Chapter 10: The Material World: “Is That All There Is?”

Printable Version

Chapter 10: The Material World: “Is That All There Is?”
Response to George Gilder and Jay Richards

by	Ray Kurzweil

Ray Kurzweil rejects the "materialist" label, saying he is a "patternist" and pointing out the emergent, transcendent power of patterns in contrast to dualistic interpretations. Kurzweil also counters Bill Joy's "unrealistic" call to relinquish broad areas in the pursuit of knowledge.

Originally published in print June 18, 2002 in Are We Spiritual Machines? Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong AI by the Discovery Institute. Published on KurzweilAI.net on June 18, 2002.

In their foreword, George Gilder and Jay Richards describe me (as well as John Searle and Thomas Ray) as “philosophical materialists,” a term they define by quoting Carl Sagan’s view of the material world as “all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Kurzweil, Searle, and Ray, according to Gilder and Richards, “agree that everything can or at least should be described in terms of chance and impersonal natural law without reference to any sort of transcendent intelligence or mind. To them, ideas are epiphenomena of matter.”

There are many concepts here to respond to. But my overriding reaction is: What’s the problem with the so-called material world? Is the world of matter and energy not profound enough? Is it truly necessary to look beyond the world we encounter to find transcendence?

Where shall I start? How about water? It’s simple enough, but consider the diverse and beautiful ways it manifests itself: the endlessly varying patterns as it cascades past rocks in a stream, then surging chaotically down a waterfall (all viewable from my office window, incidentally); the billowing patterns of clouds in the sky; the arrangement of snow on a mountain; the satisfying design of a single snowflake. Or consider Einstein’s description of the entangled order and disorder in, well, a glass of water (i.e., his thesis on Brownian motion).

As we move into the biological world, consider the intricate dance of spirals of DNA during mitosis. How about the “loveliness” of a tree as it bends in the wind and its leaves churn in a tangled dance? Or the bustling world we see in a microscope? There’s transcendence everywhere.

A comment on the word “transcendence” is in order here. To transcend means to “go beyond,” but this need not compel us to an ornate dualist view that regards transcendent levels of reality (e.g., the spiritual level) to be not of this world. We can “go beyond” the “ordinary” powers of the material world through the power of patterns. Rather than a materialist, I would prefer to consider myself a “patternist.” It’s through the emergent powers of the pattern that we transcend.

Consider the author of this chapter. I am not merely or even principally the material stuff I am made of because the actual particles that comprise me turn over quickly. Most cells in the body are replaced within a few months. Although neurons persist longer, the actual atoms making up the neurons are also rapidly replaced. In the first chapter I made the analogy to water in a stream rushing around rocks. The pattern of water is relatively stable, yet the specific water molecules change in milliseconds. The same holds true for us human beings. It is the immense, indeed transcendent, power of our pattern that persists.

The power of patterns to persist goes beyond explicitly self-replicating systems such as organisms and self-replicating technology. It is the persistence and power of patterns that, quite literally, gives life to the Universe. The pattern is far more important than the material stuff that comprises it.

Random strokes on a canvas are just paint. But when arranged in just the right way, it transcends the material stuff and becomes art. Random notes are just sounds. Sequenced in an “inspired” way, we have music. A pile of components is just an inventory. Ordered in an innovative manner, and perhaps with some software (another pattern), we have the “magic” (i.e., transcendence) of technology.

We can regard the spiritual level as the ultimate in transcendence. In my view, it incorporates all of these, the creations of the natural world such as ourselves, as well as our own creations in the form of human technology, culture, art, and spiritual expression.

Is the world of patterns impersonal? Consider evolution. The “chance…impersonal” swirl of dust and wind gave rise to ever more intelligent, knowledgeable, creative, beautiful, and loving entities, and has done so at an ever accelerating pace. I don’t regard this as an “impersonal” process because I don’t regard the world and all of its attendant mysteries as impersonal. Consider what I wrote in the first chapter, that “technology is evolution by other means.” In other words, technology is a continuation of the evolutionary process that gave rise to the technology creating species in the first place. It is another paradigm shift, a profound one to be sure, changing the focus from DNA-guided evolution to an evolutionary process directed by one its own creations, another level of indirection if you will.

If we put key milestones of both biological and human cultural-technological evolution on a single graph, in which the x-axis (number of years ago) and the y-axis (the paradigm shift time) are both plotted on exponential scales, we find a straight line with biological evolution leading directly to human-directed evolution.

There are many implications of the observation that technology is an evolutionary process, indeed the continuation of the evolutionary process that gave rise to it. It implies that the evolution of technology, like that of biology, accelerates.

It also implies that technology, which is the second half of the evolutionary line above, and the cutting edge of evolution today, is anything but impersonal. Rather, it is the intensely human drama of human competition and innovation that George Gilder writes about (and makes predictions about) so brilliantly.

How about the first half of the line, the story of evolution that started with the swirling dust and water on an obscure planet? The personalness of the biological stage of evolution depends on how we view consciousness. My view is that consciousness, the seat of “personalness,” is the ultimate reality, and is also scientifically impenetrable. In other words, there is no scientific test one can postulate that would definitively prove its existence in another entity. We assume that other biological human persons, at least those who are at least acting conscious, are indeed conscious. But this too is an assumption, and this shared human consensus breaks down when we go beyond human experience (e.g., the debate on animal consciousness, and by extension animal rights).

We have no consciousness detector, and any such device that we can imagine proposing will have built in assumptions about which we can debate endlessly. It comes down to the essential difference between objective (i.e., scientific) and subjective (i.e., conscious, personal) reality. Some philosophers then go on to say that because the ultimate issue of consciousness is not a scientific issue (albeit that the more superficial, i.e., the “easy” issues of consciousness as the philosopher David Chalmers describes them, can be amenable to scientific exploration), consciousness is, therefore, an illusion, or at least not a real issue. However, a more reasonable conclusion that one can come to, and indeed my own view, is that precisely because these central issues of reality are not fully resolvable by scientific experiment and argument alone, there is a salient role for philosophy and religion. However, this does not require a world outside the physical world we experience.

The arguments that I do make with regard to consciousness are for the sole purpose of illustrating the vexing and paradoxical (and in my view, therefore, profound) nature of consciousness, how one set of assumptions (i.e., that a copy of my mind file either shares or does not share my consciousness) leads ultimately to an opposite view, and vice versa.

So we could say that the universe—“all that is”—is indeed personal, is “conscious” in some way that we cannot fully comprehend. This is no more unreasonable an assumption or belief than believing that another person is conscious. Personally, I do feel this to be the case. But this does not require me to go beyond the “mere” “material” world and its transcendent patterns. The world that is, is profound enough.

Another conclusion that I come to in considering the acceleration of evolution is that ultimately the matter and energy in our vicinity will become infused with the intelligence, knowledge, creativity, beauty, and love of our human-machine civilization. And then our civilization will expand outwardly turning all the “dumb” matter we encounter into transcendently intelligent matter. So even in its present largely dumb state, the Universe has the potential for this explosion of intelligence, creativity, and other qualities we attribute to the spiritual aspect of reality. And if you do the math, because of the power of exponential growth, it won’t take that long (mere centuries) to transform the Universe into smart matter. That is, of course, if we can figure out some way around the speed of light. I have some theories on this too, but I’ll leave that train of thought for another time.

Let’s consider the opposite direction for a moment, plumbing to the very smallest grains of reality. One would think that as we probe smaller and smaller aspects of the world, that they would become simpler and easier to understand. Yet, we’ve found the opposite to be the case. At the physically large level of reality that we live in, we often find a predictable Newtonian world, or at least we find many mechanisms that appear to work this way. Yet, as we consider the reality of a single photon, we encounter deep mysteries. We discover the photon simultaneously taking all paths available to it, only retroactively resolving the ambiguities in its path. We notice the photon taking on the properties of both wave and particle, an apparent mathematical contradiction. Photons are part of the material world, and we’ve got trillions of trillions of them. Is the world of matter and patterns not profound enough?

The Bible says that “the eyes of the Lord are in every place” (Proverbs 15:3). Admittedly, this view commonly expressed in both the Old and New Testaments is subject to dualist interpretations, but many religious traditions speak of God being manifest in the world as opposed to being a world apart. Dostoevsky (in The Brothers Karamazov) wrote, “Every blade of grass, every insect, ant, and golden bee, all . . . bear witness to the mystery of God and continually accomplish it themselves.” Spinoza expressed it well when he wrote, “God reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.”

The problem with conveying transcendent ideas with the models expressible in human language is that our language necessarily reduces their grandeur and subtlety. If we say that “God is everywhere,” someone might interpret that to mean that God is some kind of gas that fills up the space, or an ether in which particles and waves move about. Language can only provide imperfect metaphors for transcendent thoughts. Thus apparently contradictory notions (i.e., God is manifest in the material world; versus God is everywhere but nonetheless of a different nature than the material world; versus God is an all powerful person with whom we can communicate and establish covenants; versus God created the world and is now watching from afar. . .) can be different views of the same transcendent reality. The ability to overcome apparent contradiction is what makes the spiritual aspect of reality transcendent. We also note with regret that these apparent contradictions are the source of much conflict.

Gilder and Richards’ characterizations of Searle and Ray as philosophical materialists is fair enough, only theirs is a materialism stripped of any sense that the issue of consciousness introduces any mystery into our investigations. There is nothing special about Searle’s concept of consciousness. Searle states that “consciousness is a biological process like digestion, lactation, photosynthesis.” Searle goes on to say that “the brain is a machine, a biological machine to be sure, but a machine all the same. So the first step is to figure out how the brain does it and then build an artificial machine that has an equally effective mechanism for causing consciousness.” Searle’s view of consciousness is quite straightforward, and no different from, well, digestion. It is ironic that Searle has a reputation, totally undeserved in my view, for defending the deep mystery of the issue of consciousness, and the ultimate limits of scientific experimentation to resolve the issue.

As for Thomas Ray, consciousness hardly seems to impinge at all. Indeed, if we limit ourselves to scientific observation only (i.e., to objective, and therefore not subjective consideration), we can safely ignore it. Ray’s view of quantum mechanics recognizes no difference between measurement and observation, because after all we need not concern ourselves with the who who is observing.

Denton describes his “awe” at the “eerie, other-worldly. . . impression” of the asymmetric patterns in nature. He contrasts the “self-organizing . . . self-referential . . . self-replicating . . . reciprocal . . . self-formative, and . . . holistic” qualities of designs in nature to the modular mechanisms of most contemporary machines. While I share Denton’s sense of “wonderment” at the design principles manifest in nature, he makes the unsupported leap that patterns with such properties are inherently limited to biological processes, that machines could never display the same “other-worldly” (i.e., spiritual) dimension. I’d have to say that Denton does a good job of describing how transcendent attributes can be emergent properties of very complex systems. However, aside from pointing out the obvious limitations of much of contemporary technology, he fails to cite any compelling reason that our own creations are intrinsically restricted from emulating these powerful natural design principles.

As for Dembski, Gilder and Richards accurately describe his view as theistic, in the sense of an uncomfortable duality, with God and the spirit (i.e., consciousness) operating outside the material world. Many philosophers have pointed out the pitfalls of the dualistic view. If God and spirit operate outside the material world and have no effect on it, then perhaps we can safely ignore them altogether. On the other hand, if they do affect and interact with the material world, then why not consider them part of it? Otherwise, our metaphysics becomes hopelessly elaborate.

Gilder and Richards describe my view as “a substitute vision for those who have lost faith in the traditional object of religious belief.” The traditional object of religious belief is often referred to as God. But if we are to understand God as infinite in intelligence, knowledge, creativity, and so on, then it would seem reasonable to explore new metaphors to attempt to express what is inherently not fully expressible in our finite language. To restrict our view of God to only one tradition limits Who should be regarded as without limit. The words and stories of our ancient traditions may indeed lose their resonance over time, not because the timeless truths have changed, and not because of any inconsistency with our expanding scientific knowledge, but rather because they were attempts to express transcendent ideas in language poorly equipped for such a purpose. It makes sense to update not the truths themselves but our expressions of these truths in keeping with our evolving understanding of the world we live in.

Furthermore, it is not my view that “the very notion of improvement” is “alien in a materialistic universe.” One of the ways in which this universe of evolving patterns of matter and energy that we live in expresses its transcendent nature is in the exponential growth of the spiritual values we attribute in abundance to God: knowledge, intelligence, creativity, beauty, and love.

Joy Drives Off the Road?

Fundamentally, Gilder and Richards and I share a deeply critical reaction to Bill Joy’s prescription of relinquishment of “our pursuit of certain types of knowledge.” Just as George Soros attracted attention by criticizing the capitalist system of which he was a primary beneficiary, the credibility of Joy’s treatise on the dangers of future technology has been enhanced by his reputation as a primary architect of contemporary technology. Being a technologist, Joy claims not to be anti-technology, saying that we should keep the beneficial technologies, and relinquish only those dangerous ones, like nanotechnology. The problem with Joy’s view is that the dangerous technologies are exactly the same as the beneficial ones. The same biotechnology tools and knowledge that will save millions of future lives from cancer and other diseases could potentially provide a terrorist with the means for creating a bioengineered pathogen. The same nanotechnology that will eventually help clean up the environment and provide material products at almost no cost are the same technologies that could be misused to introduce new nonbiological pathogens.

I call this the deeply intertwined promise and peril of technology, and it’s not a new story. Technology empowers both our creative and destructive natures. Stalin’s tanks and Hitler’s trains used technology. Yet few people today would really want to go back to the short (human lifespan less than half of today’s), brutish, disease-filled, poverty-stricken, labor-intensive, disaster-prone lives that 99 percent of the human race struggled through a few centuries ago.

We can’t have the benefits without at least the potential dangers. The only way to avoid the dangerous technologies would be to relinquish essentially all of technology. And the only way to accomplish that would be a totalitarian system (e.g., Brave New World) in which the state has exclusive use of technology to prevent everyone else from advancing it. Joy’s recommendation does not go that far obviously, but his call for relinquishing broad areas of the pursuit of knowledge is based on an unrealistic assumption that we can parse safe and risky areas of knowledge.

Another reason that Joy’s call for relinquishment of broad areas such as nanotechnology is unrealistic is that nanotechnology is not a simple unified field. Rather, it is the inevitable end result of the ongoing exponential trend of miniaturization in all areas of technology, which continues to move forward on hundreds of fronts (we’re currently shrinking both electronic and mechanical technology by a factor of 5.6 per linear dimension per decade). It’s not feasible to stop nanotechnology or other broad areas of technology without stopping virtually all technology.

In an article on this same issue, titled “Stop everything . . . It’s Techno-Horror!” in the March 2001 issue of The American Spectator, George Gilder and Richard Vigilante write, “in the event of . . . an unplanned bio-catastrophe, we would be far better off with a powerful and multifarious biotech industry with long and diverse experience in handling such perils, constraining them, and inventing remedies than if we had ‘relinquished’ these technologies to a small elite of government scientists, their work closely classified and shrouded in secrecy.”

I agree quite heartily with this eloquent perspective. Consider as a contemporary test case, how we have dealt with one recent technological challenge. There exists today a new form of fully nonbiological self-replicating entity that didn’t exist just a few decades ago: the computer virus. When this form of destructive intruder first appeared, strong concerns were voiced that as they became more sophisticated, software pathogens had the potential to destroy the computer network medium they live in. Yet the “immune system” that has evolved in response to this challenge has been largely effective. Although destructive self-replicating software entities do cause damage from time to time, the injury is but a tiny fraction of the benefit we receive from the computers and communication links that harbor them.

One might counter that computer viruses do not have the lethal potential of biological viruses or of destructive future nanotechnology. Although true, this only strengthens my observation. The fact that computer viruses are not usually deadly to humans (although they can be if they intrude on mission critical systems such as airplanes and intensive care units) only means that more people are willing to create and release them. It also means that our response to the danger is relatively relaxed. Conversely, when it comes to future self- replicating entities that may be potentially lethal on a large scale, our response on all levels will be vastly more intense.

Joy’s treatise is effective because he paints a picture of future dangers as if they were released on today’s unprepared world. The reality is that the sophistication and power of our defensive technologies and knowledge will grow along with the dangers. When we have gray goo, we will also have blue goo (“police” nanobots that combat the “bad” nanobots). The story of the twenty-first century has not yet been written, so we cannot say with assurance that we will successfully avoid all misuse. But the surest way to prevent the development of the defensive technologies would be to relinquish the pursuit of knowledge in broad areas, which would only drive these efforts underground where they would be dominated by the least reliable practitioners (e.g., the terrorists).

There is still a great deal of suffering in the world. Are we going to tell the millions of cancer patients that we’re canceling all cancer research despite very promising emerging treatments because the same technology might be abused by a terrorist? Consider the following tongue-in-cheek announcement, which I read during a radio debate with Joy: “Sun Microsystems announced today that it was relinquishing all research and development that might improve the intelligence of its software, the computational power of its computers, or the effectiveness of its networks due to concerns that the inevitable result of progress in these fields may lead to profound and irreversible dangers to the environment and even to the human race itself. ‘Better to be safe than sorry,’ Sun’s Chief Scientist Bill Joy was quoted as saying. Trading of Sun shares was automatically halted in accordance with Nasdaq trading rules after dropping by 90 percent in the first hour of trading.” Joy did not find my mock announcement amusing, but my point is a serious one: Advancement in a broad array of technologies is an economic imperative.

Although I agree with Gilder and Vigilante’s opposition to the essentially totalitarian nature of the call for relinquishment of broad areas of the pursuit of knowledge and technology, their American Spectator article directs a significant portion of its argument against the technical feasibility of the future dangers. This is not the best strategy in my view to counter Joy’s thesis. We don’t have to look further than today to see that technology is a double-edged sword. Gilder has written with great enthusiasm and insight in his books and newsletters of the exponential growth of many technologies, including Gilder’s Law on the explosion of bandwidth. In my own writings, including in this book, I have shown how the exponential growth of the power of technology is pervasive and affects a great multiplicity of areas. The impact of these interacting and accelerating revolutions is significant in the short-term (i.e., over years), but revolutionary in the long term (i.e., over decades). I believe that the most cogent strategy to oppose the allure of the suppression of the pursuit of knowledge is not to deny the potential dangers of future technology nor the theoretical feasibility of disastrous scenarios, but rather to build the case that the continued relatively open pursuit of knowledge is the most reliable (albeit not foolproof) way to reap the promise while avoiding the peril of profound twenty-first century technologies.

