

If your current understanding of science and consciousness makes you feel as if you have a solid grip on everything then so be it. ;)
I know what science is. Maybe someday you will be sidswiped by the "clue" bus. Until then, I have no intention of taking macramé lessons from a guy who can't tie his shoelaces.

You have shown nothing.
Have the balls to prove me wrong? :cool:
Wraith, you've been shown wrong more times than a compass inside a magnet factory. Unfortunately, your ball-less condition prevents you from admitting it.

c4ts

25th April 2003, 09:00 PM

Let it be known that Wraith has declined from my challenge, and he has given no backing to the claim that Logical Deism is popular on web, nor has he explained why he could not find a single website about Logical Deism. I conclude that he (Wraith/Franko/Serpent) is the creator of Logical Deism, and I applaud him for his creativity. He could make a living writing science fiction novels.

Tricky

25th April 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Let it be known that Wraith has declined from my challenge, and he has given no backing to the claim that Logical Deism is popular on web, nor has he explained why he could not find a single website about Logical Deism.
Oh, you meant the Worldwide Web? He thought you were talking about what he had scribbled in the margins of his Spiderman coloring book.:p

c4ts

25th April 2003, 09:06 PM

You have to give the guy some credit. I mean, could YOU come up with your own relgion as crazy as Logical Deism?

CWL

26th April 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Sorry
I was at a strip club last night and at friends the other nights :cool:

I got those terms from Franko.
Originally posted by c4ts

You have two options, choose either one or the other:

1. Prove that you are not Franko's sock puppet.
2. Tell us where Franko got them from.

Okey, dokey wraith. Do you in fact by any chance have any idea how Franko first learned of the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess"?

Pretty please with sugar on it?

wraith

26th April 2003, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

YOU ADMIT YOU ARE MAKING A CHOICE?

Sorry, but all your "there is no free-will" arguments just went down the great metaphysical toilet.

Do you see the quotation marks around the word choice?
My choice is simply the result of my MPB.

Now, explain your actions. Why do you decline my challenge if it is so easy?

didnt I just answer it?

wraith

26th April 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Ah yes! Question begging. Would you like to show me exactly where I have done that, oh master of logic?

Quoted from you "do a search"
:rolleyes:

But feel free to express your arguments...again.

In fact, can you even tell me what it means?

look it up in google.

LOL. Why should I restate them? So you can ignore them again? Or have you simply forgotten them. (Those "nights on the town" will do that to your memory:D)

I usually dont remember trash ;)

Can you restate them please? :rolleyes:

I have no problem with the idea of God(s). What I have a problem with is your evidence. So far you're oh-for-everything at supporting your contentions.

Well if you think that matter can become conscious, then please show the logic.

Nope. A lot of what is printed is crap. However, anything that is considered real science is printed somewhere. That's why I cut you so much slack. I will even accept the most bogus piece of crap book you can find that supports your view of gravitons. I'm not even asking you to show me some good science, just show me any science. How much more fair can I be?

Well if you classify real science as somoething that stems from a "matter creating consciousness" POV then good for you. Im not aware of many scientists or books that adopt the view to the contrary.

So are you admiting that there is zero science that supports Logical Deism, or are you just to proud to show any?

Zero logic you say?
The information that I hold now, seems pretty logical to me.

Fate
MPB
Consciousness creating matter

Your views on the other hand.....well...

I know what science is. Maybe someday you will be sidswiped by the "clue" bus. Until then, I have no intention of taking macramé lessons from a guy who can't tie his shoelaces.

hahaha
Yes Trix, youre living proof of science :rolleyes:

Wraith, you've been shown wrong more times than a compass inside a magnet factory. Unfortunately, your ball-less condition prevents you from admitting it.

That was almost good ;)

SO
the logic behind matter creating consciousness.....?

wraith

26th April 2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by c4ts
Let it be known that Wraith has declined from my challenge, and he has given no backing to the claim that Logical Deism is popular on web, nor has he explained why he could not find a single website about Logical Deism. I conclude that he (Wraith/Franko/Serpent) is the creator of Logical Deism, and I applaud him for his creativity. He could make a living writing science fiction novels.

what the hell was that :cool:

wraith

26th April 2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Okey, dokey wraith. Do you in fact by any chance have any idea how Franko first learned of the terms "Logical Deism" and "Logical Goddess"?

Pretty please with sugar on it?

I know a little bit about a little bit in relation to where Franko obtained his knowledge about LD.

CWL

26th April 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by wraith

I know a little bit about a little bit in relation to where Franko obtained his knowledge about LD.

Go on...

wraith

26th April 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Go on...