I believe that George and I are in essential agreement on this issue. In the American Spectator article, he and Richard Vigilante write the following which persuasively articulates the point:

“Part of the ‘mysterious’ realm that Einstein called ‘the cradle of all true art and true science,’ chance is beyond the ken of inductive reason. When Albert Hirschman writes that ‘creativity always comes as a surprise to us,’ he is acknowledging this essential property of invention. Any effort to reduce the world to the dimensions of our own present understanding will exclude novelty and progress. The domain of chance is our access to futurity and to providence. ‘Trusting to chance’ seems terrifying, but it is the only way to be open to possibility.”

Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X!

[Post New Comment]
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:


	patternist posted on 06/19/2002 1:41 PM by greische@ria.army.mil	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
See: http://www.qgravity.org/lee/ http://www.qgravity.org The Life of the Cosmos Smolin says universes have children and evolve!


	It is all about pattern! posted on 06/20/2002 11:30 AM by TimothyWilken@SynEARTH.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
All ‘whole-parts’ in ‘space-time’ have substance and form. The substance is ‘matter- energy’, and form is the ‘order’. Order is relationship—the pattern, organization and form of that ‘matter-energy’. As Jules Henri Poincaré explained in 1908: “Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” It is the order, pattern, organization, form and relationship of the facts that make a science; and the order, pattern, organization, form and relationship of the stones that make a house. An understanding of this concept of order—pattern, organization, form and relationship; and its compliment concept disorder—patternlessness, disorganization, formlessness; and relationshiplessness that is essential to a full understanding Universe. Pattern Integrity Understanding order begins with understanding pattern. R. Buckminster Fuller has added greatly to our understanding of pattern. His most comprehensive explanation of pattern is found in his great work Synergetics. He says: “Imagine yourselves in terms of a moving-picture scenario. You’ve all seen moving pictures run backwards, where people undive out of the swimming pool back onto the board. I’m going to run a moving picture of you backwards. You’ve just had breakfast; now, I’m going to run the picture backwards, and all the food comes out of your mouth onto the plate; and the plates go back up onto the serving tray and things go back into the stove, back into the icebox; they come out of the icebox and into the cans, and they go back to the store; and then, from the store they go back to the wholesaler; then they go back to the factories where they’ve been put together; then they go back to the trucks and ships; and they finally get back to pineapples in Hawaii. Then the pineapples separate out, go back into the air; the raindrops go back into the sky, and so forth. “But in the very fast accelerated reversal of a month practically everything has come together that you now have on board you, gradually becoming your hair and your skin and so forth, whereas a month ago, it was some air coming over the mountains. In other words, you get completely deployed. I want you to begin to think of yourselves in an interesting way as each one of these. “If we had some way of putting tracers on the pictures, you would see chemical elements gradually getting closer and closer together, and, finally, getting into those various vegetable places and into roasts and, tighter and tighter, into cans, into the store, finally getting to just being you or me—temporarily, becoming my hair, my ear, some part of my skin—and then that breaks up and goes off and gets blown around as dust. “Each of us is a very complex pattern integrity with which we were born.” From "Understanding Order" by Timothy Wilken: http://www.synearth.net/UCS2-Science-Order.pdf Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html


	Re: Chapter 10: The Material World: “Is That All There Is?” posted on 07/07/2002 8:44 PM by I pretty much agree -- but I still call myself a materialist.	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Pattern, information, order, etc. are important, they exist, but these things are a property of matter and cannot exist without some material substrate. So, I'm still a materialist.


	Re: Chapter 10: The Material World: ?Is That All There Is?? posted on 07/08/2002 5:58 AM by azb0@earthlink.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I consider myself a materialist as well. But there is no particular conflict between materialsim and the "all is pattern" view of things. All matter is equivalently "energy locked into semi-stable patterns". Most often, forms such as protons, electrons, etc. Patterns (as such) can join and interact to form yet-more-complex patterns. I take the "materialist view" to mean that there are no willful actors required to have made the universe, or to keep it running, so to speak. Rather, the patterns arise "naturally" due to the interaction of "unthinking forces". At least, the materialist in me says I must strive first to explore all possible "non-thinking, no man behind the curtain" explanations for things, before considering any supernatural alternatives. Cheers! ____tony____


	Re: Chapter 10: The Material World: ?Is That All There Is?? posted on 07/08/2002 5:44 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> I consider myself a materialist as well. But > there is no particular conflict between > materialsim and the "all is pattern" view of > things. Not yet. But I don't know how much Kurzweil intends to distance himself from standard "materialism." A non-materialist could be a patternist too. I think many theistic mathematicians (Godel?) fall into that. You just have to add a non-material substance for pattern holding. > All matter is equivalently "energy locked into > semi-stable patterns". Or, every pattern we know is really an ephemeral event. "Semi-stable" means only partly stable, it won't last. > Most often, forms such as protons, electrons, > etc. And don't even those protons decay? > Patterns (as such) can join and interact to > form yet-more-complex patterns. And they can fall apart and decay too. Entropy takes its toll. > I take the "materialist view" to mean that > there are no willful actors required to have > made the universe, or to keep it running, so to > speak. Rather, the patterns arise "naturally" > due to the interaction of "unthinking forces". Neither of us buy Dembski's idea of an "intelligent" designer. > At least, the materialist in me says I must > strive first to explore all possible "non- > thinking, no man behind the curtain" > explanations for things, before considering any > supernatural alternatives. Same here. At least we have a road, a method, the scientific method. What does Dembski have? What's the theological method? All he can say is certain things are impossible, he offers no new possibilities to test.


	Re: Chapter 10: The Material World: “Is That All There Is?” posted on 07/08/2002 6:24 PM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Well, the fabric of our universe is more than sheer matter ; we can deduce from a very simple experiment that particles of light (photons) should be considered both like (grains of) matter & waves (from their interference pattern). This has been known for a century. We also know that matter is mostly made of void. And ultimately, what are matter & energy ? Now, our science is a knowledge, we have ideas & emotions, we have a culture, a consciousness, what are those things ? Can we reduce them to matter ? Is an ant-hill simply an ant plus an ant plus an ant etc... or is it more than that ? Is the wave i surf simply an amount of water ? Some people - who call themselves materialists - say no, our reality is more than sheer matter, there are also some associated patterns to be taken into account. Materialism seems to me both an old remain from the past, all the more on this forum, but what is like to be a materialist ? Maybe these immaterial entities (ideas, emotions, cultures, etc...) cannot exist without the material substrate - the brain - they emerged from, but it is not demonstrated yet ; It is a logical assertion which stems from our current experience of human on earth, but that's all folks, we don't know for sure. Maybe we will learn similarily that matter cannot exist without consciousness, that they are inextricably linked together, why not ? Or maybe science will confirm Plato's idea of a spiritual reality that gave to the created world its form and being ; an archetypal realm of changeless and universal patterns of which "the material world is but an imperfect representation". This symbolic matrix is another hypothesis which does not seems more hazardous to me. cheers, jeff


	Re: Chapter 10: The Material World: “Is That All There Is?” posted on 07/08/2002 9:25 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Jeff, I am not saying that "materia" (stuff, matter, energy, or the confusion of these) is necessarily primary to "pattern". Indeed, it is hard to imagine a pattern that is not "a pattern in or of something". And of course, I used "semi-stable" deliberately. All particles eventually decay, all patterns eventually unravel. I still (perhaps erroneously) take "materialist" to mean MAINLY that there is no "intelligent and arbitrary entity pulling the strings to make things happen", but rather that the world is manifest of unthinking forces, whether limited to Grav, EM, ... or many more. To hold otherwise would make all science and experimentation meaningless. What good to drop a stone from a height and measure the rate of fall and develope a formula, if the next time you try it, the guy pulling the strings is on a coffee break? Cheers! ____tony____


	Re: Chapter 10: The Material World: “Is That All There Is?” posted on 07/09/2002 1:16 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> Well, the fabric of our universe is more than > sheer matter; Depends on what you mean by matter. We're not talking about the same kind of stuff that the early Greek materialists had in mind. > we can deduce from a very simple experiment > that particles of light (photons) should be > considered both like (grains of) matter & > waves... matter doesn't mean "particles" and "grains" any more. It's not necessarily the bit of substance that has a location in 3D space. I don't think any materialist means that these days. Matter isn't even protons or atoms, it's the fundamental stuff, whether that stuff is fields of energy and probability or what. Whatever it is, it's the fundamental stuff of the universe, and the one thing we don't think it has is anything resembling what we know as intelligence. No intelligence we know can exist without being some structure, some pattern of matter. Intelligence only exists in a material form as for as all the reliable evidence can tell us. The non-materialist is one who believes there is something else besides matter, that something else is usually "God." Some kind of intelligence that exists outside of the material world and directs it. > what are matter & energy ? They are something we can measure and observe and interact with. > Now, our science is a knowledge, we have ideas > & emotions, we have a culture, a consciousness, > what are those things ? Can we reduce them to > matter ? Is an ant-hill simply an ant plus an > ant plus an ant etc... or is it more than > that ? Is the wave i surf simply an amount of > water ? No, the wave is water on the move, carried by momentum and pushed by some form of energy. The ant colony is a collection of inter-relating specialized ants, soldiers, workers and a queen. > Some people - who call themselves > materialists - say no, our reality is more > than sheer matter, there are also some > associated patterns to be taken into account. You are trying to suggest there is more to patterns than being a property of matter -- why? > Materialism seems to me both an old remain from > the past, all the more on this forum, but what > is like to be a materialist ? You have a "strawman" sort of materialism in mind. > Maybe these immaterial entities (ideas, > emotions, cultures, etc...) cannot exist > without the material substrate - the brain - > they emerged from, but it is not demonstrated > yet. In the same way no one has demonstrated that Santa doesn't have flying reindeer. > It is a logical assertion which stems from our > current experience of human on earth, but > that's all folks, we don't know for sure. What good does it do to suppose otherwise? Are you familiar with "Occam's Razor" ? > Maybe we will learn similarily that matter > cannot exist without consciousness, that they > are inextricably linked together, why not ? Because the terms you are using are becoming meaningless when you talk about them that way. The term "consciousness" lacks too much meaning already because it's a "suitcase" term. When we talk about consciousness we are talking about something we experience subjectively. "Consciousness" is a term we use to describe ourselves. To suggest that you would have to demonstrate that a man can somehow dream an atom into existance using nothing but his mind. There's no point throwing something like the ability to create matter into that suitcase term consciousness when there's no evidence a human mind can do that. > Or maybe science will confirm Plato's idea of a > spiritual reality that gave to the created > world its form and being ; an archetypal realm > of changeless and universal patterns of > which "the material world is but an imperfect > representation". This symbolic matrix is > another hypothesis which does not seems more > hazardous to me. If there's one thing we modern materialists have in common with our ancient Greek forebearers, it's that we reject Plato's idea of an archtypal realm of patterns. There are two ways to think about patterns, 1) as a property of our perception, and 2) as a property of matter. Plato's idea verges on solipcism, suggesting our perceptions and ideas about the patterns we see in the world are more real than the patterns in the world. (You say "the material world is but an imperfect representation".) A.I. suggests that this is back ass-wards. Back in the 50s there was an early forerunner to neural nets called a perceptron. Many thought it was a good model of how human neurons worked, but then Marvin Minsky showed how there were certain patterns a human could distinguish but a perceptron never could. Since then we've learned more about making neural net models of our brains. However, this fact that we are neural nets and that not all neural nets can see all patterns suggests there is more out there in the properties of matter than we can percieve. It's our ideas about the world that are imperfect reflections of the material universe. Plato's idea is one of those failures to see what's really there. The material universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than our abilities to imagine could ever match.


	What is matter ? posted on 07/09/2002 7:11 AM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> Well, the fabric of our universe is more than >> sheer matter; > Depends on what you mean by matter. We're not > talking about the same kind of stuff that the > early Greek materialists had in mind. we should have started by asking this question. since you are a materialist, what is matter ? and matter is only a model, a model to be refined again and again, a conceptual suitcase offering different levels of description, in the same way consciousness is, but maybe more observable, measurable hence investigated & theorized. >> we can deduce from a very simple experiment >> that particles of light (photons) should be >> considered both like (grains of) matter & >> waves... > matter doesn't mean "particles" and "grains" any > more. It's not necessarily the bit of substance > that has a location in 3D space. I don't think > any materialist means that these days. Matter you would be surprised > isn't even protons or atoms, it's the > fundamental stuff, whether that stuff is fields > of energy and probability or what. Whatever it > is, it's the fundamental stuff of the universe, indeed, anciant Greeks assumed this fundamental stuff, whether it is called "atom" or "matter", whether it is described as an indivisible grain or a quantum wave function, the question of interpretation still holds: what is ultimately matter and what is not ? because if you cannot answer this question, i don't see the point to claim to be a materialist. > and the one thing we don't think it has is > anything resembling what we know as > intelligence. No intelligence we know can exist > without being some structure, some pattern of > matter. Intelligence only exists in a material > form as for as all the reliable evidence can > tell us. ok, here it is: we don't really know what matter is, what this concept really emcompasses, yet we know what it is not. Maybe that human experience of intelligence & consciousness is uncomplete, but by curtailing the material world, what you really want to rule out is a principle above scientific grasp: > The non-materialist is one who believes there > is something else besides matter, that > something else is usually "God." Some kind of > intelligence that exists outside of the > material world and directs it. well, there is more than the rought dichotomy materialist or non-materialist: i am myself reserved or neutral on this question, considering that matter is a pratical tool to describe my mundane experimence, but being very cautious when asked to extend its operative domain (to describe the entire reality for exemple). God is not a scientific matter but its putative laws or principles of action - if there were - could very well be. >> what are matter & energy ? > They are something we can measure and observe > and interact with. this does not answer to the question but it certainly helps. >> Now, our science is a knowledge, we have ideas >> & emotions,we have a culture, a consciousness, >> what are those things ? Can we reduce them to >> matter ? Is an ant-hill simply an ant plus an >> ant plus an ant etc... or is it more than >> that ? Is the wave i surf simply an amount of >> water ? > No, the wave is water on the move, carried by > momentum and pushed by some form of energy. The > ant colony is a collection of inter-relating > specialized ants, soldiers, workers and a queen yes, what did create these patterns (or specializations) in these ants population ? >> Some people - who call themselves >> materialists - say no, our reality is more >> than sheer matter, there are also some >> associated patterns to be taken into account > You are trying to suggest there is more to > patterns than being a property of matter - why? What does induce patterns in the material world ? What is a physical laws ? Are there other kinds of laws ? >> Materialism seems to me both an old remain >> from the past, all the more on this forum, but >> what is like to be a materialist ? > You have a "strawman" sort of materialism in > mind. ;-) >> It is a logical assertion which stems from our >> current experience of human on earth, but >> that's all folks, we don't know for sure. > What good does it do to suppose otherwise ? the point is just to maintain an openness to other alternatives, mainly when you don't know the extend of the original proposition. > Are you familiar with "Occam's Razor" ? yes, this is a principle of economy (~ simplicity) applied to scientific truth evaluation. We use it as an additional constraint when we don't have enought clues at our disposal to validate. So, in general, it is not a good sign to invoke Occam ;-) >> Maybe we will learn similarily that matter >> cannot exist without consciousness, that they >> are inextricably linked together, why not ? > Because the terms you are using are becoming > meaningless when you talk about them that way. > The term "consciousness" lacks too much meaning > already because it's a "suitcase" term. When we Ok, you are right, to be operative words have to be precise. What about picking the intention-consciousness off this suitcase ? In this sense, physical laws could be seen as ramifications of this intention-consciousness within material realms. But this is more metaphysics for the time being. > talk about consciousness we are talking about > something we experience > subjectively. "Consciousness" is a term we use Don't consciouss processes produce any specific patterns to be observed & measured using EEG or NMRI ? > to describe ourselves. To suggest that you > would have to demonstrate that a man can > somehow dream an atom into existance using > nothing but his mind. There's no point throwing > something like the ability to create matter > into that suitcase term consciousness when > there's no evidence a human mind can do that. well, i don't see the point: when i suggest that matter cannot exist without a form of consciousness, i do not suggest that consciousness alone can precipitate into matter. >> Or maybe science will confirm Plato's idea of >> a spiritual reality that gave to the created >> world its form and being ; an archetypal realm >> of changeless and universal patterns of >> which "the material world is but an imperfect >> representation". This symbolic matrix is >> another hypothesis which does not seems more >> hazardous to me. > If there's one thing we modern materialists > have in common with our ancient Greek > forebearers, it's that we reject Plato's idea > of an archtypal realm of patterns. > There are two ways to think about patterns, 1) > as a property of our perception, and 2) as a > property of matter. Plato's idea verges on > solipcism, suggesting our perceptions and ideas no, Plato did not suggest that this archetypal realm is made of our ideas, concepts or representations, but he assumed that this symbolic matrix does exist (though it is unmanifested) independently from human (mis)conceptions or will and that human would rather get access to it. .... > However, this fact that we are neural nets and > that not all neural nets can see all patterns > suggests there is more out there in the > properties of matter than we can percieve. It's I am glad to read that. Even the unification of physical laws suggests other dimensions than 4D time-space substrate. > our ideas about the world that are imperfect > reflections of the material universe. Plato's i agree. > idea is one of those failures to see what's > really there. To me, this man was highly inspired but as a man, subjected to errors. > The material universe is not only stranger than > we imagine, it's stranger than our abilities to > imagine could ever match. that's what i firmly believe but it is very hard for our selves to really accept this idea. jeff


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/09/2002 3:32 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> we should have started by asking this question. > since you are a materialist, what is matter ? It's the fundamental stuff of the universe. It's what can be measured and interacted with. All properties of the world are properties of matter. > and matter is only a model, a model to be > refined again and again, Now you are confusing the map with the territory. What we think matter is, is not the real matter. Matter is what it is whether we know what it is or not. Our ideas about matter are the map, real matter is the vast unknown territory we are trying to use the map to navigate through. ... >> matter doesn't mean "particles" and "grains" any >> more. It's not necessarily the bit of substance >> that has a location in 3D space. I don't think >> any materialist means that these days. > > you would be surprised Name one. Name a materialist alive today that only associates matter with particles, but not waves. Matter and energy are the same stuff. > anciant Greeks assumed this fundamental stuff, > whether it is called "atom" or "matter", whether > it is described as an indivisible grain or a > quantum wave function, the question of > interpretation still holds: what is ultimately > matter and what is not ? because if you cannot > answer this question, i don't see the point to > claim to be a materialist. Wrong. Materialism isn't a scientific theory, it's a philosophy. It's the philosophy that undergirds "naturalism" and is at the foundation of modern science. I don't have to know what matter is to be a materialist, I just have to make certain assumptions about what reality is. Philosophical Materialism is pretty much interchangeable with Scientific Naturalism, Evolutionary Naturalism, Scientific Materialism, and Naturalism. All these terms imply that scientific investigation is either the exclusive path to knowledge or at least the most reliable path, and that only natural or material phenomena are real. In other words, what 'science' can't study is effectively 'unreal.' Presumably at some point in the future the criteria of what is applicable to 'scientific investigation' will be widened to include all phenomena as and when they are encountered. Philosophical Materialism postulates that "non physical" phenomena are "all in the mind." For example, Plato's ideal non-physical, non-material world of ideal forms exists only in Plato's mind. For example, Dumbski's belief that he can commune with "God" is just an illusion happening in Dumbski's brain. Or, to put it another way, the ideas these guys report having are the only thing we can "measure." We measure how much their language refers to any aspect of the world we share measurable perceptions of, and what we find out is that their reported ideas don't refer to much at all. They give us no real insight into the material world. At best they only give us insights into how the brain works. > we don't really know what matter is, what > this concept really emcompasses, yet we know > what it is not. We know when an idea fails to reference any measurable aspect of the material world. > Maybe that human experience of intelligence & > consciousness is uncomplete, but by curtailing > the material world, what you really want to rule > out is a principle above scientific grasp: If a principle is above scientific grasp, then how is it suppose to be grasped and understood? > ...there is more than the rought dichotomy > materialist or non-materialist: i am myself > reserved or neutral on this question, considering > that matter is a pratical tool to describe my > mundane experimence, but being very cautious when > asked to extend its operative domain (to describe > the entire reality for exemple). God is not a > scientific matter but its putative laws or principles > of action - if there were - could very well be. Now you are trying to redefine "God." Since when does God have "putative laws or principles of action" ?? Are they the same for all believers in God? >>> what are matter & energy ? >> They are something we can measure and observe >> and interact with. > > this does not answer to the question but it certainly helps. Your question can't be answered. I cannot tell you what matter is, I can only tell you what I think about matter, I can only give you a rough copy of the map I use to navigate the material world. >... what did create these patterns (or specializations) > in these ants population ? Evolution. > What does induce patterns in the material world ? The properties of matter. > What is a physical laws ? A repeated and well defined observation about the behavior of matter/energy. > Are there other kinds of laws ? The other laws are all subsets of physical laws. ... >>> It is a logical assertion which stems from our >>> current experience of human on earth, but >>> that's all folks, we don't know for sure. >> >> What good does it do to suppose otherwise ? > > the point is just to maintain an openness to other > alternatives, mainly when you don't know the extend > of the original proposition. The problem with having an open mind is that people like to throw garbage into it. You only have a limited amount of time on earth and you have to decide amoung probabilities what alternatives you will have time to consider. Being open to some alternatives comes with a price. If you evaluate the probability of the Christian God existing as high and that you might be damned to hell if you don't do what he wants, then you're going to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what he wants. >> Are you familiar with "Occam's Razor" ? > > yes, this is a principle of economy (~ simplicity) > applied to scientific truth evaluation. We use it > as an additional constraint when we don't have > enough clues at our disposal to validate. So, in > general, it is not a good sign to invoke Occam ;-) It's not the only thing materialism has going for it. The assumption that spiritual phenomena are mental phenomena is leading to ways to investigate those phenomena. Check up on Michael Persinger and his work. >>> Maybe we will learn similarily that matter >>> cannot exist without consciousness, that they >>> are inextricably linked together, why not ? >> >> Because the terms you are using are becoming >> meaningless when you talk about them that way. >> The term "consciousness" lacks too much meaning >> already because it's a "suitcase" term. When we > > Ok, you are right, to be operative words have to be > precise. What about picking the intention-consciousness > off this suitcase ? What's intention-consciousness? > In this sense, physical laws could be seen as > ramifications of this intention-consciousness > within material realms. But this is more metaphysics > for the time being. What does that mean? > Don't consciouss processes produce any specific > patterns to be observed & measured using EEG or NMRI ? As a matter of fact, they do. There's also PET scans, there's Michael Persinger's work which uses electromagnetic waves to induce "spiritual" experiences. > when i suggest that matter cannot exist without > a form of consciousness, i do not suggest that > consciousness alone can precipitate into matter. Then which came first, the matter or the mind? As a materialist I say matter came first and "mind" evolved later. > Plato did not suggest that this archetypal realm > is made of our ideas, concepts or representations, He may not have explicitly meant that, but I think he inadvertently suggested it. Didn't his ideas about ideal forms evolve from thinking about geometry in which there existed perfect circles and lines that could not be found in nature? Thus, his reference point to "perfection" has to be some mental idea, some concept in his brain. If he had no contact with the ideal forms how could he know there was such a thing as ideal forms? > but he assumed that this symbolic matrix does > exist (though it is unmanifested) independently from > human (mis)conceptions or will and that human would > rather get access to it. Then how did Plato ever get access to the idea?


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/10/2002 9:53 AM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
hello there, >>we should have started by asking this question. >>since you are a materialist, what is matter ? >It's the fundamental stuff of the universe. It's >what can be measured and interacted with. All >properties of the world are properties of matter. the way we measure and interact with our universe depends on our state of knowledge of it (briefly said: i see & measure what i know), so your definition is highly evolutive. It defines the object of the scientific enquiry. >> and matter is only a model, a model to be >> refined again and again, >Now you are confusing the map with the >territory. What we think matter is, is not the >real matter. That's exactly what i meant but maybe my english formulation is not so clear. >Matter is what it is whether we know what it is >or not. Our ideas about matter are the map, real >matter is the vast unknown territory we are >trying to use the map to navigate through. modelling is part of my job so i have an idea of what it is, what is its purpose and what is not. >>>matter doesn't mean "particles" & "grains" any >>>more.It's not necessarily the bit of substance >>>that has a location in 3D space. I don't think >>>any materialist means that these days. >> you would be surprised >Name one. Name a materialist alive today that >only associates matter with particles, but not >waves. Matter and energy are the same stuff. Well, i know a lot of people (not necessarily under-educated !) who think that science is the only valuable way to look at our being, our environement, our universe. Some of them, are not scientists, but as they idolize science, they see atoms like planetary systems, like solid stuff orbiting, whirling and other funny variations around the bohr's model. >>anciant Greeks assumed this fundamental stuff, >>whether it is called 'atom' or'matter', whether >>it is described as an indivisible grain or a >>quantum wave function, the question of >>interpretation still holds: what is ultimately >>matter and what is not ? because if you cannot >>answer this question, i don't see the point to >>claim to be a materialist. >Wrong. Materialism isn't a scientific theory, >it's a philosophy. It's the philosophy that >undergirds "naturalism" and is at the foundation >of modern science. yes, but so what ? one historical/philosophical root of science is materialism, it is a faith, it infuses in the entire philosophy of Science as well as its goals and methodology. When it is formulated the way you did (briefly said: science is based on measure, matter is what is measurable & the universe is matter), its direct corollary is the belief that the whole reality can be explored by scientific means (and human thought, of course); Why not ? but this give birth to two subsequent distorsions commonly observed among scientists: 1) the whole reality can be investigated by science, it has to be, other exploration means are worthless, unreliable, useless. 2) anything out of the scientific realm does not exist. This, is an historical outcome of materialism. Though we can be amazed by the unprecedented efficiency of Science - as a reliable way to construct a dual knowledge (theorical & practical) - without endorsing this totalitarian point of view. >I don't have to know what matter is to be a >materialist, I just have to make certain >assumptions about what reality is. yeah, the fundamental stuff etc... Aren't you simply - like me - someone convinced by the relevance, the interest, the promises of the scientific exploration ? >Philosophical Materialism is pretty much >interchangeable with Scientific Naturalism, >Evolutionary Naturalism, Scientific Materialism, >and Naturalism. All these terms imply that >scientific investigation is either the exclusive >path to knowledge or at least the most reliable >path, and that only natural or material >phenomena are real. In other words, >what 'science' can't study is >effectively 'unreal.' Presumably at some point do you agree with that ? >in the future the criteria of what is applicable >to 'scientific investigation' will be widened to >include all phenomena as and when they are >encountered. >Philosophical Materialism postulates that "non >physical" phenomena are "all in the mind." For >example, Plato's ideal non-physical,non-material >world of ideal forms exists only in Plato's mind. yes, what is non-scientific is non-existent. what the human mind cannot conceive does not exist. this is fascinating. do you have a wife or children maybe ? If so, you probably think that their love for you, or your love for them, is only a mere biological outcome, a chemical maeltrom ? a logical procedure, a behavioural strategy or whatever ? do you measure it or do you consider it as non-existent ? what kind of dispirited world do you live in ? ... >> we don't really know what matter is, what >> this concept really emcompasses, yet we know >> what it is not. > We know when an idea fails to reference any > measurable aspect of the material world. Yes, but measurability is constantly evolving and upgraded so as for our scientific knowledge. So what you consider as non-existent today, will become existent tomorrow only because you will be provided the conceptual/theorical tool to grasp it or the derived instrument to measure it ? For my own, since i more inclined to think that what we know (hence can measure) is immeasurably smaller than what remains to be known, i humbly recognize an horizon to my knowledge and the fact that some things can exist beyond that horizon. >>Maybe that human experience of intelligence & >>consciousness is uncomplete, but by curtailing >>the material world,what you really want to rule >>out is a principle above scientific grasp: >If a principle is above scientific grasp, then >how is it suppose to be grasped and understood? by other means than scientific exploration. don't you know any ? if so, maybe you can wait for science to generate the appropriate tools, and in the meanwhile, consider these things as non-existent. >>...there is more than the rought dichotomy >>materialist or non-materialist: i am myself >>reserved/neutral on this question, considering >>that matter is a pratical tool to describe my >>mundane experimence, but being very cautious >>when asked to extend its operative domain (to >>describe the entire reality for exemple). God >>is not a scientific matter but its putative >>laws principles of action - if there were - >>could very well be. >Now you are trying to redefine "God." Since when >does God have "putative laws or principles of >action" ?? Are they the same for all believers >in God? no, i'm not trying to redefine God for i don't know what God is, nor i know since when or whether it has laws or principles of action. If they exist, they should be discovered to be the same in essence for all human believers. In the same way that gravitation is the same for an Hindu, a Muslim or a Christian. I can (only) debate of physical laws (with a materialist) because i can justify of a common scientific background. But i can't share more. I just tried to tell you how two distinct realities (science and faith) could be reconciliated within each of us. The result, this concordat, will not be directly subjected to scientific enquiry but it can enrich (to my point of view) both of these realities to provide, for exemple, new visions to be translated into scientific terms and then tested. >>>> what are matter & energy ? >>> They are something we can measure and observe >>> and interact with. >> this does not answer to the question but it >> certainly helps. >Your question can't be answered. I cannot tell >you what matter is, I can only tell you what I >think about matter, I can only give you a rough >copy of the map I use to navigate the material >world. ok, i take your map, but i take anything which can help me in my exploration of matter land, including old legends, forbidden myths, artistic impressions, whatever. I can apply a kind of weightning of all these sources in my navigation setting. >> ...what did create these patterns (or >> specializations) in these ants population ? > Evolution. and evolution can be seen as a law, a principle ? >> What does induce patterns in the material >> world? > The properties of matter. which are outcomes of physical laws ? >> What is a physical law ? >A repeated and well defined observation about >the behavior of matter/energy. yes and it is so well defined that it is formalized, expressed by means of a formal and abstract langage called mathematics. did you already ask yourself how comes that these mathematical tools were so efficient to describe our universe ? as if there was an homomorphic relation between reality & an idealized reality of symbols called mathematics. >> Are there other kinds of laws ? >The other laws are all subsets of physical laws. well, there are also moral laws, religious laws, social laws, economic laws, etc... and maybe, to avoid chaos in your family, have you created some laws your children have to comply with. ... >>> It is a logical assertion which stems from our >>> current experience of human on earth, but >>> that's all folks, we don't know for sure. >>> What good does it do to suppose otherwise ? >> the point is just to maintain an openness to >> other alternatives, mainly when you don't know >> the extend of the original proposition. >The problem with having an open mind is that >people like to throw garbage into it. that's true, or to make science say what it does not or cannot. my girlfriend was involved in a cult (a sect) who was specialized in this kind of distorsions. In any case, it is a question of balance. >>> Are you familiar with "Occam's Razor" ? >> yes, this is a principle of economy >> (~simplicity) applied to scientific truth >> evaluation. We use it as an additional >> constraint when we don't have enough clues at >> our disposal to validate. So, in general, it >> is not a good sign to invoke Occam ;-) >It's not the only thing materialism has going >for it. The assumption that spiritual phenomena >are mental phenomena is leading to ways to >investigate those phenomena. Check up on Michael >Persinger and his work. i will. >> when i suggest that matter cannot exist >> without a form of consciousness, i do not >> suggest that consciousness alone can >> precipitate into matter. >Then which came first, the matter or the mind? >As a materialist I say matter came first >and "mind" evolved later. As a human, i can see that it is indeed the case in my world by i don't draw it as an cosmic law. I would rather think that the two co-exist, exist in a relation of interdependance, hence none of them precedes the other. This, does not rule out that, locally in space and time, an order be observed. >> Plato did not suggest that this archetypal >> realm is made of our ideas, concepts or >> representations, >He may not have explicitly meant that, but I >think he inadvertently suggested it. Didn't his I wouldn't be uneasy if he had. Maybe he suggested that this archetypal realm is not made primarily of our ideas but that humans can create new archetypal forms and enrich this realm intuitioned by Platon. >ideas about ideal forms evolve from thinking >about geometry in which there existed perfect >circles and lines that could not be found in >nature? Thus,his reference point to "perfection" >has to be some mental idea, some concept in his it has to be mentalized in some way, yes, that's what i think. >brain. If he had no contact with the ideal forms >how could he know there was such a thing as >ideal forms? where did you read that no access is possible ? >> but he assumed that this symbolic matrix does >> exist (though it is unmanifested) independently >> from human (mis)conceptions or will and that >> human would rather get access to it. >Then how did Plato ever get access to the idea ? maybe by this intuition which manifest when fostered with openness. jeff