PM me CWeLy :cool:

Tricky

26th April 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by wraith
look it up in google.
How would my looking it up demonstrate that you know it? I'm not asking for information here, Wraith, I'm asking you for your credentials to speak knowledgably on science (or logic, for that matter). Show me that you know the basics.

I usually dont remember trash ;)
'Zat so? That must really annoy any people you might live with. ("It's been Wrath's turn to take out the trash for months, but he never remembers it.")

If you need help on how to work the search function, I'll be glad to (try to) teach you. I'm not going to do your homework for you though.

Well if you think that matter can become conscious, then please show the logic.
Go to you room and do your homework. If you get stuck, show me what you have done and I'll help, but not until you show a willingness to try on your own first.

Well if you classify real science as somoething that stems from a "matter creating consciousness" POV then good for you. Im not aware of many scientists or books that adopt the view to the contrary.
Well, thanks for admitting that, but it is not what I asked for. I asked for any science book... heck any book at all... that agrees with you on the nature of gravitons. If LD is so dang "logical" those kinds of books ought to be everywhere, right?

Zero logic you say? No, I said "zero science". (C'mon Wraith. It was even in the quote one sentence above). It has also been shown to you many times that science and logic are not the same thing. Do you need yet another demo?

The information that I hold now, seems pretty logical to me.
Perhaps, but you have demonstrated many times that you don't know the first thing about logic. You can't even tell me what "question begging" is. And of course, the fallacy of composition is completely over your head. Of course, feel free dazzle us with your brilliance. I hope you are more successful at that than the truly uninspired job of baffling you have done so far.:rolleyes:

That was almost good ;)
Thank you. I try not to be too repetitive.

the logic behind matter creating consciousness.....?
Once you have demonstrated that you have a basic grasp of logic, perhaps I will deign to repost some of the many pieces of evidence I have shown you. It is no fun trying to teach something to a person who has decided not to learn. It is much more fun to flame such deliberate and refractory ignorance.;)

wraith

26th April 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

How would my looking it up demonstrate that you know it? I'm not asking for information here, Wraith, I'm asking you for your credentials to speak knowledgably on science (or logic, for that matter). Show me that you know the basics.

Do you want me to do get a def. for the fallacy then with some examples? :rolleyes:

wraith: Well if you think that matter can become conscious, then please show the logic.

Trix: Go to you room and do your homework. If you get stuck, show me what you have done and I'll help, but not until you show a willingness to try on your own first.

Thats going to be a bit hard when there is dick all evidence ;) But set me straight.

Tricky, youre not trying to avoid the question are you? :eek:

Well, thanks for admitting that, but it is not what I asked for. I asked for any science book... heck any book at all... that agrees with you on the nature of gravitons.

Didnt I just answer this? :rolleyes:

If LD is so dang "logical" those kinds of books ought to be everywhere, right?

Well the idea that consciousness creates matter is a bit "over the top" for some ;)

No, I said "zero science". (C'mon Wraith. It was even in the quote one sentence above). It has also been shown to you many times that science and logic are not the same thing. Do you need yet another demo?

Not strictly speaking but are you saying that without logic you can still have science?

Perhaps, but you have demonstrated many times that you don't know the first thing about logic. You can't even tell me what "question begging" is. And of course, the fallacy of composition is completely over your head. Of course, feel free dazzle us with your brilliance. I hope you are more successful at that than the truly uninspired job of baffling you have done so far.:rolleyes:

The fallacy of composition...oh yeah! That points out that invisible flaw in the TLOP syllogism.

You want to demonstrate it Trix? eheh

Once you have demonstrated that you have a basic grasp of logic, perhaps I will deign to repost some of the many pieces of evidence I have shown you. It is no fun trying to teach something to a person who has decided not to learn. It is much more fun to flame such deliberate and refractory ignorance.;)

School me Trix. Whats this evidence that youre so confident about?

Surely youre not scared to post it here are you? ;)

Tricky

26th April 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by wraith

Do you want me to do get a def. for the fallacy then with some examples? :rolleyes:

That would be most excellent. You shouldn't need to go get a definition, though. Since you throw the term "begging the question" around all the time, I would assume you would already know the definition. Or do I give you too much credit?

Thats going to be a bit hard when there is dick all evidence ;) But set me straight.
Thats quite a task, since you are more full of kinks than an earthworm on speed.

Tricky, youre not trying to avoid the question are you? :eek:
I'm trying to avoid repeating myself.

Didnt I just answer this? :rolleyes:
A) It wasn't a question, it was a challenge.
B) You never admitted that it wasn't scientific, just that no scientists agree with you.