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/10/2002 4:50 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> the way we measure and interact with our universe > depends on our state of knowledge of it (briefly > said: i see & measure what i know), so your definition > is highly evolutive. It defines the object of the > scientific enquiry. Yes, my definition allows for scientific knowledge to evolve. It's function is merely to keep science targeted on its proper focus, explaining the measurable world. Both Plato and Dembski, just two examples out of thousands, are pushing scientific ideas out of their proper focus. >> Matter is what it is whether we know what it is >> or not. Our ideas about matter are the map, real >> matter is the vast unknown territory we are >> trying to use the map to navigate through. > > modelling is part of my job so i have an idea of > what it is, what is its purpose and what is not. Do you? If you think Plato's ideas are valid I have to doubt that. >> Name one. Name a materialist alive today that >> only associates matter with particles, but not >> waves. Matter and energy are the same stuff. > > Well, i know a lot of people (not necessarily > under-educated !) who think that science is the > only valuable way to look at our being, our > environement, our universe. That's not the same thing. Science that is grounded in Naturalism and Materialism is the only error correcting method of looking at ourselves and our universe. > Some of them, are not scientists, but as they > idolize science, they see atoms like planetary > systems, like solid stuff orbiting, whirling > and other funny variations around the bohr's model. You can't name a single person, eh? You just assume you know how people around you think. What you describe (someone seeing an atom like a planetary system) is really just being undereducated. >> Materialism isn't a scientific theory, >> it's a philosophy. It's the philosophy that >> undergirds "naturalism" and is at the foundation >> of modern science. > > yes, but so what ? one historical/philosophical > root of science is materialism, it is a faith,... It's not faith. It boils down to method, a method that works regardless of the ultimate reality. That's why religious people can still do science. Materialism and Naturalism dictate the experimental method. It's the only method that error corrects itself by actually going out and taking measurements and making experiments instead of just making philosophical arguments. > it infuses in the entire philosophy of Science > as well as its goals and methodology. When it is > formulated the way you did (briefly said: science > is based on measure, matter is what is measurable & > the universe is matter), its direct corollary is > the belief that the whole reality can be explored by > scientific means (and human thought, of course); Why > not ? but this give birth to two subsequent > distorsions commonly observed among scientists: > 1) the whole reality can be investigated by science, > it has to be, other exploration means are worthless, > unreliable, useless. Not entirely useless, but often worse than useless. Being wrong is more costly than admitting to not knowing. > 2) anything out of the scientific realm does not exist. That depends. You have to look at what is being referenced by the language used both inside and outside of scientific discourse. Consider Dembski's concepts of "intelligence" and "irreducible complexity." Consider Plato's realm of ideal forms. There are reasons their ideas are not grounded in materialism and naturalism. > This, is an historical outcome of materialism. It's the necessary outcome. Plato and Dembski made their ideas vulnerable to serious errors by not grounding themselves in materialism and naturalism. > Though we can be amazed by the unprecedented > efficiency of Science - as a reliable way to > construct a dual knowledge (theorical & practical) - > without endorsing this totalitarian point of view. Up to a point. But in the end science is only grounded in that materialist point of view. Without it, science drifts off into the delusions of Dembski and Plato. Religion and its delusions are far more totalitarian than modern materialism. The restrictions materialism puts on science are what keep it grounded and useful and error correcting. > Aren't you simply - like me - someone convinced by > the relevance, the interest, the promises of the > scientific exploration ? Up to a point. >> Philosophical Materialism is pretty much >> interchangeable with Scientific Naturalism, >> Evolutionary Naturalism, Scientific Materialism, >> and Naturalism. All these terms imply that >> scientific investigation is either the exclusive >> path to knowledge or at least the most reliable >> path, and that only natural or material >> phenomena are real. In other words, >> what 'science' can't study is >> effectively 'unreal.' > > do you agree with that ? Yes. I agree with the "reliable" part. Notice that I used the term "effectively" to preface "unreal." >> Philosophical Materialism postulates that "non >> physical" phenomena are "all in the mind." For >> example, Plato's ideal non-physical,non-material >> world of ideal forms exists only in Plato's mind. > > yes, what is non-scientific is non-existent. > what the human mind cannot conceive does not exist. That's not what I said. In fact, in a previous post I said the opposite. There are probably things (and patterns) that exist that are impossible for the human mind to concieve or understand. The reason that religious ideas are rejected is exactly because they are concieved but refer to nothing material, measurable... Nothing but their own chain of ideas. Nothing but apparent mental phenomena. > do you have a wife or children maybe ? No. I broke up with my last girlfriend almost a decade ago and have not gotten another. > If so, you probably think that their love for > you, or your love for them, is only a mere > biological outcome, a chemical maeltrom ? That's over-simplistic, but yes. There is evidence to back up that point of view. Our sense of "love," of right and wrong even, have probably evolved because they have proven advantageous to our survival. Science has demonstrated that humans do have pheremones and other chemical triggers for behavior. > a logical procedure, a behavioural strategy or > whatever ? do you measure it or do you consider > it as non-existent ? It could be measured to an extent. However, you would have to measure subjective reports about how people feel and separate the illusions and outright lies from the real facts. > what kind of dispirited world do you live in ? Love, interest in other people, etc. are logical behavioral strategies. The people we know well, who know us well, they are our most valuable partners. So, interest in other people has a survival advantage. It goes beyond faith, beyond trust, into intimate knowledge. We don't have to trust when we know someone well enough. No, we don't measure it precisely the way a scientist does. It takes too long to measure with scientific precision... it involves too many unknowns... We have "unscientific" strategies for dealing with people, and they work to a degree. However, it would be a good idea for scientists to measure behavioral strategies and subjective reports about the feelings involved in them so as to invent better strategies and understand our feelings. > ...but measurability is constantly evolving and > upgraded so as for our scientific knowledge. So > what you consider as non-existent today, will become > existent tomorrow only because you will be provided > the conceptual/theorical tool to grasp it or the > derived instrument to measure it ? Yes. It's only effectively non-existent if you can't measure it or its effect on the world in some way. However, since all human perception is a form of measurement it's unlikely that there are phenomena, other than mental phenomena, that people can experience but scientific instruments can't. > For my own, since i more inclined to think that > what we know (hence can measure) is immeasurably > smaller than what remains to be known, i humbly > recognize an horizon to my knowledge and the fact > that some things can exist beyond that horizon. But remember, Plato, Dembski, religion... these ideas are not a recognition that there are things beyond our knowledge, they are claims to knowledge that has no means by which it can really be known. There's a difference between admitting you don't know and being wrong about what you do know. Religious ideas have consistently been proven wrong by science. >> If a principle is above scientific grasp, then >> how is it suppose to be grasped and understood? > > by other means than scientific exploration. > don't you know any ? None that, in my opinion, actually work. >> Now you are trying to redefine "God." Since when >> does God have "putative laws or principles of >> action" ?? Are they the same for all believers >> in God? > > no, i'm not trying to redefine God for i don't > know what God is, ... All religions claim some knowledge of God. Dembski claims to have some ideas about what God is, so did Plato. >... whether it has laws or principles of action. > If they exist, they should be discovered to be > the same in essence for all human believers. They could be similar not because they reference a real God or supernatural realm, but because they are concieved by very similar human brains, all built by a similar genetic blueprint, all experiencing a similar world. > ...how two distinct realities (science and faith) In what way is "faith" a reality? > could be reconciliated within each of us. Religious faith merely pretends to know more than science. > The result, this concordat, will not be directly > subjected to scientific enquiry but it can enrich > (to my point of view) both of these realities to > provide, for exemple, new visions to be translated > into scientific terms and then tested. Well, you can assume you know things that are not in fact known, that have never been tested by scientific experiment... > i take anything which can help me in my > exploration of matter land, including old > legends, forbidden myths, artistic impressions, > whatever. I can apply a kind of weightning of > all these sources in my navigation setting. Do you? How do you weigh something like Dembski's idea of "irreducible complexity" ?? How do you weigh Plato's idea of ideal forms? How do you weigh an Islamic fundamentalists belief that he should fly an airplane into a sky scraper to get virgins in heaven? >...and evolution can be seen as a law, a principle ? As an algorithm. >>> What does induce patterns in the material >>> world? >> >> The properties of matter. > > which are outcomes of physical laws ? No, which are the outcomes of the properties of matter. Physical laws are nothing but a repeated observation of how matter behaves. Mathematics is used to create simple models that imitate this behavior better than our unaided imaginations. >>> What is a physical law ? >> >> A repeated and well defined observation about >> the behavior of matter/energy. > > yes and it is so well defined that it is formalized, > expressed by means of a formal and abstract langage > called mathematics. As Einstein once said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." > did you already ask yourself > how comes that these mathematical tools were so > efficient to describe our universe ? as if there > was an homomorphic relation between reality & an > idealized reality of symbols called mathematics. Mathematics mirror some property of matter/energy in the universe in a way that our brains and computers can use. These mathematical formulas we use are merely metaphors and imitations of the reality we measure and examine. For example, Newton's formulas for motion, force and gravity are a less precise imitation of reality than Einstein's more complex mathematical formulas. If you don't need precision, Newton's imitation of reality works pretty well for figuring out where your cannon ball will hit. But, if you're shooting rockets into space, you need the precision of Einstein's formula. >>> Are there other kinds of laws ? >> >> The other laws are all subsets of physical laws. > > well, there are also moral laws, religious laws, social laws, ... Those are prescriptive laws, not descriptive laws. Do all moral laws make sense? Do all religious laws make sense? Do all social laws make sense? Are we not to question the laws? > economic laws, etc... Descriptive, but not very good at what they're meant to do. > ...and maybe, to avoid chaos in your family, have > you created some laws your children have to comply > with. The laws I grew up with in my family were not about describing reality, but shaping my behavior. Forcing good habits on me. That's all I have time for now. I'll pick up on making you uneasy about Plato later, in another post replying to this one.


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/10/2002 9:20 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Endless tension between Science and Religion... Science is based upon forming theories (consistent description frameworks) that allow us to make predictions. These predictions must be "testable" or they do not really count. Since every theory is based upon "hypotheses" (conjectured rules) about how the universe behaves, if a prediction is shown to be false, then the scientist (happily or not) must admit that one or more of the hypotheses of the theory are wrong, and they attempt to craft better ones. Hence, all hypotheses used to craft scientific theories are, by definition, "potentially refutable hypotheses". To assert a scientific theory is to assert something that can, potentially, be disproven. Thus, the distinction with religion (of any stripe. Atheism is a religion as much as any other.) An assertion is "religious" to the degree that it is NOT amenable to proof or disproof. No "honest scientist" (in my view) can hope to "prove God does not exist", nor "prove God does exist". In this respect, science and religion are orthogonal, rather than opposed. The object of science is not to disprove the existence of God. Rather, it is dedicated to decribing how things work in ways that do not depend upon an a-priori intelligence "making things happen". You walk under an apple tree and see an apple lying on the ground. How did it get there? a. Wind blew, stem broke, apple fell. (possible) b. Someone brought a bag lunch, didn't want the apple, so left it there (possible). No matter WHAT happens, or what is observed ANYWHERE, whether it is the appearance of the stars, the earth, humans, lightning strikes, whatever, it can NEVER BE DISPROVEN that it might all be the work of some hidden, all-powerful being that controls everything. It cannot be disproven, but it is a useless hypothesis for doing engineering. It would make no sense to study anything, because the "derived rules" could change the moment God went on a coffee break. It can make NO sense to engage in science under the assumption that what we observe is due to the momentary whim of a hidden actor. Now, are there some "religious-like" beliefs involved in doing science? Sure. But they are extrapolations or conjectures that are not honestly a "part" of the science until (and if) they become amenable to testing and disproving. In some views, our universe (all that is potentially accessible) may be just one of an infinite number of quantum-bubble universes that get "pinched off" of a "multiverse". Fine, but as long as such "theories" maintain that "the parent multiverse is thus forever unreachable and undetectable by us in this universe", it is almost as much a religious assertion as a scientific one. The "mathematics" invented/applied to make such a model plausible may be tested for consistency, but that is about as far as one can gain any comfort from it. And even if we could prove such a multiverse consistent ... the child asks "so, where did the multiverse come from?" In other words, "Why is anything here", in the MOST PRIMARY sense. Any conjectured answer is ultimately a religious one, since it cannot be tested. However, much of common religion is not so much concerned about the fundamental origination-of-everything question. The religious concern is mainly "is someone watching over me, helping me, listening to my prayers, placing obstacles in my path, and preparing to keep me eternally entertained on way or another." And perhaps more centrally, "Is the thing I sense as a continuing 'me' anything more than a transitory sensation in the 'field'?" No science will answer those questions, and no religion can provide objective proof. If we have free will, we have the will to "interpret" any observation. We either make it fit our current "belief system", or we alter our belief system to accomodate the observation. (And if we have no free will, what point in having a discussion?) If I happen to believe the entire universe is a simulation being run in the augmented brain of a giant cosmic turtle, I doubt that any "science" will be able to "prove" me wrong. (Does any of this help?) Cheers! ____tony____(TB)


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/11/2002 12:06 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> Endless tension between Science and Religion... It wasn't always like this. Science and religion use to date a couple centuries ago. Religion even thought they were going to get married, but Science has always had cold feet in regards to Religion. Things didn't really get tense until Science decided to marry Philosophical Materialism. Religion hates Philosophical Materialism and has tried to murder her several times. Religion is one crazy, jealous and possesive bitch. > Science is based upon forming theories (consistent > description frameworks) that allow us to make > predictions. These predictions must be "testable" or > they do not really count. That wasn't always the method Science used. Galileo sort of used it, but Philosophical Materialism helped Science turn that method into a "science." > Since every theory is based upon "hypotheses" > (conjectured rules) about how the universe behaves, > if a prediction is shown to be false, then the > scientist (happily or not) must admit that one or > more of the hypotheses of the theory are wrong, and > they attempt to craft better ones. Well, that's one of the reasons Science and religion broke up. Religion wanted Science to sign a pre-nuptial agreement that gave Religion sole custody (and soul custody) of certain "truths" that Science wanted to treat as falsifiable hypothesies. > Hence, all hypotheses used to craft scientific > theories are, by definition, "potentially refutable > hypotheses". > > To assert a scientific theory is to assert something > that can, potentially, be disproven. > > Thus, the distinction with religion (of any stripe. > Atheism is a religion as much as any other.) Check your dictionary for a definition of "religion." Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a haircolor. > An assertion is "religious" to the degree that > it is NOT amenable to proof or disproof. That's not how the dictionary defines religion. Nor or religions claims immune from disproof. > No "honest scientist" (in my view) can hope to > "prove God does not exist", nor "prove God does > exist". It depends on what you mean by "God." > In this respect, science and religion are > orthogonal, rather than opposed. Lately Religion has been turning up at Science's parties, univited. She likes to try on Science's latest outfits and to talk about their "relationship." But Science doesn't think there is a relationship any more and considers himself married to Materialism. Religion ignores this and lies to her friends about how well Science she are getting along. > The object of science is not to disprove > the existence of God. Rather, it is dedicated > to decribing how things work in ways that do > not depend upon an a-priori intelligence "making > things happen". That's why Science and Religion broke up in the first place. Religion insisted on the man-behind-the-curtain theory in her pre-nuptial agreement. >... it can NEVER BE DISPROVEN that it might all > be the work of some hidden, all-powerful being > that controls everything. Yep, everything you experience might be a lie. The reality you think you see might be just a virtual reality. > It cannot be disproven, but it is a useless > hypothesis for doing engineering. It would make > no sense to study anything, because the "derived > rules" could change the moment God went on a coffee > break. If it were true, it might not be useless. The reason it's useless is because it's probably not true. There are people who make outrageous claims about being able to talk to the dead (John Edward) or diagnos illness (Edgar Cayce) and stuff like that. However, none of this has stood up to scientific scrutiny and is probably all fraud. If there were any truth to John Edward's claim an engineer might be able to construct a device that would act like a telephone to the land of the dead. If there were any truth to Cayce's claims doctors might one day have a new diagnostic tool. If there were any truth to God being able to change the rules of the universe we might petition him for some radical changes (prayer) and let him prove his own existence. So, it seems the only way religion can justify it's absurd beliefs is by hiding away from scientific scrutiny in every way it can. > It can make NO sense to engage in science under > the assumption that what we observe is due to > the momentary whim of a hidden actor. If there were a hidden actor who could do that, you'd certainly try to get to know him and be on his good side. > Now, are there some "religious-like" beliefs > involved in doing science? Sure. But they are > extrapolations or conjectures that are not honestly > a "part" of the science until (and if) they become > amenable to testing and disproving. Give an example. > "Why is anything here", in the MOST PRIMARY sense. > Any conjectured answer is ultimately a religious > one, since it cannot be tested. Evolution is one answer to why we are here, and it's an answer that contradicts certain religious beliefs. However, it's not an answer to why anything at all is here. Why anything is here is not necessarily an unanswerable question, spontaneous creation of virtual particles does happen, there's something called the Casimir effect. How matter, space and energy come into necessary existence might be learned one day. > The religious concern is mainly "is someone watching > over me, helping me, listening to my prayers, > placing obstacles in my path, and preparing to keep > me eternally entertained one way or another." And > perhaps more centrally, "Is the thing I sense as a > continuing 'me' anything more than a transitory > sensation in the 'field'?" > > No science will answer those questions, and no religion > can provide objective proof. Not entirely true. There are potential answers to those questions on the other side of the singularity. The very idea of a technological singularity is founded on materialist assumptions that will gradually be proved as we approach it. That's why people like Dembski don't believe we'll ever create such competently human-like artificial intelligences; it contradicts their immaterial/spiritual notions of intelligence. > If we have free will, we have the will to > "interpret" any observation. We either make it > fit our current "belief system", or we alter > our belief system to accomodate the observation. > > (And if we have no free will, what point in having > a discussion?) What do you think "free will" is? The fact that the religious/metaphysical idea of free will might be false doesn't change what's worth talking about. We still have lives that will be affected by what we know and don't know about the world we live in. Beliefs do guide our actions. > If I happen to believe the entire universe is a > simulation being run in the augmented brain of a > giant cosmic turtle, I doubt that any "science" > will be able to "prove" me wrong. Maybe not to you. Just because a human being can't accept the truth doesn't mean it's not the truth.


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/11/2002 3:40 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Norm, Love the "dating/prenuptual thing"! Need More. > Check your dictionary for a definition of "religion." Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a haircolor. > ... Nor or (are) religions claims immune from disproof. Many "claims of the religious" are not immune from disproof in ways convincing to most of us. But in my view, foundational convictions are "religious" (not necessarily "spiritual") to the degree that they are "assumed" prior to the existence of a widely accepted "refutation test". In this sense, Atheism is a "religious" conviction. "I believe it, and the proof that it is true is ... well, maybe later..." > > No "honest scientist" (in my view) can hope to > > "prove God does not exist", nor "prove God does > > exist". > It depends on what you mean by "God." OK, fair point. If "God" were intended to be "a somewhat more-powerful actor", capable of doing thing for us that we cannot (yet) do, and had a demonstrable existence, then this would just as well be "a newly-discovered alien life form with powers we do not yet understand." No problem. But that would not make this God "something intrinsically different" than you or I, simply another manifestation brought into existence by "unthinking forces", and constrained by such forces. In contrast, if "God" is taken to be all-(knowing, powerful), and (a) chooses to remain hidden ... Then hidden God will remain, I suppose (thus "proof", either way, seems out of reach.) Alternately, if (b) the "all..." God chose to reveal Godself, what such manifestation would constitute "proof of Godness" in the all-powerful, not subject to physical laws sense? How can such a demonstration not be "interpretable" as merely revealing that "there is more "physics" for us to learn, that this finite and ordinary 17-dimensional being has simply mastered ahead of us? If one argues, "this God could fiddle with our belief-perception-conception stuff" so that were were satisfied of the "proof" of their all-powerful, beyond-physical-explication nature, then it makes no sense to assert we "believe" anything (or even possess independent consciousness.) Where is the "believer" in such a picture? What can "be convinced" actually mean? But my point about "belief in an unsubstantiable actor" still holds: > > It cannot be disproven, but it is a useless > > hypothesis for doing engineering. It would make > > no sense to study anything, because the "derived > > rules" could change the moment God went on a coffee > > break. > > It can make NO sense to engage in science under > > the assumption that what we observe is due to > > the momentary whim of a hidden actor. > If there were a hidden actor who could do that, you'd certainly try to get to know him and be on his good side. Then the actor would not be hidden. Different issue. > > Now, are there some "religious-like" beliefs > > involved in doing science? Sure. But they are > > extrapolations or conjectures that are not honestly > > a "part" of the science until (and if) they become > > amenable to testing and disproving. > Give an example. Foundationally, the assertion that "the universe is amenable to logical analysis", in the sense that "consistency of predictive strength" correlates to "closeness to underlying truth", etc. How can science "prove" that the universe is NOT of a form that beings like ourselves are constrained to invent a convincing logic, leading inexorably to a perfectly consistent and totally off-the-mark explanation for what the universe really is? And I gave an earlier example (which I will try to clarify): The Many-worlds view of physics is an attempt to recover "pure determinism" where QM denies such determinism observationally (and for all purposes, intrinsically.) Necessarily, the "other worlds" would need to "exist" (for consistency) but could not be contacted, sensed, or approached in any way. To the degree that this hypothesis is understood to be "a" solution consistent with the observations we make, no problem. But any assertion that this is "the correct view", absent any forseeable way to produce a refutation test, is fundamentally an "unsubstantiable (religious) belief". > Evolution is one answer to why we are here ... It is an answer to "how we are here". Evolution does not "intend" to do anything. It is not goal-directed or purposeful. It leads to "stuff that inherits persistence" by chance, thus to forms that (upon rational, goal-centric thinking) "appear" to be engaged in goal-directed activity. "The amoeba is TRYING to find food, the amoeba is SEEKING warmth", and "the purpose of evolution is to survive, create life, diversity, etc." > Why anything is here is not necessarily an unanswerable question, spontaneous creation of virtual particles does happen, there's something called the Casimir effect. How matter, space and energy come into necessary existence might be learned one day." Neither "why" nor even "how" is approachable at the most fundamental level. "Came into existence from truly nothing? No pre-existing principles?" Spontaneous creation of particles is a manifestation of the "physical vacuum" (repleat with field effects), not the platonic (and likely, impossible "pre-existing pure nothing".) Consistent explanations may be offered ... but all potentially-refutable ones? > Not entirely true. There are potential answers to those questions on the other side of the singularity. The very idea of a technological singularity is founded on materialist assumptions that will gradually be proved as we approach it. That's why people like Dembski don't believe we'll ever create such competently human-like artificial intelligences; it contradicts their immaterial/spiritual notions of intelligence. I mean a pre-existing-for-all-time, beyond-explication-of-all-physical-theory kind of "watching over me" entity. Not a future contruct. > > If we have free will, we have the will to > > "interpret" any observation. We either make it > > fit our current "belief system", or we alter > > our belief system to accomodate the observation. > > > > (And if we have no free will, what point in having > > a discussion?) > What do you think "free will" is? The fact that the religious/metaphysical idea of free will might be false doesn't change what's worth talking about. We still have lives that will be affected by what we know and don't know about the world we live in. Beliefs do guide our actions. I will grant you that "I believe I have free will" is indeed an unsubstantiated belief. It is "religious" in MY sense of the term, "not amenable to proof, may be illusory". I do NOT mean that my will, or especially my "self" as a conscious entity, has ANYTHING to to with an imagined "intrinsic existence independent of the physical substrate", or a "thing outside of physics". I do not imagine it to be a soul-in-itself, supernatural phenomenon. And I am not intending that artificial contructs cannot gain a conscious awareness. HOWEVER, if we posit "free will is illusory, non-existent in reality", then I do not comprehend "beliefs do guide our actions." We TAKE NO ACTIONS. We do not TRY to do anything, any more than a stone dropped from a building is TRYING to reach the ground. All (illusions of) striving, planning, choosing, acting, are useless, since our every move is somehow completely determined elsewhere, or perhaps with some mixture of random content. Where is there any "real me" that MATTERS in such a viewpoint? > Just because a human being can't accept the truth doesn't mean it's not the truth. Indeed, that is a sword that cuts both ways. Cheers! ____tony____(TB)


	Matter and Free Will posted on 07/11/2002 6:32 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Norm, Here is, best I can put it, my reason for feeling that "Either I have Free Will", or "What's The Point". Imagine we are watching a video tape (OK, DVD), and the screen portrays two people, Sam and Joe, having a discussion. Moreover, imagine that "somehow", as we play the DVD, Sam and Joe are actually self-aware, conscious beings. We get to the following part: - - - - - Joe: "But we must weigh our decisions carefully, to ensure the future turns out well for us". Sam: "I am beginning to be convinced, but we must act soon, there may be little time left." I start to laugh. "Ha Ha, that part always cracks me up". "our decisions", "future", "us", "convince", "act"! "What a laugh! Let's wind that back and play it again, I just love it." Joe: "But we must weigh our decisions carefully, to ensure the future turns out well for us". Sam: "I am beginning to be convinced, but we must act soon, there may be little time left." Ha Ha HA! That part just KILLs me! Let's play it again ... - - - - - My point is, if we are not REALLY exercizing true Free Will, how can we really "effect" anything at all? More to the point, how can there be any real "we" to do the "effecting"? We would have as much influence on "our future" as poor Joe and Sam have on the ending of the DVD. We (the "viewers") could erase the part we've been watching, and skip to the end of the "story". Or we could change the ending. And clearly Sam and Joe would have NOTHING at all to do with any of it, no matter how much they "imagined" they did. Is that the "role in the universe" we have to play? I don't believe that is "provable" one way or the other, which is a GREAT relief to the apparent-me! I can go on, at least, BELIEVING that I somehow have free will. To believe otherwise "might be the (unknowable) truth", but who would want to "know it"? Joe: "I have just discovered that we have no free will. We just feel like we do." Sam: "I see. That helps a lot." reeeeeeeewind: Joe: "I have just discovered that we have no free will. We just feel like we do." Sam: "I see. That helps a lot." reeeeeeeewind: Joe: "I have just discovered that we have no free will. We just feel like we do." Sam: "I see. That helps a lot." ... ____tony____


	Re: Matter and Free Will posted on 07/11/2002 7:10 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I want to reiterate that my ... "faith" in having free will is NOT through imagining that I possess some etherial-substantial "me-ness" that floats among the hardware, or is attributed to some unreachable and generous "consciousness-granting" being. I take consciousness to be purely a manifestation of the fields of natural energy. Many folks ASSUME this requires "you are thus a pure-machine, hence must follow purely causal laws." But that is because they do not grasp the depth of what the QM view really says about the nature of reality. It is not just about "how well we can measure", but about how certain relations between guantities "do not possess arbitrarily fine co-resolution". Not to US, and not to the universe in general. The fundamental residual uncertainty is why "virtual particles" can tunnel their way out of, and back into the physical vacuum. Physics explains why they MUST exist, but also tells us that precisely when and where any particular "particle-ization" will occur is unknowable, even in principle. "Hidden Variables Theories" must fail. These "events" are truly "spontaneous", NOT due to "preceding cause". What does this have to do with free will? I am not certain by any means, but it leaves the door open (whereas, in contrast, a "purely-causal" universe would demand that free will is impossible.) My conjecture: That by some subtle brain-processing "side effect" (think of the ultra-fine structure of energy-bands formed from the interaction or a trillion neurons), there may be a way for the "superposition of quantum states" (in the brain) to be sensitive to, and able to select/exploit/interact with this uncertainty-level granularity of the void. The implications of hte uncertainty principle ALSO dictate that, with respect to a given energy of process, the ability for the universe to resolve "duration" reaches a granular limit as well. Thus, "before and after" actually become fundamentally "fuzzy" at that level. If there is some way for my "thoughts" to exploit this uncertainty, in order to "tunnel" what I feel is a "choice" into actualizing/collapsing a super-position of state into a "chosen" one... Well, at least it sounds promising ... :) The BIG-POINT: Purely-"material" does NOT EQUATE to Purely-"causal". Cheers! ____tony____


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/12/2002 4:10 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> Love the "dating/prenuptual thing"! Need More. Here some unnconnected snippets to extend that metaphor: * Philosophical Materialism use to be a lonely and unpopular girl. She was always so gloomy, always feeling depressed and hopeless. Talking to her use to be a depressing experience. She'd always been in love with Science but Science never took much notice of her until the day Science got into a big fight with Religion... Once science started paying attention to her she started to change, she began to see new possibilities and her outlook on life began to brighten. With Science by her side they could do anything. * Religion use to be the most popular girl in school. She always SEEMED to have a smile on her face and a kind word for everyone. However, once you got to know her you found out that she talked behind people's backs and was really a nasty vengeful girl that generally hated people and would have damned most of them to hell if they didn't kiss her ass. Pick up on the rest of your post later. -- Norm


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/11/2002 2:36 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> In any case, it is a question of balance. Is it? Exactly what do you think you're balancing? ... >> Then which came first, the matter or the mind? >> As a materialist I say matter came first >> and "mind" evolved later. > > As a human, i can see that it is indeed the case > in my world by i don't draw it as an cosmic law. You're right. It's not a law, but an observation of an incomplete data set seen through the eyes of telescopes and imperfect scientific theories. We observe and measure a universe that is supposedly, according to our theories, many billions of years old. But our consciousness, human consciousness, the only real consciousness we know, the thing the term "consciousness" was invented to refer to, has only existed in this universe for only a few million years. Life on earth itself is much younger than the universe and nothing but living things appear in any way conscious (at least not without changing the definition of conscious). > I would rather think that the two co-exist, exist > in a relation of interdependance, hence none of > them precedes the other. This, does not rule out > that, locally in space and time, an order be observed. Basing your beliefs on what you want to think instead of what reason and observation tell you is the first step toward delusion. >>> Plato did not suggest that this archetypal >>> realm is made of our ideas, concepts or >>> representations, >> >> He may not have explicitly meant that, but I >> think he inadvertently suggested it. Didn't his > > I wouldn't be uneasy if he had. Well, then I'll just have to make you uneasy about Plato. Plato writes these stilted straw-man dialogues where he plays both the opponent and proponent of his ideas. In the Meno, Plato has Socrates teach an uneducated slave boy a truth about geometry by merely asking questions. The boy learns this geometric "truth" without being given any information. He knows what geometry is about without having to be taught. From this Plato jumps to the strange conclusion that learning about geometry consists of recalling what the soul experienced in the realm of the ideal forms. It's not the conclusion a Naturalist/Materialist would jump to. We'd say that the brain shows evidence of being hardwired by evolution to understand geometry, that geometric concepts were part of our brains visual system -- it's a position that can and has been tested by experiment. Even in the visual cortex of a cat there are certain brain cells that fire when the cat is shown certain geometric forms. Also, certain kinds of brain damage can ruin you mathematical or geometric abilities. So, Plato's realm of ideal forms seems to exist only in the brain and you could probably cut them out of the brain. Plato didn't reach his conclusion fairly, rather, he incorporated religious beliefs into his ideas. Plato regarded the body and soul as separate entities. He was a dualist long before Descartes. The material world was an "unreal" world of the senses and physical processes, the "real" world of was of "ideal" forms. Plato believed that after the body dies, the soul continued to live forever. After the death the soul went to this realm of the pure forms. His ideal geometric world so far sounds kind of like a cheap-ass virtual reality heaven where only the simplest equations are allowed to create the forms and complexity and random functions that could more acurately model natural processes are not allowed because they're not pure. The soul existed there without a body, contemplating these pure forms. After a time, the soul is reincarnated in another body and returns to the world. But it wasn't just geometric forms that existed in Plato's ideal heaven. Supposedly there is a perfect tree that all other trees are bad copies of. Now, what the hell does a perfect tree look like? I can imagine a perfect sphere, a perfect line... but a perfect tree? Is the perfect tree closer to a maple or a redwood? Is there a perfect maple and a perfect redwood or just one perfect tree? Not only trees, but there's a supposedly perfect city too. And here's where Plato's ideas start to make me un easy because in Plato's perfect city, atheism is a crime punishable by death. What makes me more uneasy is that Plato claims to have arrived at this idea by contemplating what happened to Socrates and how he was treated unfairly by his less than perfect city, that is he was sentenced to death... the charge? Atheism. > Maybe he suggested that this archetypal realm is > not made primarily of our ideas but that humans > can create new archetypal forms and enrich this > realm intuitioned by Platon. Nope. Read Plato and see for yourself. There's no need to guess. Here are the works of Plato online: http://www.mtsu.edu/~phil/Misc/Texts/plato.html >> ideas about ideal forms evolve from thinking >> about geometry in which there existed perfect >> circles and lines that could not be found in >> nature? Thus,his reference point to "perfection" >> has to be some mental idea, some concept in his > > it has to be mentalized in some way, yes, that's what > i think. There's a reason that Plato's term "IDEAL" (after it's translated from Greek) contains the word "IDEA." I'm not sure but I think the Greek word rendered into "ideal" is "noesis," something seen by the mind in knowledge, or "eidos." "Form" or "idea" is "eidos," eidos means "the look" a thing has, the way a thing looks, the visible structure of a thing. For Plato, "visible" has two senses -- what can be seen by the eyes in perception (aisthesis) or what can be seen by the mind in knowledge (noesis). >> brain. If he had no contact with the ideal forms >> how could he know there was such a thing as >> ideal forms? > > where did you read that no access is possible ? Sorry, you're right he believed the soul had contact with ideal forms. But today we know that's not what's really happening. Those forms exist in the brain, they're part of how our visual cortex interprets the world it sees. >>> but he assumed that this symbolic matrix does >>> exist (though it is unmanifested) independently >>> from human (mis)conceptions or will and that >>> human would rather get access to it. >> >> Then how did Plato ever get access to the idea ? > > maybe by this intuition which manifest when fostered with openness. Maybe by his religious drive toward solipcism. Maybe because he had no idea what a brain did or how one worked?


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/11/2002 8:36 AM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
hello there >> In any case, it is a question of balance. >Is it ? Exactly what do you think you're >balancing ? It is. What do i try to balance ? Basically the points of view that contributors to this debate bring to answer the original question. Since there are not so much proponents of non-material realities, since many of you seem to satisfy with the irrefutable scientific credo (that matter is the fundamental stuff in universe, that things we cannot measure or interact with (yet) are (still) non-existent, etc etc), since i would like to explore this question, i do the job. In the same way Plato did, i find an exchange far more interesting when different views collide, provided a minimum degree of openness. Sorry in advance for the inadequacies in the langage i use. ... >>>Then which came first, the matter or the mind? >>>As a materialist I say matter came first >>>and "mind" evolved later. >> As a human, i can see that it is indeed the >> case in my world by i don't draw it as an >> cosmic law. >You're right. It's not a law, but an observation >of an incomplete data set seen through the eyes >of telescopes and imperfect scientific theories. >We observe and measure a universe that is >supposedly, according to our theories, many >billions of years old. But our consciousness, >human consciousness, the only real consciousness >we know, the thing the term "consciousness" was >invented to refer to, has only existed in this >universe for only a few million years. do you think that - on the long term - some new technologies can free our mind from our body in a first time, then free our mind from matter, making it non-local & out of time degeneration ? do you think possible for an alien civilization - far more older than ours - to master this ? >Life on earth itself is much younger than the >universe and nothing but living things appear in >any way conscious (at least not without changing >the definition of conscious). If possible, what could be such a civilization ? What can emerge from a net of (interacting) rudimentary processing units - organized as a brain - is truly stuning. Which intelligence could emerge from the interaction of legions of minds being absolutely free from any space constraint, having experienced & learnt the equivalent of billions of lives, having access to an unimaginable knowledge ? Do you think that such an unconceivable intelligence could totally transcend matter as we know it & actually create a new realm with its own rules ? (i'm not necessarily talking about plato's here). >> I would rather think that the two co-exist, >> exist in a relation of interdependance, hence >> none of them precedes the other. This, does >> not rule out that, locally in space and time, >> an order be observed. > Basing your beliefs on what you want to think > instead of what reason and observation tell you > is the first step toward delusion. believing that observation through a key hole ()gives universal laws is the second step toward delusion. () those of your mind and instruments >>>> Plato did not suggest that this archetypal >>>> realm is made of our ideas, concepts or >>>> representations, >>> He may not have explicitly meant that, but I >>> think he inadvertently suggested it. Didn't >>> his >> I wouldn't be uneasy if he had. > Well, then I'll just have to make you uneasy > about Plato. please do, i'm here for that. just a liminary remark before you judge: Plato lived many tens of thousands years before your first scream. At that time, the only guides for humankind were religion and philosophy, science as we know it today was unknown. >Plato writes these stilted straw-man dialogues >where he plays both the opponent and proponent >of his ideas. In the Meno, Plato has Socrates >teach an uneducated slave boy a truth about >geometry by merely asking questions. The boy >learns this geometric "truth" without being >given any information. He knows what geometry is >about without having to be taught. From this >Plato jumps to the strange conclusion that >learning about geometry consists of recalling >what the soul experienced in the realm of the >ideal forms. It's not the conclusion a >Naturalist/Materialist would jump to. We'd say >that the brain shows evidence of being hardwired >by evolution to understand geometry, that >geometric concepts were part of our brains >visual system -- it's a position that can and >has been tested by experiment. Even in the >visual cortex of a cat there are certain brain >cells that fire when the cat is shown certain >geometric forms. Also, certain kinds of brain >damage can ruin you mathematical or geometric >abilities. So, Plato's realm of ideal forms >seems to exist only in the brain and you could >probably cut them out of the brain. ok. Plato thought this geometry was hardly innate, or had already been witnessed by the soul in some way. Keep in mind the liminary remark & try not to be frustrated by the words or notions used. He believed that we perceive an underlying world of pure eternal forms with our reason / intellect in the same way we apprehend the phenomenal world with our sensory system. Now, we have explored the structures of our brain, we have theorized & experimented about cognitive processes, we have learn to mimick some of them, a theory for the evolution of species was figured out, and so on. To me, no matter how clumsy his words & notions may appear, Plato is the father of scientific modelization & maybe one of the very first to foresee that the universe is ordered by a logos to be deciphered by science. >Plato believed that after the body dies, the >soul continued to live forever. After the death >the soul went to this realm of the pure forms. >His ideal geometric world so far sounds kind of >like a cheap-ass virtual reality heaven where >only the simplest equations are allowed to >create the forms and complexity and random >functions that could more acurately model >natural processes are not allowed because >they're not pure. The soul existed there without maybe another way for him to say what Einstein suggested when claiming that "God doesn't play dice" ? >a body, contemplating these pure forms. After a >time, the soul is reincarnated in another body >and returns to the world. >But it wasn't just geometric forms that existed >in Plato's ideal heaven. Supposedly there is a >perfect tree that all other trees are bad copies >of. Now, what the hell does a perfect tree look >like? I can imagine a perfect sphere, a perfect >line... but a perfect tree? Is the perfect tree >closer to a maple or a redwood? Is there a >perfect maple and a perfect redwood or just one >perfect tree? Maybe "archetype" would be less misleading than "perfect" ? Or "model" could also do the job. We can assume, without betraying Plato's vision, that there exists an archetypal form for mapple, as well as for redwood, humans, or any stable pattern of matter in reality. Maybe that genomics will help to substantiate what an archetypal form for human could be (by modelling human genom). >Not only trees, but there's a supposedly perfect >city too. And here's where Plato's ideas start >to make me un easy because in Plato's perfect >city, atheism is a crime punishable by death. >What makes me more uneasy is that Plato claims >to have arrived at this idea by contemplating >what happened to Socrates and how he was treated >unfairly by his less than perfect city, that is >he was sentenced to death... the charge? >Atheism. If so, it is utterly stupid. Did you read "The Republic" ? the ring of Gyges or the myth of the cave ? >> Maybe he suggested that this archetypal realm >> is not made primarily of our ideas but that >> humans can create new archetypal forms and >> enrich this realm intuitioned by Platon. > Nope. Read Plato and see for yourself. There's > no need to guess. Here are the works of Plato > online: > http://www.mtsu.edu/~phil/Misc/Texts/plato.html could you be more specific ? (none of the hyperlinks listed in the ToC referenced by the url you suggest seems functional). >>>brain. If he had no contact with the ideal >>>forms how could he know there was such a thing >>>as ideal forms? >>where did you read that no access is possible ? >Sorry, you're right he believed the soul had >contact with ideal forms. But today we know >that's not what's really happening. Those forms >exist in the brain, they're part of how our >visual cortex interprets the world it sees. in Plato's view, that our brain has been imprinted by or reflects this idealized realm seems not contradictory to me. In fact, we now understand that idealization or modelization (the mental process by which a real thing is linked to its archetypal counterpart) is at the very heart the brain processing. Hence, maybe it is not surprising that our science makes use of very similar principles. We disagree on that you consider this ideal realm to exist only in our brain ; It is interesting because science cannot give us a definite answer though we actually interact with this realm whether it is a mental construction localized only into humans or not. Do we have to suppose that it is indeed the case ? You say that the siege of our thinking or consciousness lies in our head, not in the aether or whereever, i say that the way you think has been incorporated in you, your mind & intellect have been shaped by your culture, the way you see the universe is the result on a long march which is not bounded by your brain or your life. jeff