Well the idea that consciousness creates matter is a bit "over the top" for some ;)
LOL. Yes, and the theory that life on Earth was seeded by intelligent beings from Mars is a bit "over the top" for some. Yet, we have at least one person on these boards who claims to believe it. But it wouldn't matter how over-the-top it was if you had the scientific evidence to support it. But of course, you would first have to know how science works.:cool:

Not strictly speaking but are you saying that without logic you can still have science?
Yes, although it would be severely hampered. Your science could be nothing more than gathering data and recognizing patterns in that data. Of course, logic is an important tool in science, but it relies on science to provide and validate the assumptions it makes.

But to look at the converse, one can definately have logic without science. For example, try this syllogism:

All ghosts are made of ectoplasm
All wraiths are ghosts
Therefore all wraiths are made of ectoplasm

That syllogism contains no errors of logic, however, both the major and minor premises are completely unscientific. Are all ghosts made of ectoplasm? That would rely on data collection, not logic at all.

The fallacy of composition...oh yeah! That points out that invisible flaw in the TLOP syllogism.
It points out that the TLOP syllogism violates the rules of logic, but interestingly, it does not invalidate the conclusion.

Here's an excellent example, provided by Whitefork (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=218345&highlight=some+terrorists#post218345) of a syllogism which contains two valid premises and a correct conclusion, yet it violates the rules of logic:
Originally posted by whitefork
Some Saudis are Muslims
Some Muslims are terrorists
(Therefore) Some Saudis are terrorists.

Now if you are as good at logic as you imagine yourself to be, you can tell me why this is an invalid syllogism.
Originally posted by wraith
School me Trix. Whats this evidence that youre so confident about?

Surely youre not scared to post it here are you? ;)
All in time, Grasshopper. Before I can school you, you must show me that you can remember your locker combination. :D

The Fool

27th April 2003, 04:30 PM

Sockpuppet.

I was wondering if you are going to post again as franko. Some people here seem to want to ask questions directly to the organ grinder. If you keep posting as his monkey it causes confusion.....Unless, of course, you have decided to retire the Franko character.....Is he to become the messiah of LD, has he joined the Goddess in the omnimattagraviverse...or wherever the hell she hangs out.....

c4ts

27th April 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Sockpuppet.

I was wondering if you are going to post again as franko. Some people here seem to want to ask questions directly to the organ grinder. If you keep posting as his monkey it causes confusion.....Unless, of course, you have decided to retire the Franko character.....Is he to become the messiah of LD, has he joined the Goddess in the omnimattagraviverse...or wherever the hell she hangs out.....

He'll refrain from using the Franko account as long as "I forgot, but Franko knows" can be used as an excuse regarding the orgins of Logical Deism.

c4ts

27th April 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by wraith

I know a little bit about a little bit in relation to where Franko obtained his knowledge about LD.

Suuuuuuuuuure you do.

c4ts

27th April 2003, 08:26 PM

Think about what Logical Deism has in terms of it being an actual religion:
- No rituals
- No dogma (according to "Wraith," earlier on this thread)
- No published works
- Not a single website (or website with information about it, excluding this one, now that Deism.org has erased Franko's posts)
- No entry in the Encyclopedia of World Religions

I don't think it's a religion at all. Semantics time. Let's look at what my electronic Franklin dictionary has to say about religion:

religion (n.) 1. Service and worship of God 2. Organized system of faith and worship

Regarding definition 1:
There are no Logical Deist services and worship of the Logical Goddess, as there is no dogma or ritual. Wraith may prove me wrong at any time if he wishes to describe a what a Logical Deist service consists of, or in what way he worships the LG.

Regarding definition 2:
If there is to be faith and worship regarding LD, then it must have some form of organization. But there are no signs that it is organized. There is no Logical Deist literature, no book of LD prayers of any kind currently in publication. Nor is there any information about it on the world wide web, not even information about gatherings or meeting places or LD churches.

Therefore, Logical Deism is not a relgion. Note that I am not saying it isn't true, I'll get to that later. But currently, Franko/Wraith cannot claim it is a relgion, or claim that it is knowledge of the divine. Okay, technically he can claim it, but he'll be wrong.

So if LD isn't a religion, what is it?

27th April 2003, 09:08 PM

c4ts and pseudo skeptics' FOOLOSOPHY .

Reality : You all miss Franko.

My prediction : You all will continue missing him.

Thanks,
S&S

c4ts

27th April 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by S&S
c4ts and pseudo skeptics' FOOLOSOPHY .

Reality : You all miss Franko.

My prediction : You all will continue missing him.

Thanks,
S&S

This is not something you want to be involved in. I suggest you stay out.

Tricky

27th April 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by S&S
Reality : You all miss Franko.