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/11/2002 3:09 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> do you think that - on the long term - some > new technologies can free our mind from our > body ... There is really no mind to free, what there is, is a brain. Mind is just what brain does. Brain does this in the way a car does 55 miles per hour. You can only free mind from the brain in the way you free 55 MPH from the car... You make something else go 55 MPH. The brain can also be there and be "parked" or only going 30 MPH, such as when we're sleeping (not fully conscious) or flatlined when there is no brain activity. There is no "mind" when the brain isn't doing it in the same way there is no 55 MPH when a car is parked. >... then free our mind from matter, Mind can never be entirely freed from matter. It takes something to travel 55 miles per hour, it takes a material structure to think. Mind will always depend on some kind of material substrate and so will the information used to create brains and computers that can function like brains. You can free certain parts of yourself from a single instance of being in one brain by turning those "parts" into information. Your memories, your brain's knowledge and sensory processing capabilities, they can be stored as information, copies can be made, and later the information can be used to make something (or many things) that functions like your brain, or even somewhat differently expressing only a part of what you have learned to be. >... making it non-local & out of time degeneration ? A brain-like processing system can be highly dispersed and in that sense "non-local." > ...do you think possible for an alien > civilization - far more older than ours - to > master this ? Not really. Not the way you seem to have stated it. However, the properties of matter we learn to exploit in the future may allow for incredible technologies so far undreamed of because we don't know all the properties of matter. We don't know how many dimensions matter exists in, we don't know why virtual particles come into existence... there's a lot we don't know about matter. > What can emerge from a net of (interacting) > rudimentary processing units - organized as a > brain - is truly stuning. Which intelligence > could emerge from the interaction of legions > of minds being absolutely free from any space > constraint, having experienced & learnt the > equivalent of billions of lives, having access > to an unimaginable knowledge ? Do you think > that such an unconceivable intelligence could > totally transcend matter as we know it & actually > create a new realm with its own rules ? (i'm not > necessarily talking about plato's here). We are material beings and always will be. Matter itself can never be transcended because it is all there is. Everything we ever become will be chained to the properties of matter. What we are not is any specific bits of matter, we are a pattern that must shift and change over time in order for mind to happen. >>> I would rather think that the two co-exist, >>> exist in a relation of interdependance, hence >>> none of them precedes the other. This, does >>> not rule out that, locally in space and time, >>> an order be observed. >> >> Basing your beliefs on what you want to think >> instead of what reason and observation tell you >> is the first step toward delusion. > > believing that observation through a key hole > ()gives universal laws is the second step toward > delusion. () those of your mind and instruments Remember, I said our observations and so called "universal laws" are approximations of the properties of matter. Our "universal laws" are a collection of observations about how matter behaves and what its properties seem to be. > Plato lived many tens of thousands years > before your first scream. At that time, the > only guides for humankind were religion and > philosophy, science as we know it today was > unknown. Not entirely. The first Materialists were there to argue about Plato's claims. > Plato is the father of scientific modelization > & maybe one of the very first to foresee that > the universe is ordered by a logos to be > deciphered by science. I'm vague on history, but I think the first Greek materialists, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes were there before Plato. >> Plato ... His ideal geometric world so far >> sounds kind of like a cheap-ass virtual >> reality heaven where only the simplest >> equations are allowed to create the forms >> and complexity and random functions that >> could more acurately model natural processes >> are not allowed because they're not pure. > > maybe another way for him to say what Einstein > suggested when claiming that "God doesn't play > dice" ? But you're talking about what I said, not what Plato said. Plato just didn't know anything about fractals, recursive equations, pseudo-random number generating functions and other such stuff now used in Ray-Tracing and Radiosity programs to make a more natural looking scene for virtual reality experiences. My comment is pointed to the fact that what Plato didn't understand about the world he saw his mind wanted to reject and deny any reality to. It was all just degeneration and chaos to him, what he didn't understand was labeled "imperfection." Truth was only that thing his mind could comprehend, only the simplist geometric forms and equations. Once you understand fractals they take on a beauty and purity of their own that Plato never saw. >> But it wasn't just geometric forms that existed >> in Plato's ideal heaven. Supposedly there is a >> perfect tree that all other trees are bad copies >> of. Now, what the hell does a perfect tree look >> like? I can imagine a perfect sphere, a perfect >> line... but a perfect tree? Is the perfect tree >> closer to a maple or a redwood? Is there a >> perfect maple and a perfect redwood or just one >> perfect tree? > > Maybe "archetype" would be less misleading than > "perfect" ? Or "model" could also do the job. > We can assume, without betraying Plato's vision, > that there exists an archetypal form for mapple, > as well as for redwood, humans, or any stable > pattern of matter in reality. Archetype is an even vaguer term than ideal. And even in its vaguness goes against the grain of evolutionary theory. > Maybe that genomics will help to substantiate what > an archetypal form for human could be (by modelling > human genom). How does the term "archetype" function when applied to a genetic code? >> Not only trees, but there's a supposedly perfect >> city too. And here's where Plato's ideas start >> to make me uneasy because in Plato's perfect >> city, atheism is a crime punishable by death. >> What makes me more uneasy is that Plato claims >> to have arrived at this idea by contemplating >> what happened to Socrates and how he was treated >> unfairly by his less than perfect city, that is >> he was sentenced to death... the charge? >> Atheism. > > If so, it is utterly stupid. And utterly "religious." The Greek states had their religion, and Socrates and Plato had another. Both sides would have enforced their religion with a death penalty. One had the real power to do so and it did so. It's how religions have universally behaved prior to the age of enlightenment. And how fundamentalist Islamics still behave. Right now there is a man on death row in Pakistan because this. > Did you read "The Republic" ? the ring of Gyges or > the myth of the cave ? Actually, I just skimmed about half the works looking for objectionable material, stuff to make you uneasy. So, bits of "The Republic," bits of the "Meno," bits of this and bits of that. The stuff on the ideal city is mostly gleaned from "The Republic," The "Meno" has Socrates teaching the slave boy geometry and stuff on ideal forms. >> http://www.mtsu.edu/~phil/Misc/Texts/plato.html > > could you be more specific ? (none of the hyperlinks > listed in the ToC referenced by the url you suggest > seems functional). Whoops, sorry. That site looked like it had all Plato's works in one spot so I posted it instead of the ones I used. I hadn't bothered to check if the links worked. I've partly checked this next one, but it's not as complete and splits things up into more than just separate books: Try this: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato Alas, if that one doesn't link all that's in its index you have to now find each work separately. The republic should be here: http://www.cyberplato.org/plato/18.txt The meno is here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/meno.html >> But today we know that's not what's really >> happening. Those forms exist in the brain, >> they're part of how our visual cortex >> interprets the world it sees. > > in Plato's view, that our brain has been imprinted > by or reflects this idealized realm seems not > contradictory to me. Occam's Razor cut's out the need for that hypothesis. There's no reason to jump through hoops to keep a dead idea alive. > In fact, we now understand that idealization or > modelization (the mental process by which a real > thing is linked to its archetypal counterpart) is > at the very heart the brain processing. Hence, maybe > it is not surprising that our science makes use of > very similar principles. Which principles? >... you consider this ideal realm to exist only > in our brain ; And I don't even consider it "ideal" in the judgemental sense. > It is interesting because science cannot give us > a definite answer though we actually interact with > this realm whether it is a mental construction > localized only into humans or not. How definite an answer do you want? If you cut out that part of the brain that processes geometric information you lose the ability to interact with it in the mental realm and you will be "blind" to geometry in the world outside. > You say that the siege of our thinking or > consciousness lies in our head, not in the aether or > whereever, Pretty much. Thinking and seeing is done by brains. There is no mental stuff floating around in the aether. > i say that the way you think has been incorporated > in you, your mind & intellect have been shaped by > your culture, the way you see the universe is the > result on a long march which is not bounded by your > brain or your life. I do not disagree, or agree, entirely. Yes, if I were born into another time and place my ideas about the world would be shaped by the ideas and concerns around me. I probably would not have formulated Darwin's ideas on my own, nor found DNA, nor discovered neural nets. When I die, science will go on without me. I'm just a follower of its current lessons about "reality." I merely chose to accept and reject items from a menu of ideas offered me, god or no god, materialism or dualism or something else, etc.. I choose what makes sense to me and even the criteria for what makes sense isn't of my own creation. However, what I am not is entirely bounded to my culture, because the culture I live in, for the most part, doesn't believe like I do. In America 80 to 90 percent of the population believes in "God," mostly the Christian version of that idea. I'm a minority in my decisions.


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/12/2002 2:53 PM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> do you think that - on the long term - some >> new technologies can free our mind from our >> body ... >There is really no mind to free, what there is, >is a brain. Mind is just what brain does. Brain ok, look. this civilization has come to master all the sciences of life, matter is no longer the prefered toy, matter is engineered directly by way mind, space as well as unmeasurable energies are manipulated as they please, no more travel, virtual ubiquity, immortality etc resulting in non-human standards of knowledge & wisdom, subsequent power of action. assume this civilization is still a collective, but highly integrated, egregoric in a way, it can act globally, as a single conscious entity while all individual consciousness persists. it/they have contemplated and guided galaxies for cosmic years. each of these consciousness has dragged away from matter billion years ago, even no life on earth. ok ? matter is a distant coast while their different home-planet is still present in each of them. many evolutionnary revolutions await for us to interact with it/them. ok, here maybe you'll agree we don't see the coast of matter land anymore ? ;-) but what do we see then ? >>... making it non-local & out of time >> degeneration ? >A brain-like processing system can be highly >dispersed and in that sense "non-local." i have read somewhere that a US planetary probe has a quantum communication device on board. what's this hell ? not spatial distribution, each of them enjoys non-locality, accessing different realms than ours, but can localize at will. but how have they united to make one ? by means of religion, science and AI maybe ? politic ? all of them ? none of them as such maybe ? >> ...do you think possible for an alien >> civilization - far more older than ours - to >> master this ? >Not really. Not the way you seem to have stated >it. However, the properties of matter we learn >to exploit in the future may allow for >incredible technologies so far undreamed of bingo ! they use them. >because we don't know all the properties of >matter. We don't know how many dimensions matter they know that. >exists in, we don't know why virtual particles >come into existence... there's a lot we don't >know about matter. they know this also very well, well before the tiny little cells that have agregated and morphed up to us simply even exist. >We are material beings and always will be. >Matter itself can never be transcended because >it is all there is. Everything we ever become yes, sure, but THEY can. >will be chained to the properties of matter. >What we are not is any specific bits of matter, >we are a pattern that must shift and change over >time in order for mind to happen. yes but they know how this pattern is imprinted into matter, they know the laws you don't know. but they/it still remember matter, sure. >>> I would rather think that the two co-exist, >>> exist in a relation of interdependance, hence >>> none of them precedes the other. This, does >>> not rule out that, locally in space and time, >>> an order be observed. >>>Basing your beliefs on what you want to think >>>instead of what reason & observation tell you >>>is the first step toward delusion. >>believing that observation through a key hole >>()gives universal laws is the second step >>toward delusion. >>() those of your mind and instruments >Remember, I said our observations and so >called "universal laws" are approximations of >the properties of matter. Our "universal laws" >are a collection of observations about how >matter behaves and what its properties seem to >be. a law is much more than a collection of observations. it can even exist before the observations to be available/observable. >>> Plato ... His ideal geometric world so far >>> sounds kind of like a cheap-ass virtual >>> reality heaven where only the simplest >>> equations are allowed to create the form >>> and complexity and random functions that >>> could more acurately model natural processes >>> are not allowed because they're not pure. >> maybe another way for him to say what Einstein >> suggested when claiming that "God doesn't play >> dice" ? >But you're talking about what I said, not what >Plato said. Plato just didn't know anything >about fractals, recursive equations, pseudo- >random number generating functions and other >such stuff now used in Ray-Tracing and Radiosity >programs to make a more natural looking scene >for virtual reality experiences. My comment is >pointed to the fact that what Plato didn't >understand about the world he saw his mind >wanted to reject and deny any reality to. It was he certainly did not enjoy our luxurious bench of mathematical tools and nor any simulation, visualization tool. he was a philosopher by the way, he wrote about many things. i suggest you the myth of the cavern" & "the ring of Cyges". random generators are simple, ideal, geometrical series with a tiny imperfection, a gentle non-linearity by congruence. so it can hardly enter the realm of Platon. all are simple procedural laws to be iterated, so welcome. >all just degeneration and chaos to him, what he >didn't understand was labeled "imperfection." >Truth was only that thing his mind could >comprehend, only the simplist geometric forms >and equations. Once you understand fractals they >take on a beauty and purity of their own that >Plato never saw. yes, and they have seen many many more beauties but still remember Platon. >Archetype is an even vaguer term than ideal. And >even in its vaguness goes against the grain of >evolutionary theory. can you be more specific on this ? (scientific) model makes more sense ? >> Maybe that genomics will help to substantiate >> what an archetypal form for human could be (by >> modelling human genom). >How does the term "archetype" function when >applied to a genetic code? like model functions when applied to a genetic code to give the genomic. Genomic makes use of markov modelling to sequence the DNA in the same way Kurzweil used it for speech recognition (to sequence the speech). A global model of our genom, our human archetype ? well, try again. but it/they know, they seeded us. >>>Not only trees, but there's a supposedly >>>perfect city too.And here's where Plato's deas >>>start to make me uneasy because in Plato's >>>perfect city, atheism is a crime punishable by >>>death. What makes me more uneasy is that Plato >>>claims to have arrived at this idea by >>>contemplating what happened to Socrates & how >>>he was treated unfairly by his less than >>>perfect city, that is he was sentenced to >>>death... the charge? Atheism. >> If so, it is utterly stupid. >And utterly "religious." The Greek states had >their religion, and Socrates and Plato had >another. Both sides would have enforced their >religion with a death penalty. One had the real >power to do so and it did so. It's how religions >have universally behaved prior to the age of >enlightenment. And how fundamentalist Islamics >still behave. Right now there is a man on death >row in Pakistan because this. and this is in each of us, it is just more outrageous to see it in people who say themselves religious. The ages of enlightenment you mention are a small lid over a boiling lake, but it prevents from unacceptable things. >> In fact,we now understand that idealization or >> modelization (the mental process by which a >> real thing is linked to its archetypal >> counterpart) is at the very heart the brain >> processing. Hence, maybe it is not surprising >> that our science makes use of very similar >> principles. > Which principles? uses a langage, called mathematics, and modelizes, and learn. like our brain, but i don't know its langage. >> You say that the siege of our thinking or >> consciousness lies in our head, not in the >> aether or whereever, >Pretty much. Thinking and seeing is done by >brains. There is no mental stuff floating around >in the aether. yes, by brain, but read Kurzweil: we will put our brain into a machine, then add: we will share memories & processing and delocalize the whole. and you get a mental stuff floating around in the aether. >> i say that the way you think has been >> incorporated in you, your mind & intellect >> have been shaped by your culture, the way you >> see the universe is the result on a long march >> which is not bounded by your brain or your >> life. jeff


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/12/2002 4:20 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> ok, look. this civilization has come to master > all the sciences of life, matter is no longer > the prefered toy, ... Then what is the prefered toy? >...each of these consciousness has dragged away > from matter billion years ago, even no life on > earth. ok ? matter is a distant coast while > their different home-planet is still present in > each of them. many evolutionnary revolutions > await for us to interact with it/them. > > ok, here maybe you'll agree we don't see the > coast of matter land anymore ? ;-) You are simply assuming there is something else out there that isn't a property of matter. I don't believe that assumption will hold. > but what do we see then ? How would I know? I believe that if it's not a structure of matter, it is simply NOT. It doesn't exist. And if by some chance there is anything in this universe besides matter and the properties of matter then I wouldn't know anything about it. What do you think you know about what is non-material? What properties would this non-material stuff have? > i have read somewhere that a US planetary probe > has a quantum communication device on board. > what's this hell ? First I've heard of it. Though I have heard of quantum computers and quantum communications might be faster than light. >> We are material beings and always will be. >> Matter itself can never be transcended because >> it is all there is. > > yes, sure, but THEY can. They can transcend matter? Can they also transcend logic? What's left if there is no matter? ... > yes but they know how this pattern is imprinted > into matter, they know the laws you don't know. Patterns are imprinted into matter? I think patterns are properties of matter and nothing needs to be imprinted. ... > a law is much more than a collection of > observations. What more? Do you include theory derived from and explaining the why of experimental results? > ...it can even exist before the observations to > be available/observable. Can it? ... > yes, by brain, but read Kurzweil: we will put > our brain into a machine, then add: we will > share memories & processing and delocalize the > whole. > > and you get a mental stuff floating around in > the aether. Or just the illusion of mental stuff floating around in the aether?


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/12/2002 5:24 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Fellas, ... Rather than speak in terms that automatically assume "stuff out there" in terms of "mystical" words like (matter, energy, aether, spirit), try, if you can, to speak in terms of functionalities. Think in terms of "detectable", and "shareable" and "confirmable". I might (somehow) detect a thing (through my subjective experience.) That "thing" might not be amenable to "sharing" in the "confirmable" sense. I might be forever unable to "demonstrate" what I have detected to anyone else, in a proof-oriented and repeatable way. Does this mean it really exists? Does this mean it must be a figment of my imagination? Perhaps I have (internally) detected "truth". If it is "beyond measurability" by the sciences (dealing as they MUST with "the consistently measurable") then no person who wants a measurable demonstration will be convinced by talking, and those who can be so convinced have taken a leap of faith. Likewise, if someone insists that there are "They" who can know more than we can consistently and SHARABLY MEASURE, then no amount of arguing about the primacy of "sharably measurable" things will have any real weight. You guys seem to be talking past each other. And about QM... There is no way that I have heard that it can allow FTL (faster than light) "communications". It is about FTL self-consistency. Think of a QM-entangled photon-pair like a pair of spinning coins, sent in opposite directions from the relaxation of an excited atom. You are in the path of one, and your friend in the path of the other, light years apart. In a provable QM sense, the universe itself does not contain the information to know the state of either coin, at any time. Yet as soon as you "catch" the coin and see that it has "come-up-heads", the universe "conspires" to instantly ensure the other will come up tails. This is spooky, because just prior to your observation of the coin-state, the universe itself cannot contain the information needed to determine the opposite coin. Yet somehow, consistence is maintained however the superposed states settle to one. The universe supports "spooky consistency at a distance". It is NOT "action at a distance". You don't get a choice of "choosing something" at one point, and having that effect something at the other point. You did not "choose" how the coin would occur at your end. Thus you cannot convey a message FTL by any known QM method, to my knowledge. Cheers! ____tony____(TB)


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/14/2002 4:06 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> Rather than speak in terms that automatically > assume "stuff out there" in terms of > "mystical" words like (matter, energy, aether, > spirit), try, if you can, to speak in terms > of functionalities. Okay, I'll try. But keep in mind what you just asked for, you just told me you want to get passed the generalities of philosophical abstractions and move into the realm of overwhelming scientific detail about neural function. > Think in terms of "detectable", and "shareable" > and "confirmable". My views on what's "detectable", and "shareable" and "confirmable" do differ from Kurzweil's. Kurzweil says in his responce above: "My view is that consciousness, the seat of 'personalness,' is the ultimate reality, and is also scientifically impenetrable. In other words, there is no scientific test one can postulate that would definitively prove its existence in another entity." I disagree. I see 'consciousness' as meaning the subjective feeling within me of an experiencing self that is able not only to know myself to a degree but is also able to differentiate, to a degree, experiences that are not of myself, or part of the body I have, but come from an outside world. Those things that happen inside me, inside my brain, the things that produce qualia, meaning, emotion and the rest of the subjective realm we don't have tools to share our experiences of YET. Kurzweil seems to assume we never will, but in order to accomplish his vision of "spiritual machines" we must do that; penetrate the realm of subjectivity and consciousness and define them with scientific terminology. The boundary between the subjective and objective could become fuzzier as we learn more about the brain. We already know that the amygdala enables us to attach meaning and emotion to our experiences, to determine if something is 'spiritually' significant, sexually enticing, or good to eat. The amygdala is concerned with the most basic animal emotions, it allows us to store affective, meaningful experiences in memory and reexperience them when awake or dreaming. We know the amygdala is an important part of our consciousness and enables us to experience emotions like love and ecstasy associated with orgasm via enkephalin secretion, and the dread and terror associated with the unknown. This is one objective fact about subjective experience, we can locate where parts of it happen. Only by understanding all the appropriate objective facts of the operation of the human brain when creating our subjective experience will we be able to create it properly and with full certainty in a machine. I don't think we will be able to build conscious machines without turning subjective human experience into objective facts that are measurable in human brains. What will be missing from these objective descriptions is the subjective feel of actually having such a feeling. We will also miss the simplicity of philosophical discussion about subjectivity because the complexity of scientific detail will hide it from these easy and overly abstract philosophical discussions. > I might (somehow) detect a thing (through > my subjective experience.) That "thing" > might not be amenable to "sharing" in the > "confirmable" sense. In the sense that you don't have a language to describe it and you know of no test to confirm it. It's possible that in the future we might invent new languages, scientific languages, and brain scanning technologies to confirm our hypothesis and locate and describe in detail the nature of subjective experiences. This is already happening in the field of religion. There is now a science called "neurotheology." > I might be forever unable to "demonstrate" > what I have detected to anyone else, in a > proof-oriented and repeatable way. What's stopping you? Only the language and technology. In order to claim you could NEVER demonstrate your subjective experiences you almost have to believe that subjective experience is beyond the material realm, or at least beyond the ability of scientists. I don't believe it is. My materialist assumptions, Kurzweil's unadmitted materialist assumptions, necessarily imply that we should ultimately be able to do this. To detect and demonstrate in a proof-oriented and repeatable way the physical events in the brain that produce all these subjective experiences. I too have subjective experiences. Ideas and experiences have emotional and meaningful value to me. And when I talk about the organs of the brain I am failing to completely describe the nature of my subjective experience. I do not experience my amygdala like I experience my hand, my lungs, my heart. I have no subjective feel for it existing at all. Yet, if I lost it, my conscious experience would be less, life would become meaningless. I would become a case study for Oliver Sacks. So, at this time I am missing a lot of detail in my understanding of subjectivity and rely on my materialist faith. > Does this mean it really exists? Does > this mean it must be a figment of my > imagination? A lot of your subjective experiences are "figments" of your brain processes, and your imagination is, necessarily according to materialist assumptions, a brain process. In fact, even that knowledge and experience you normally assumed to be factual and objective is a figment of brain processes. > Perhaps I have (internally) detected "truth". > If it is "beyond measurability" by the > sciences... Then science isn't ready to make a fully functional simulation of a human brain if it can't tell you if your subjective experience constitutes some sort of truth. However, if we're going to talk about "truth" then you need to be aware that there are different "models" of "Truth." The Revision Theory of Truth: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-revision The Diamond Theory of Truth: http://math16.com Models, Truth, Logical Implication, and Validity: http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/topics_in_logic/struct/node3.html Johnson-Laird's Models and Truth: http://www.iccs.informatics.ed.ac.uk/publications/RP/1987/EUCCS-RP-1987-7.html What if all truth is context dependend: http://cfpm.org/cpmrep77.html Concepts about "truth" are already showing up in software: http://www-i2.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Forschung/MCS/Truth >... (dealing as they MUST with "the > consistently measurable")... Micheal Persinger's work has made certain once elusive subjective experiences repeatable. In fact, they're working on a technology that can be used to induce various spiritual experiences at will for theraputic use. It may become like LSD... http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com >...then no person who wants a measurable > demonstration will be convinced by talking, > and those who can be so convinced have > taken a leap of faith. As a materialist I only take short leaps of faith, faith in theories that have some chance of being confirmed. Faith jumping anywhere else risks a jump into the abyss of delusion and illusion that can never be corrected while alive. > Likewise, if someone insists that there > are "They" who can know more than we can > consistently and SHARABLY MEASURE, then > no amount of arguing about the primacy of > "sharably measurable" things will have any > real weight. But it already does carry a lot of weight with me. > You guys seem to be talking past each > other. Did I just talk past you?


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/14/2002 5:56 PM by azb0@earthlink.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Norm, We may be "talking past" one another, only in a very small sense. Both you and I (I believe) believe that scientific investigation leads closer to "truth". Whether it does or not, we have "faith" that there is no more sure way to get there. On this, we agree. I am not saying that studies of the amygdala will not lead to much greater "explication" of qualia, or even lead to a "perfect understanding" of consciousness. Its not guaranteed, however, because it must be realized that science (especially in investigating the roots of subjective experience) deals with finding "strong correlates". Waking subjects exhibit neural activities that sleeping subjects do not, etc. That is a way-oversimplification, granted, but there it is. Fundamentally, no matter "how sure" we might be that we have got the "science right" (broad scientific agreement), the kind of "confirmation" you would want to trust your personal life/consciousness to requires the one thing we may not be able to "do by proxy". You put it in your own words: > "What will be missing from these objective descriptions > is the subjective feel of actually having such a feeling." We may be able to build "conscious machines" WITHOUT that kind of confirmation ... but we could not be absolutely certain. We would have to "infer" the existence of consciousness based upon necessarily external observables. I am not certain of this, but I cannot simply dismiss it. As I wrote much earlier, if the universe is such that beings like ourselves come into existence, and are constrained to develop a rational system of investigation, leading to a full and perfectly consistent explanation for all observations that misses the truth entirely, science (by definition) cannot determine this. That should not be our "working premise", of course, but it should be recognized as a possibility. The graveness of such a "deep unknowability" situation is only of abstract concern when we deal with cosmology, or chromodynamics. Who cares But if we get it wrong on consciousness, on designing a substrate to support our continued "sense of awareness", it becomes a bit more personal. Perhaps my concerns are overblown, but several "though experiments" have me troubled. Here is one that is overly simplistic, but worth considering: By some "magic", you and I get to "swap consciousness" for 1 minute, then automatically snap-back. During that minute, I experience exactly the "awareness" you have, and you experience mine. After 1 minute, and we have returned to our former selves, what confirmation would we have? It seems we would have none at all. During that minute, you would not be Norm thinking, "So, this is what its like to be Tony." You would BE Tony. If I were not really conscious, but merely a clever intelligence with "no one home", either way you would have no recollection of it. Now, it might seem that we could "fix" this problem by doing some sort of "gradual swap" thing, where we would begin to experience "the other" while retaining some of our sense of original self as "confirming mind". I am not certain. Take the gradual approach, and assume that we do a "half-way mind-meld" for a minute. Before the experiment, I think of my favorite color (and write it down). After the experiment, you are able to reveal my favorite color! That would be confirmation of ... something. If we assume a-priori that I am a consciousness, then you have clearly been able to "grasp" what I was grasping. But suppose I were a (hypothetical) "no one home" intelligence. Is it impossible that you would have merely found a way to "access" the color I had chosen, and (unconsciously) "interpreted" that information as "my conscious thought of the color"? Ultimately (it seems) YOU must always be the judge of your experience. I am not trying to argue that "mind" is a non-physical, "other-than-matter-effect" thing. I only put forth, for argument, the position that perhaps no amount of "knowing/understanding" a thing guarantees "experiencing" that thing. And I cannot imagine a scientific proof to the contrary. Just a thought... Cheers! ____tony____(TB)


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/15/2002 7:48 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> We may be "talking past" one another, only > in a very small sense. > > Both you and I (I believe) believe that > scientific investigation leads closer to > "truth". Whether it does or not, we have "faith" > that there is no more sure way to get there. > On this, we agree. Yes. I also share your concerns about how well our technology will be able to capture all that it means to be "me." In this regard there are some things to consider: 1) An upload isn't necessarily going to know if all that he was before is captured by the uploading process. A similar phenomena happens with some brain damaged people, for example, one of the first well documented cases of traumatic brain damage, Phineas Gage. Gage, after a railroad spike was blown through his head, always claimed he was still the same man, nothing had changed. Yet his personality had changed so much the contractors who had employed him would not give him his job back. Before the accident he had been their most capable and efficient foreman, had a well-balanced mind, was looked on as a shrewd business man. After the accident he was fitful, irreverent, and grossly profane, showing little deference for his fellows. He was also impatient and obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, unable to settle on any of the plans he devised for future action. His friends said he was "No longer Gage." Everybody could see it but Gage himself. This happens with a lot of Oliver Sacks' patients too, they insist nothing has changed but it's obvious to everyone else they have. All an upload needs to think it's me is some memories of mine where I'm called Norman Doering and the thing will think it's me, it will remember being refered to by my name and it won't know all of who I was, it will only know itself. About Phineas Gage: http://www.deakin.edu.au/hbs/GAGEPAGE Traumatic Brain Injury: http://www.theinfinitemind.com/mind181.htm 2) The surface stuff, what can be tested by a Turing Test, isn't all there is to being me. I experience a lot more of myself, know myself better, than anyone else I can observe. Even if I could talk to my upload for a long time I wouldn't be completely sure that it was exactly like me in its internal subjective experience. And even below that level, there are thoughts and ideas that come to me that I can't really say for sure where they come from, I would not be able to judge how well that hidden from me mental ability was copied. However, I don't buy into the "zombie paradox" which you seem to refer to as "no-one-is-really-home." It's not really possible for an entity to talk about consciousness and subjective experience in a meaningful way and not experience something subjective and be aware of itself. A simple chatbot can only get so far talking about such things and it has to be deceptively programmed even then. That "no-one-home" idea is called the zombie paradox. Here's some links: Three ways of being a zombie: http://www.imprint-academic.demon.co.uk/SPECIAL/01_06.html#37 Zombie killer: http://www.imprint-academic.demon.co.uk/SPECIAL/01_12.html#93 A shit load of A.I. papers here: http://www.imprint-academic.demon.co.uk/SPECIAL/author.html 3) Odds are, before there is good A.I. and accurate, high definition, uploading there will be bad A.I. and bad, low definition, uploading. Bad A.I. and bad uploading will be enough to fool some of the people, but not all. As these things come to exist the people who live with them and use them and make them will need to develop discriminating abilities we don't yet have. They'll have to unpack the suitcase of consciousness (and Kurzweil's Spirituality) and become familiar enough with its contents in order to understand what's missing in bad A.I.s and bad uploads. They certainly won't get proper help from the prople marketing low resolution uploads as a way to bring back your dead relatives. I suspect the first attempts at uploading will result in insane and damaged copies because the resolution will be so bad. The first makers, anxious to get something to market will learn to patch over the bad qualities of the upload with completely deceptive A.I. routines and the result will be a composite of bad upload and deceptive A.I. designed to fool non-discriminating customers. They will fool family and friends in a way similar to how John Edward fools people who think they are talking to dead relatives.


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/15/2002 8:33 AM by azb0@earthlink.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Norm, Thanks. I will investigate those "zombie" papers, and prepare a review. Cheers! ____tony____(TB)


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/15/2002 2:57 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Try this post script paper, the links above are get you to abstracts, not the final papers: http://www.wfu.edu/~cottrell/zombies.ps


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/15/2002 2:59 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I found another: http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/zombies.htm


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/13/2002 5:54 AM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
if, "The pattern is far more important than the material stuff that comprises it" (Kurzweil,the material world:is that all there is) then what is the relevancy of claiming to be a materialist ? end isn't it like claiming to be a stonist as a guy near you is making truly architectural marvels by levitating by unknown means the stones you extract painfully from the ground ? jeff


	about patterns posted on 07/13/2002 6:20 AM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
" Rather than a materialist, I would prefer to consider myself a “patternist.” " § 10 - The Material World: is that all there is ? by Ray Kurzweil do you think matter is itself a pattern ? can we induce patterns from patterns ? what does make patterns ? a law ? are patterns & properties synonyms in a way ? can patterns organize themselves in stable means as a distinct reality with its own specific set of laws ? jeff


	Re: about patterns posted on 07/13/2002 5:04 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> "Rather than a materialist, I would prefer to > consider myself a <patternist>." > § 10 - The Material World: is that all there > is ? by Ray Kurzweil > > do you think matter is itself a pattern ? What you know of matter is a pattern of material neural connections in your brain. However, matter itself is matter and not a pattern but rather the holder of all patterns, it is the ground of all being, a mystery we can observe and measure but never truly know because our material brains can only hold certain types of patterns. In the end artificial intelligence will share the curse of natural intelligence and William Calvin's quote below explains that curse: "The paradox of consciousness -- that the more consciousness one has, the more layers of processing divide one from the world -- is, like so much else in nature, a trade-off. Progressive distancing from the external world is simply the price that is paid for knowing anything about the world at all. The deeper and broader [our] consciousness of the world becomes, the more complex the layers of processing necessary to obtain that consciousness." And the more complex it gets, the more potential illusion can be created by misapplied abstraction. > can we induce patterns from patterns ? Not without matter. You can create or induce patterns only into matter. I consider photons and waves as material things too. > what does make patterns ? a law ? No. Laws make nothing. Matter makes and destroys patterns all by itself. We can only fiddle with matter to coax it into making the patterns we desire. > are patterns & properties synonyms in a > way ? Yes. And no. All the properties of matter you can know are really patterns in your brain. However pattern making is only one property of matter. Pattern destruction is another, non-locality is another property, light, magneticism etc. are properties of matter. > can patterns organize themselves in stable > means as a distinct reality with its own specific > set of laws ? Only as an abstraction. For example, when we write computer code it often seems like we're dealing with a realm of pure information where patterns organize themselves, however, behind all the code and pattern is a material processor and the material phenomena of magnetic (or optical) patterns sent along material pathways.


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/13/2002 5:06 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> if, "The pattern is far more important than the > material stuff that comprises it" (Kurzweil, > the material world: is that all there is) then > what is the relevancy of claiming to be a > materialist ? "Importance" is a value judgement and relative to what you're trying to do at the time. There are times when thinking about matter isn't important, just as there are times when thinking about eating isn't important, but you can't forget about eating forever -- you'll die. Kurzweil can only ignore matter and materialism temporarily, but in the end all his ideas about A.I. are grounded in materialist assumptions. > isn't it like claiming to be a stonist > as a guy near you is making truly architectural > marvels by levitating by unknown means the > stones you extract painfully from the ground ? Nope.


	Are Pattern and Matter Co-Manifest? posted on 07/13/2002 8:20 PM by azb0@earthlink.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The human sentient condition is such that the concepts of "space" and "time" are almost unavoidable. It is then natural to take these to the limit of abstraction, and consider the "Platonic" perfect-empty void, and ask "Where did everything come from?" Indeed, taking such a view, it might seem reasonable to posit that "matter-happened", and the peculiar properties of said matter give rise to preferred patterns, yielding the observable universe. But then, how did the "matter" happen? (Matter being energy, physical field, as well as stable particle-like stuff. Call it the "physical" perhaps, to subsume the matter-energy duality.) I say that the "patternists" are equivalently "property-ists". The patterns/properties "came first", and thus dictated the forms that matter would assume. What if neither preceded the other? In a parallel to the wave/particle duality of light, it makes no sense to say "light was first a wave, and then gave rise to a particle nature", anymore than to say "light was first particles, then gave rise to wave properties." BOTH properties are co-manifest in light, and inseparable. Neither "came first", and which property you see depends upon "how you investigate". Moreover, if "time", and Plato's perfect-void are just concepts, then the universe ALWAYS had both pattern/physic, so NEITHER "came first". Neither is pre-eminent. Think Deeply: It is really as hard to imagine "matter without properties/pattern" as it is to imagine "patterns without substance", in the sense of having any physically-extent or objective reality. Simply consider them "Co-Manifest" characteristics. Then, we can focus upon the interesting questions posed by the "pattern-hypothesis". That is, to what degree can we attribute the great variety of observables to a "small set of patterns" applied recursively? Cheers! ____tony____(TB)


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/13/2002 9:01 AM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> ok, look. this civilization has come to master >> all the sciences of life, matter is no longer >> the prefered toy, ... > Then what is the prefered toy? you'll have to guess. >>...each of these consciousness has dragged away >>from matter billion years ago, even no life on >>earth. ok ? matter is a distant coast while >>their different home-planet is still present in >>each of them. many evolutionnary revolutions >>await for us to interact with it/them. >> ok, here maybe you'll agree we don't see the >> coast of matter land anymore ? ;-) >You are simply assuming there is something else >out there that isn't a property of matter. I >don't believe that assumption will hold. No, i am merely assuming that these children of matter have undertaken a very long journey from matter. That they have long unfolded through a reality that is no longer to be conveniently described as material world. >> but what do we see then ? >How would I know? I believe that if it's not a >structure of matter, it is simply NOT. It >doesn't exist. >And if by some chance there is anything in this >universe besides matter and the properties of >matter then I wouldn't know anything about it. >What do you think you know about what is non- >material? What properties would this non- i know that words are tricky, i know that frontiers we draw are pratical but highly instable and, ultimately, non-senses. i do not know anything about non-material properties. >material stuff have? >>i have read somewhere that a US planetary probe >>has a quantum communication device on board. >>what's this hell ? >First I've heard of it. Though I have heard of >quantum computers and quantum communications >might be faster than light. do you know about a quantum property called non-locality ? >>>We are material beings and always will be. >>>Matter itself can never be transcended because >>>it is all there is. >> yes, sure, but THEY can. >They can transcend matter? they can. >Can they also transcend logic? this question makes no sense for me. >What's left if there is no matter? nothing. though there is much more than matter. ... >>yes but they know how this pattern is imprinted >>into matter, they know the laws you don't know. >Patterns are imprinted into matter? I think yes, in a way to speak (without any printer) >patterns are properties of matter and nothing no they are not >needs to be imprinted. that is formally true: nothing needs to be imprinted. ... >> a law is much more than a collection of >> observations. >What more? Do you include theory derived from >and explaining the why of experimental results? is a neckless only a collection of pearls ? >>...it can even exist before the observations to >>be available/observable. > Can it? yes, it can. it can happen that it is only when you have formulated the law that you know how to observe it. jeff