My prediction : You all will continue missing him.

You are absolutely correct, S & S. There are only a few foils here that people like me with the most meager of itellects can easily humiliate. Yes, I admit I am a troll baiter. I like trolls because they provide such an easy target that one can attack without fear of serious contradiction from others. The simple fact that they are helpless in a debate, but still feisty makes them fun to play with, and I am always sad to see one leave.

I hope you won't leave, Carlos.

c4ts

27th April 2003, 10:10 PM

Well, I do suppose we all need someone to feel superior to... Sorry, S&S, welcome to the debate.

c4ts

27th April 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by wraith

I got the terms from Franko.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17056&perpage=40&pagenumber=4

Originally posted by wraith
LD does not contain dogma.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17056&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

Originally posted by Franko
Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
You obey the laws of physics
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5645&perpage=40&highlight=you%20are%20made%20of%20atoms&pagenumber=2

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey the Laws of Physics.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5164&highlight=you+are+made+of+atoms

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey the laws of physics (TLOP).

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6282&highlight=you+are+made+of+atoms

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
You obey the laws of physics.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5561&perpage=40&highlight=you%20are%20made%20of%20atoms&pagenumber=3

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of Atoms.
You OBEY the laws of Physics.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6762&highlight=you+are+made+of+atoms

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the laws of physics
You are made of atoms
You obey the laws of physics.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6993&perpage=40&highlight=you%20are%20made%20of%20atoms&pagenumber=3

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
You obey the laws of physics.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6154&perpage=40&highlight=you%20are%20made%20of%20atoms&pagenumber=5

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
The Moon is made of atoms.
The moon obeys the laws of physics.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5645&perpage=40&highlight=the%20moon%20obeys%20the%20goddess&pagenumber=2

Originally posted by wraith

The moon and I are made of atoms. Does the moon have a choice on its orbital path?
What about my "orbital path" what makes me so special that I can violate TLOP?
The only real difference between us and the moon is that the moon doesnt perceive its orbit, but we can
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11135&perpage=40&highlight=you%20are%20made%20of%20atoms&pagenumber=5

Sorry Wraith, I was wrong about saying LD had no dogma. Oh, wait a minute, you said it too.

So what, exactly, are you getting from Franko?

wraith

28th April 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
That would be most excellent. You shouldn't need to go get a definition, though. Since you throw the term "begging the question" around all the time, I would assume you would already know the definition. Or do I give you too much credit?

Just go to the site :rolleyes:
http://skepdic.com/begging.html

wraith: Tricky, youre not trying to avoid the question are you?

Trix: I'm trying to avoid repeating myself.

....at least be honest and say that you have nothing to base your beliefs on. Ask Stimpy for some help if you want. He seems to be the Atheist Top Gun ;)

wraith: Didnt I just answer this?

Tricky: A) It wasn't a question, it was a challenge.
B) You never admitted that it wasn't scientific, just that no scientists agree with you.

What you say is True by default if you have the label of "scientist" ?

wraith: Well the idea that consciousness creates matter is a bit "over the top" for some

Trix: LOL. Yes, and the theory that life on Earth was seeded by intelligent beings from Mars is a bit "over the top" for some. Yet, we have at least one person on these boards who claims to believe it. But it wouldn't matter how over-the-top it was if you had the scientific evidence to support it. But of course, you would first have to know how science works.:cool:

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

School me...

wraith: Not strictly speaking but are you saying that without logic you can still have science?

Trix: Yes, although it would be severely hampered. Your science could be nothing more than gathering data and recognizing patterns in that data. Of course, logic is an important tool in science, but it relies on science to provide and validate the assumptions it makes.

But to look at the converse, one can definately have logic without science. For example, try this syllogism:

All ghosts are made of ectoplasm
All wraiths are ghosts
Therefore all wraiths are made of ectoplasm

That syllogism contains no errors of logic, however, both the major and minor premises are completely unscientific. Are all ghosts made of ectoplasm? That would rely on data collection, not logic at all.

mmm data collection is based on logic

wraith: The fallacy of composition...oh yeah! That points out that invisible flaw in the TLOP syllogism.

Trix: It points out that the TLOP syllogism violates the rules of logic, but interestingly, it does not invalidate the conclusion.

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

Are you also saying that False = True?

Here's an excellent example, provided by Whitefork (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=218345&highlight=some+terrorists#post218345) of a syllogism which contains two valid premises and a correct conclusion, yet it violates the rules of logic:

Some Saudis are Muslims
Some Muslims are terrorists
(Therefore) Some Saudis are terrorists.

Now if you are as good at logic as you imagine yourself to be, you can tell me why this is an invalid syllogism.

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

wraith: School me Trix. Whats this evidence that youre so confident about?

Surely youre not scared to post it here are you?

Trix: All in time, Grasshopper. Before I can school you, you must show me that you can remember your locker combination. :D

Trix dodging the question :rolleyes:

wraith

28th April 2003, 06:10 AM

wraith

28th April 2003, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by c4ts
Think about what Logical Deism has in terms of it being an actual religion:
- No rituals
- No dogma (according to "Wraith," earlier on this thread)
- No published works
- Not a single website (or website with information about it, excluding this one, now that Deism.org has erased Franko's posts)
- No entry in the Encyclopedia of World Religions

I don't think it's a religion at all. Semantics time. Let's look at what my electronic Franklin dictionary has to say about religion:

religion (n.) 1. Service and worship of God 2. Organized system of faith and worship

Regarding definition 1:
There are no Logical Deist services and worship of the Logical Goddess, as there is no dogma or ritual. Wraith may prove me wrong at any time if he wishes to describe a what a Logical Deist service consists of, or in what way he worships the LG.

Regarding definition 2:
If there is to be faith and worship regarding LD, then it must have some form of organization. But there are no signs that it is organized. There is no Logical Deist literature, no book of LD prayers of any kind currently in publication. Nor is there any information about it on the world wide web, not even information about gatherings or meeting places or LD churches.

Therefore, Logical Deism is not a relgion. Note that I am not saying it isn't true, I'll get to that later. But currently, Franko/Wraith cannot claim it is a relgion, or claim that it is knowledge of the divine. Okay, technically he can claim it, but he'll be wrong.

So if LD isn't a religion, what is it?

It's a philosophy.
It can be a religion.

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

wraith

28th April 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by c4ts
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

28th April 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

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

28th April 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by 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.
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? :eek:
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

28th April 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by wraith

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

28th April 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Just go to the site :rolleyes:
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?:D)

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

28th April 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by wraith
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. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=265145&highlight=turd+flush#post265145)
Originally posted by wraith
Twisty, dont take it personally but HELL!
Youre like a turd that wont flush
;)

28th April 2003, 08:50 AM

Foolosophy vs. Philosophy.

Thanks,
S&S

MRC_Hans

28th April 2003, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by S&S
Foolosophy vs. Philosophy.

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

Hans

28th April 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Don't be too harsh on Wraith, he's trying.

Hans

You too.

Thanks,
S&S

c4ts

28th April 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by wraith

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

29th April 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
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

29th April 2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
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

29th April 2003, 07:39 AM

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

Im going to round me up some zzzs ;)

...'night people :cool:

Upchurch

29th April 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by wraith

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 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14459&perpage=40&pagenumber=4) and goes until almost the last page. But be careful, Franko last posted on this thread and never came back! :eek:

;)
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

29th April 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by wraith

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.

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

29th April 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

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

29th April 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
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

29th April 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
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

29th April 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

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. :eek: ;)

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

hammegk

29th April 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

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? :confused: :D }

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. :eek: ;)

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. ;)

Upchurch

29th April 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Takes a lot of forms, anyway, & within uncertainty limits is neither created nor destroyed, yup. What is Gravity? Do you ever wonder? Oh, baby, have I ever! Spent two semesters in college on Gravity alone. The short answer is that gravity is a fourth dimensional warping of spacetime by mass and energy.
{Or, conversely, are F (&W) totally insane? :confused: :D }Whatever they are, they don't know actual science.
A meaningful question once you have concluded "matter makes life". But again, that is The Question we are discussing, isn't it?Great, but where did it go? Are you suggesting that life is conserved, and if so how, or that life can be distroyed? I'm suggesting the latter since there is no evidence that it goes anywhere.
This is another try at The Question, isn't it?
Actually, it is another try at the question, "What do you know of that is more quintessentially 'energetic' than life?"

I guess I need some clarification. When you said, "'Life'is also interesting to contemplate: it seems to me it is more akin to 'energy' than 'matter'" and then asked the question above, I assumed that you considered life to something that is directly comparable to energy. Indeed, you asked me to compare it to something else that has energy.

What properties, exactly, do you think energy and life have in common?
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. ;) So... why call the god-of-the-gaps (i.e. God is that which science hasn't explained yet) "God" at all? Why not just call it the "yet unknown" and continue the pursuit? This is the position I take as an atheist. Really, the only thing I take on blind faith is not the doctorine that everything that is knowable can be known and that which isn't knowable (e.g. the Uncertainty Principle) is at least understandable. Or, in other words, there are know unsolvable mysteries, only unsolved ones.

But I digress. My appologies.

hammegk

29th April 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Oh, baby, have I ever! Spent two semesters in college on Gravity alone. The short answer is that gravity is a fourth dimensional warping of spacetime by mass and energy.
A mathematically elegant theory. That we agree on.

Great, but where did it go? Are you suggesting that life is conserved, and if so how, or that life can be distroyed? I'm suggesting the latter since there is no evidence that it goes anywhere.
And I look at the alternative -- given the correct "perceived physical attributes & structure", and correct environment -- why does live choose to appear?

What properties, exactly, do you think energy and life have in common?
Will & intent to continue "beingness" would be one way to phrase it.

Really, the only thing I take on blind faith is not the doctorine that everything that is knowable can be known and that which isn't knowable (e.g. the Uncertainty Principle) is at least understandable. Or, in other words, there are know unsolvable mysteries, only unsolved ones.

Er, what did you mean to say? :confused:

Loki

29th April 2003, 02:48 PM

hammegk,

Choose Mind as the monism, and at human-consciousness-level hpc is solved, as is -- though only potentially -- lib. free will.
Don't wish to interrupt you and Upchurch, and this is only a small point, but I'd question just how solved HPC and LFW are under such a proposal. I'd suggest :

"Choose Mind as the monism, and at human-consciousness-level hpc is defined as unknowable, as is -- though only potentially -- lib. free will."

Really, there is no "solution" here, only an assertion that these concepts are beyond physical explanation and mechanism. I have trouble calling that "solved".

hammegk

29th April 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Loki
hammegk,

Don't wish to interrupt you and Upchurch, and this is only a small point, but I'd question just how solved HPC and LFW are under such a proposal.

HPC, solved in that no dichotomy in cause-effect exists.

LFW, ditto, but monism of mind may also have rules as strict as science has defined for perceivable "matter/energy", and therefore, still no LFW.

Loki

29th April 2003, 03:45 PM

hammegk,

HPC, solved in that no dichotomy in cause-effect exists.

I must be missing your point - can you expand on this? What do you mean by "dicotomy in cause-effect"?

hammegk

29th April 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Loki
I must be missing your point - can you expand on this? What do you mean by "dicotomy in cause-effect"?

Materialist/atheist answer: HPC doesn't exist, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)

Dualist answer: Matter exists (objectively), Spirit exists also(Consciousness, basically, although I'd say life); problem, how can "non-physical" effect/affect "physical"?

Mental monism: Consciousness/life is all there "really" is: i.e consciousness/life/energy/dynamic-force creates static "matter-the stuff materialists believe is objective".

Capische? :)

Tricky

29th April 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

Materialist/atheist answer: HPC doesn't exist, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)

Dualist answer: Matter exists (objectively), Spirit exists also(Consciousness, basically, although I'd say life); problem, how can "non-physical" effect/affect "physical"?

Mental monism: Consciousness/life is all there "really" is: i.e consciousness/life/energy/dynamic-force creates static "matter-the stuff materialists believe is objective".

Capische? :)
Um... no. A dichotomy is a two-way branching, a yes/no answer or an either/or (with only one "or") scenario. What you done here is summarize three philosophies, and you would probably admit there are many more. The last two do not even address cause and effect/affect with Dualism not being able to answer the question and Mental Monism postulating some strange phenomena like "dynamic-force" and equating it with life, energy and consciousness.

I cannot see that you have answered Loki's question at all, and another nagging question remains: Can consciousness exist in the absence of matter? If so, how?

Loki

29th April 2003, 07:15 PM

hammegk,

Capische?
Perhaps. I can't seem to find anything in your post that directly relates to explaining what "dichotomy of cause-effect" meant. I assume you were aiming for a "poetic" phrase to encapsulate the three metaphysical positions and what they infer regarding consciousness? Consciousness is the cause, matter is the effect, or vice versa?

Materialist/atheist answer: HPC doesn't exist, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)
This will do for the sake of keeping things simple, but I'd probably perfer to say "Materialist/atheist answer: HPC isn't what it intuitively appears to be, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)".

Mental monism: Consciousness/life is all there "really" is: i.e consciousness/life/energy/dynamic-force creates static "matter-the stuff materialists believe is objective".
But how does this "solve" HPC? Simplifying (almost to the point of losing meaning), HPC says "consciousness appears to have two elements, one fairly obviously affected by and affecting the physical, and one (qualia) that appears 'different'".

1. Materialism says "It's all physical, the 'diffence' will be explained eventually".

2. Mental Monism says "It's all mental, the 'difference' is just the way it works".

How does #2 solve or explain anything better than #1? If you answer is that "well, Mental monism posits that, despite the appearance of two types of "conscious element", it's all really the same thing", then that's pretty much what materialism says also. Materialism goes on to say "and we'll eventually dissect and comprehend this apparent difference". Mental Monism says "That's it. No further information is possible". Again, it seems to me that Mental Monisn doesn't "solve" HPC, it just defines it as being "the way it is".

And as (another) aside, you seem to use"consciousness" and "life" quite freely, basically treating them as interchangeable terms. This is probably a topic requiring it's own thread, but what *exactly* is your perspective of this? Are 'life' and 'consciousness' just different terms for the same thing? Does life require consciousness? Does consciousness require life? Are both derived from something more fundamental? I'm not asking you to *prove* anything here, just trying to understand how you (currently) see the relationship

CWL

30th April 2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
I cannot see that you have answered Loki's question at all, and another nagging question remains: Can consciousness exist in the absence of matter? If so, how?

Indeed.

I think there is also another signifigant problem with mental monism. Assuming that consciousness is in reality "all there is" leads to the question why one should assume the existence of other "consciousnesses". If it is reasonable to assume that the "matter" I perceive is nothing but a construct in my mind, it is equally reasonable to assume that so are the other "minds" which I perceive.

I thus fail to see how a reasonable epistemology can be constructed on the basis of mental monism, as it undoubtedly leads to solipsism.

Mental monism also seems to be a rather conceited point of departure - rather like assuming that the Earth is the center of the Universe because we happen to live on it. The progress of science has taught us better...

hammegk

30th April 2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Loki
hammegk,

Perhaps. I can't seem to find anything in your post that directly relates to explaining what "dichotomy of cause-effect" meant. I assume you were aiming for a "poetic" phrase to encapsulate the three metaphysical positions and what they infer regarding consciousness? Consciousness is the cause, matter is the effect, or vice versa?
Poetic? Not me. Simplistic, I'd go for.

This will do for the sake of keeping things simple, but I'd probably perfer to say "Materialist/atheist answer: HPC isn't what it intuitively appears to be, matter creates consciousness (after creating life)".
ok

But how does this "solve" HPC? Simplifying (almost to the point of losing meaning), HPC says "consciousness appears to have two elements, one fairly obviously affected by and affecting the physical, and one (qualia) that appears 'different'".

1. Materialism says "It's all physical, the 'diffence' will be explained eventually".

2. Mental Monism says "It's all mental, the 'difference' is just the way it works".

How does #2 solve or explain anything better than #1? If you answer is that "well, Mental monism posits that, despite the appearance of two types of "conscious element", it's all really the same thing", then that's pretty much what materialism says also. Materialism goes on to say "and we'll eventually dissect and comprehend this apparent difference". Mental Monism says "That's it. No further information is possible". Again, it seems to me that Mental Monisn doesn't "solve" HPC, it just defines it as being "the way it is".
Solved in the sense that *I* do think, and so do you. Our prime datum.

And as (another) aside, you seem to use"consciousness" and "life" quite freely, basically treating them as interchangeable terms. This is probably a topic requiring it's own thread, but what *exactly* is your perspective of this? Are 'life' and 'consciousness' just different terms for the same thing? Does life require consciousness? Does consciousness require life? Are both derived from something more fundamental? I'm not asking you to *prove* anything here, just trying to understand how you (currently) see the relationship
I'd say life v. non-life is the problem for materialism. Again, say you synthesize -- let's start with quarks -- a bacterium structure, and it is exhibits life. Did you & structure "create" the "life", or does "what-is" use the perceived physical structure to manifest itself? Is a quark "alive"? Why not? Energy?

Originally posted by CWL

I thus fail to see how a reasonable epistemology can be constructed on the basis of mental monism, as it undoubtedly leads to solipsism.
At human level, we depend on the gentlemens agreement, *I* think, and fully believe you do too. Materialists must grapple with human hpc (and lbf) -- and do not do so successfully imo.

But the real point has nothing to do with human perception -- the end of the evolutionary chain on Earth at the moment -- life is the real question. And again, the closer science looks at "matter" the less of it there is -- only the expression in one from or another of dynamic "energy". Matter appears to be inert, and static.

So emergent property of matter, or thing-in-itself? This position has no quarrel with scientific analysis and prediction, and offers a reason for QM nuttiness. If M-theory is correct, is a string matter, or energy? Where does Higgs fit in?

Dancing David

30th April 2003, 01:35 PM

I think that Higgs fits in the Higgs pocket.

Higgs particles or vibrations would be a likely candidate for the dark energy.
They may not be nessecary however, what if the vacum energy creates inertia/gravity and it is the production of virtual particles that givesthings mass, then you don't need Higgs.

In strings Higgs would be one of the ealier strings to form .

Peace
dancing david

hammegk

30th April 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

In strings Higgs would be one of the earlier strings to form .

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

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

Tricky

30th April 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
At human level, we depend on the gentlemens agreement, *I* think, and fully believe you do too. Materialists must grapple with human hpc (and lbf) -- and do not do so successfully imo.
IMO, most materialists do not grapple with the HPC, simply because it is not in any way a problem. HPC, like "souls" and "qualia" and even "the mind" are simply concepts created in our rather remarkable brain. Non-materialists seem to think that there must be a problem, so they invent all sorts of imaginary solutions to an imaginary problem, none of which can ever be tested. Materialists simple recognize that this is a complete waste of time and spend their time grappling with real problems which have possible, testable solutions.

hammegk

1st May 2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Materialists simple recognize that this is a complete waste of time and spend their time grappling with real problems which have possible, testable solutions.

Yeah, I'd agree materialists/atheists have no time to waste on imponderables like ethics & morals. Good chance for your book deal here: Scientific Ethics and Morality by, ta-da, "Tricky"! ;)

You are correct about your only logically sustainable position on hpc and lbf: answer -- neither exists.

Tricky

1st May 2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, I'd agree materialists/atheists have no time to waste on imponderables like ethics & morals. Good chance for your book deal here: Scientific Ethics and Morality by, ta-da, "Tricky"! ;)

You are correct about your only logically sustainable position on hpc and lbf: answer -- neither exists.
Ethics and morals demonstrably exist and can be easily studied, including their sources, reasons and effects. This is in stark contrast to HPC. I would have a much easier time gathering data for that sort of book than you would for your tome, "The I in Me".

CWL

1st May 2003, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
[B]At human level, we depend on the gentlemens agreement, *I* think, and fully believe you do too. Materialists must grapple with human hpc (and lbf) -- and do not do so successfully imo.
I am not sure that a gentlemens' agreement is a sound basis for an epistemology. I would rather say that the only reasonable starting point is that the world we perceive is out there - and that we are a part of it.
But the real point has nothing to do with human perception -- the end of the evolutionary chain on Earth at the moment -- life is the real question. And again, the closer science looks at "matter" the less of it there is -- only the expression in one from or another of dynamic "energy". Matter appears to be inert, and static.

So emergent property of matter, or thing-in-itself? This position has no quarrel with scientific analysis and prediction, and offers a reason for QM nuttiness. If M-theory is correct, is a string matter, or energy? Where does Higgs fit in?
Why introduce this "X-thing-in-itself"? Do we have any reason to assume that life is not an emergent property of matter (and/or energy)?

hammegk

1st May 2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Ethics and morals demonstrably exist and can be easily studied, including their sources, reasons and effects. This is in stark contrast to HPC.
Demonstrably exist? Easily studied? You must be joking.

I would have a much easier time gathering data for that sort of book than you would for your tome, "The I in Me".
I do have one incontrovertible-to-me data point. *I* think -- that is hpc.

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

hammegk

1st May 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by CWL

I am not sure that a gentlemens' agreement is a sound basis for an epistemology. I would rather say that the only reasonable starting point is that the world we perceive is out there - and that we are a part of it.
I know you would. Unfortunately that is called begging the question, iirc.

Why introduce this "X-thing-in-itself"? Do we have any reason to assume that life is not an emergent property of matter (and/or energy)?

You are the person postulating: i.e. matter being a thing-in-itself. My postulate is that *I* think, and am not a figment of something else's imagination. Which is closest to "reality"?

CWL

1st May 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
I know you would. Unfortunately that is called begging the question, iirc.
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.
You are the person postulating: i.e. matter being a thing-in-itself. My postulate is that *I* think, and am not a figment of something else's imagination. Which is closest to "reality"?
Where does this "figment" thingy enter into it again?

whitefork

1st May 2003, 06:48 AM

There are problems with Cogito Ergo Sum.

It's not an argument.
The I that thinks is simply identified with the I that is.
Descartes is not really allowed to say anything more than "there is thought" - the conclusion that thought requires a thinker is an unjustified leap. The further conclusion that a thinker has a (non-material, non-extended) substantial basis is another leap.

Next lesson - the role of the pineal gland.

Tricky

1st May 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

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?

Originally posted by hammegk
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?

Originally posted by hammegk
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

1st May 2003, 07:53 AM

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

1st May 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by CWL

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

1st May 2003, 08:17 AM

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

1st May 2003, 08:21 AM

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

Dancing David

1st May 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

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

1st May 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

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

1st May 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

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

1st May 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

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