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/13/2002 4:58 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>>> ok, look. this civilization has come to master >>> all the sciences of life, matter is no longer >>> the prefered toy, ... >> >> Then what is the prefered toy? > > you'll have to guess. I can't guess. Any civilization that gives up on understanding and manipulating matter will just sink into solipcism and illusions akin to a religion. Without materialism I can't see anything but a sinking into pre-materialistic ideas such as were around in the 1200s when scholars researched the size, shape and precise location of Hell, as well as how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. ... >>> ok, here maybe you'll agree we don't see the >>> coast of matter land anymore ? ;-) >> >> You are simply assuming there is something else >> out there that isn't a property of matter. I >> don't believe that assumption will hold. > > No, i am merely assuming that these children > of matter have undertaken a very long journey > from matter. That they have long unfolded > through a reality that is no longer to be > conveniently described as material world. The word "conveniently" is a loaded term. Sometimes it's not convienient to consider the material a pattern is made of because the pattern can be made with many different materials. That only means the ability to at least temporarily hold patterns is a very general property of matter. What it doesn't mean is that you need no material at all. >>> but what do we see then ? >> >> How would I know? I believe that if it's not a >> structure of matter, it is simply NOT. It >> doesn't exist. >> >> And if by some chance there is anything in this >> universe besides matter and the properties of >> matter then I wouldn't know anything about it. >> >> What do you think you know about what is non- >> material? > > i know that words are tricky, > i know that frontiers we draw are pratical but > highly instable and, ultimately, non-senses. > i do not know anything about non-material > properties. Then nothing can be said about them. For all we know, they don't exist. >> What properties would this non-material stuff >> have? > > do you know about a quantum property called > non-locality ? Yes. A strange, relatively recently discovered property of matter. ... >> They can transcend matter? > > they can. How? >> Can they also transcend logic? > > this question makes no sense for me. Transcending matter is about as sensible as trascending logic to me. >> What's left if there is no matter? > > nothing. > though there is much more than matter. It's more than matter, but it's nothing? And you say you haven't trascended logic? ... >> patterns are properties of matter > > no they are not Then what are patterns? All the patterns I know are made of matter, even in my material brain the patterns of my understanding are patterns of matter... patterns of neural connections and neuronal structure. >>...and nothing needs to be imprinted. > > that is formally true: nothing needs to be > imprinted. Then what is formally true about non-material things? ... >>> a law is much more than a collection of >>> observations. >> >> What more? Do you include theory derived from >> and explaining the why of experimental results? > > is a neckless only a collection of pearls ? It's a specific pattern of pearls. It's pearls with a hold drilled into them and a string or wire run through the holes to hold the pearls in an amorphus linear shape. >>> ...it can even exist before the observations to >>> be available/observable. >> >> Can it? > > yes, it can. How? > it can happen that it is only when you have > formulated the law that you know how to observe > it. What law?


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/13/2002 7:45 PM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> No, i am merely assuming that these children >> of matter have undertaken a very long journey >> from matter. That they have long unfolded >> through a reality that is no longer to be >> conveniently described as material world. >The word "conveniently" is a loaded term. yes, i'm never really sure about the choise of my words ;-) appropriately fits better ? >Sometimes it's not convienient to consider the >material a pattern is made of because the >pattern can be made with many different >materials. That only means the ability to at >least temporarily hold patterns is a very >general property of matter. What it doesn't mean >is that you need no material at all. that's all the point, the pattern is the important thing, and beyond the pattern ? is there a great distance between inanimate matter and life ? are there frozen patterns and evolving patterns ? life makes use of matter, it does not transcend it yet (as far as i know, on earth), it still returns to it. >Then nothing can be said about them. For all we >know, they don't exist. they obey to laws, everything obey to laws, things who don't obey to any law don't exist http://ojps.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000088000022228102000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes >>> What properties would this non-material stuff >>> have? >> do you know about a quantum property called >> non-locality ? >Yes. A strange, relatively recently discovered >property of matter. well, if you want to call matter the spooky world of quantum physics. http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/Solicitations/CBD_01-11.html http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205144 ... >>> They can transcend matter? >> they can. > How? by understanding what it is (not). by knowing the rules. ... >>> patterns are properties of matter >> no they are not > Then what are patterns? impressions of laws within a substrate ? >>> ...and nothing needs to be imprinted. >> that is formally true: nothing needs to be >> imprinted. >Then what is formally true about non-material >things? that they are non-material. >>>> it can even exist before the observations to >>>> be available/observable. >>> Can it? >> yes, it can. >How? thanks to the self-consistency of mathematics and intuition >>it can happen that it is only when you have >>formulated the law that you know how to observe >>it. >What law? http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/whatis.html http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/grav/gravmain.html http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/grav/einstein.html http://spdext.estec.esa.nl/content/doc/45/26693_.htm


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/14/2002 1:16 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>>> No, i am merely assuming that these children >>> of matter have undertaken a very long journey >>> from matter. That they have long unfolded >>> through a reality that is no longer to be >>> conveniently described as material world. >> >> The word "conveniently" is a loaded term. > > yes, i'm never really sure about the choise of > my words ;-) appropriately fits better ? Only when it's appropriate, but since I'm not sure what you're talking about I wouldn't know if it is appropriate. Or, rather, I don't see anything appropriate to talking about non-material things. >> Sometimes it's not convienient to consider the >> material a pattern is made of because the >> pattern can be made with many different >> materials. That only means the ability to at >> least temporarily hold patterns is a very >> general property of matter. What it doesn't mean >> is that you need no material at all. > > that's all the point, the pattern is the > important thing, and beyond the pattern ? Beyond the pattern is the stuff the pattern is made from: Matter. > is there a great distance between inanimate > matter and life ? Nope. But that's relative I suppose. As far as I'm concerned life is just a particular arrangement (or pattern) of matter. >... are there frozen patterns and evolving > patterns ? There may be nothing but evolving patterns, we have not been around long enough to know if the "frozen" patterns won't change over time. Maybe even the so called "laws" and properties of matter evolve and change. > Life makes use of matter, it does not > transcend it yet (as far as i know, on earth), > it still returns to it. Life returns to matter? When did it ever leave? >> Then nothing can be said about them. For all we >> know, they don't exist. > > they obey to laws, everything obey to laws, > things who don't obey to any law don't exist What is "it" that obeys laws and is not material? We were talking about non-material stuff. What laws does something that I can't even imagine existing obey? > well, if you want to call matter the spooky > world of quantum physics. Yep, I do. Atoms are made of that spooky quantum stuff, so that spooky quantum stuff is matter too, and if that spooky quantum stuff is made of even spookier sub-quantum stuff, well, that's then what matter is, spooky stuff. > http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/Solicitations/CBD_01-11.html > http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205144 Okay, quantum computers... what about them? ... >>>> They can transcend matter? >>> they can. >> How? > > by understanding what it is (not). What is there that exists that is not made of matter? > by knowing the rules. What rules are not the observed and abstracted observations about the properties of matter? ... >>>> patterns are properties of matter >>> no they are not >> Then what are patterns? > > impressions of laws within a substrate ? huh? We really do have a communications problem. The impression of laws are in the substrate of your brain. Matter is what it is, it knows nothing of laws. >>>> ...and nothing needs to be imprinted. >>> that is formally true: nothing needs to be >>> imprinted. >> Then what is formally true about non-material >> things? > > that they are non-material. Okay... What does a non-material thing do? Why should I think anything non-material exists at all? >>>>> it can even exist before the observations to >>>>> be available/observable. >>>> Can it? >>> yes, it can. >> How? > > thanks to the self-consistency of mathematics > and intuition Are you sure intuition is self-consistent? Plato's didn't seem all that self-consistent. Could Plato answer Zeno's paradox? Are you sure all (or any) mathematics is really self-consistent? >>> it can happen that it is only when you have >>> formulated the law that you know how to observe >>> it. >> What law? > > http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/whatis.html > http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/grav/gravmain.html > http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/grav/einstein.html > http://spdext.estec.esa.nl/content/doc/45/26693_.htm Okay... What do gravity waves have to do with any of this?


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/15/2002 8:35 AM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
today, great blue day over south west french coast. cycling under the pines. >>>>No, i am merely assuming that these children >>>>of matter have undertaken a very long journey >>>>from matter. That they have long unfolded >>>>through a reality that is no longer to be >>>>conveniently described as material world. >>> The word "conveniently" is a loaded term. >> yes, i'm never really sure about the choise of >> my words ;-) appropriately fits better ? >Only when it's appropriate, but since I'm not >sure what you're talking about I wouldn't know >if it is appropriate. Or, rather, I don't see >anything appropriate to talking about non- >material things. that's bad. this is the topic discussed here. >>Sometimes it's not convienient to consider the >>material a pattern is made of because the >>pattern can be made with many different >>materials. That only means the ability to at >>least temporarily hold patterns is a very >>general property of matter. What it doesn't >>mean is that you need no material at all. >> that's all the point, the pattern is the >> important thing, and beyond the pattern ? >Beyond the pattern is the stuff the pattern is >made from: Matter. what you say is true, once you posited the almighty axiom "all is matter", all you have to look is matter. but what is your interest in IA once you have installed the harware stuff made in matter land ? I give you all the neurons we have in a brain, as many as stars in a galaxy. twelve digits number. I know, this is matter, you have all right. I grow up some neural nets for an internship at school. a three layers butterfly backpropagation net, a very basic classifier of written caracters. no comparison with a brain even by introducing some modelling. this net was scalar, real numbers propagating i mean, but imagine you have many available states for each neurons (or more exactly many superposed quantum states), and a cosmic number of neurons. well. my little net is mere shit, my vision of patterns if equally shit and my understanding of quantum physics is so poor. Of course, "all is matter". this is warm and reassuring in a way. >> is there a great distance between inanimate >> matter and life ? >Nope. But that's relative I suppose. As far as i am happy you say that. ;-) >I'm concerned life is just a particular >arrangement (or pattern) of matter. yes, of matter, absolutely right. >>... are there frozen patterns and evolving >> patterns ? >There may be nothing but evolving patterns, we >have not been around long enough to know if >the "frozen" patterns won't change over time. >Maybe even the so called "laws" and properties >of matter evolve and change. by evolving, i meant more than simply variation versus time. there are simple patterns, the frozen ones are basically shaped by laws. take a metallic plate of any form (square, disc,;..), put sand on it and excite it in a point by a diapason or a blunt choc. nice sand patterns, aren't they ? and the pattern effectively vary with time... then vanish. but what if a pattern finds opportunely (highly loaded combination) the energy to survive by itself ? how would it ? energy from autocatalytic cycles ? patterns that tends to become self-existent ? isolate from outside (chaos outside) patterned with a lipidic membrane ? slight equilibrium aggregation/dispersion reached is that life ? self existing patterns ? >> Life makes use of matter, it does not >> transcend it yet (as far as i know, on earth), >> it still returns to it. > Life returns to matter? When did it ever leave? life is doing it continuously. life patterns rejuvenates using a flux of matter sure it needs matter, but uses it. norm is fully rematterialized in a few months. i don't know the distance from void to consciousness and wherever to put the "life" milestone, i don't even know where the trip ends. like you said, it's relative. >>Then nothing can be said about them. For all we >>know, they don't exist. >> they obey to laws, everything obey to laws, >> things who don't obey to any law don't exist >What is "it" that obeys laws and is not >material? We were talking about non-material >stuff. What laws does something that I can't >even imagine existing obey? how does matter aggregate to make stars & planets ? how does matter aggregate to make life ? how does life aggregate to make consciousness ? to be continued. iteration seems to be a basic rule for creation, don't you think so ? >> well, if you want to call matter the spooky >> world of quantum physics. >Yep, I do. Atoms are made of that spooky quantum dominique would also say that atoms "are made of" quantum stuff. >stuff, so that spooky quantum stuff is matter >too, god, the materialist credo. do i chat with an automata ? is this kurzweil forum a massive Turing test ? ... >>>>> They can transcend matter? >>>> they can. >>> How? >> by understanding what it is (not). >What is there that exists that is not made of >matter? do you know the meaning of "to transcend" ? >>>>> ...and nothing needs to be imprinted. >>>> that is formally true: nothing needs to be >>>> imprinted. >>> Then what is formally true about non-material >>> things? >> that they are non-material. >Okay... What does a non-material thing do? Why >should I think anything non-material exists at >all? if your axiomatic system is ok to account for what you interact with and what you can observe, there is no reason to change it. >>>>>it can even exist before the observations to >>>>>be available/observable. >>>>Can it? >>>yes, it can. >>How? >thanks to the self-consistency of mathematics >and intuition >Are you sure intuition is self-consistent? i wrote intuition on a new line so as not to confuse you: self-consistent only apply to mathematics though it is not guaranteed, nor is completeness. >Plato's didn't seem all that self-consistent. >Could Plato answer Zeno's paradox? i don't think he knew convergence criteria for geometrical series but he was so intuitive. >Are you sure all (or any) mathematics is really >self-consistent? no, i can't be sure. >>>>it can happen that it is only when you have >>>>formulated the law that you know how to >>>>observe it. >>>What law? >>http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/whatis.html >>http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/grav/gravmain.html >>http://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/grav/einstein.html >>http://spdext.estec.esa.nl/content/doc/45/26693_.htm >Okay... What do gravity waves have to do with >any of this? "Nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas." (Einstein, in Quantum Questions, page 146) does it remind you something ? Einstein a platonist zealot ? it suggests to me that we should not confuse "how science makes laws" with "what are ultimately laws"; if by methodology, every law is rooted in observations (possibly from a limited set), observations are also rooted in laws, being made by increasingly indirect means (simulation, new senses,...), and mathematics is the preexisting substance of laws. the increadible appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is very... disturbing to me. jeff


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/15/2002 2:19 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Hmmm... I still say that the matter/pattern thing is a "red herring" (distraction). Like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Without matter (the physical, energy, etc,) how would "pattern" present itself? That would be like having "rules of gravity" in a universe with no mass. Without pattern, matter would be like an perfect white-noise. No forms to "spring-up" and make themselves distinct from the background. And the background alone would be undetectable, nothing. How can one ever "be" without the other? Why should one "have to come first"? ____tony____


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/17/2002 8:11 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Matter and its patterns... > How can one ever "be" without the other? They can't. There is no matter without a pattern and there is no pattern without matter.


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/21/2002 12:08 PM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Hmmm... I still say that the matter/pattern thing is a "red herring" (distraction). Like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. nice :-) I still say that the matter stuff is a red herring, one pattern among maybe countless others. But human condition is rooted in it, all our mudane experience is about matter, hence its relative preeminence in our minds. Where are the frontiers of matter land ? jeff


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/17/2002 4:35 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> what you say is true, once you posited > the almighty axiom "all is matter", all > you have to look is matter. > but what is your interest in IA once > you have installed the harware stuff > made in matter land ? A.I. is about what we are. It's about what it means to be human, at least to be intelligent, in a material universe. Soon it will be about what it means to be emotional and conscious and even "spiritual." > I give you all the neurons we have in a > brain, as many as stars in a galaxy. twelve > digits number. > I know, this is matter, you have all right. > I grow up some neural nets for an internship > at school. a three layers butterfly > backpropagation net, a very basic classifier > of written caracters. There are more types of neural nets than we've yet made. Neurons in the human brain are not the simple, somewhat amorphus, neurons represented by any neural net chips or programs I can buy today. The brain has far more structure and layering. > no comparison with a brain even by introducing > some modelling. > this net was scalar, real numbers propagating > i mean, but imagine you have many available > states for each neurons (or more exactly many > superposed quantum states), and a cosmic > number of neurons. > well. my little net is mere shit, my vision > of patterns if equally shit and my > understanding of quantum physics is so poor. > Of course, "all is matter". > this is warm and reassuring in a way. Yes. It is. And it can protect you from the mystical bullshit that people try to pass off as knowledge. ... > but what if a pattern finds opportunely > (highly loaded combination) the energy to > survive by itself ? > how would it ? Life patterns survive by continuosly replicating themselves. > energy from autocatalytic cycles ? Photosynthesis and animal metabolism. > patterns that tends to become self-existent ? Life self-replicates. Universes may also self-replicate. > isolate from outside (chaos outside) > patterned with a lipidic membrane ? That's part of survival. > slight equilibrium aggregation/dispersion > reached is that life ? self existing patterns ? That's one way to look at it. One way to express a simple idea about life. ... >> Life returns to matter? When did it ever leave? > > life is doing it continuously. > life patterns rejuvenates using a flux > of matter sure it needs matter, but uses > it. > norm is fully rematterialized in a few > months. And at no time was Norm or Jeff ever anything non-material. And now, watch carefully, see, there is nothing up my sleeve.... ... >> What is "it" that obeys laws and is not >> material? We were talking about non-material >> stuff. What laws does something that I can't >> even imagine existing obey? > > how does matter aggregate to make stars & > planets ? Gravity. > how does matter aggregate to make life ? Evolution. > how does life aggregate to make > consciousness ? Intelligence and consciousness may have a survival value. > iteration seems to be a basic rule for > creation, don't you think so ? For evolution, not creation. Evolution of life effects only patterns, it makes no new material... unless universes also evolve? ... >...is this kurzweil forum a massive Turing > test ? You should expect to meet chatbots here eventually. It should be an expected sign of the singularity approaching. Certainly Kurzweil would be proud of fooling people with Turing test chatbots that he introduced into his forums. If I were him, I'd do it if I could. Are you really human? Or, are you some sort of zombie chatbot yourself? Have you experienced Romona yet? Why doesn't Romona ever come down here and chat with us? ... > do you know the meaning of "to transcend" ? Do you? from: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=transcend transitive senses 1 a : to rise above or go beyond the limits of b : to triumph over the negative or restrictive aspects of : OVERCOME c : to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence) 2 : to outstrip or outdo in some attribute, quality, or power intransitive senses : to rise above or extend notably beyond ordinary limits synonym see EXCEED ... >> Are you sure all (or any) mathematics is >> really self-consistent? > > no, i can't be sure. You can if you want, look into Gödel's Undecidability Theorem and Russel's paradox in the Principia Mathematica. Gödel's Theorem: http://www.ddc.net/ygg/etext/godel/ Russell's Paradox: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/ Principia Mathematica: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/ http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PRMAT.html > "Nature is the realization of the simplest > conceivable mathematical ideas." > (Einstein, in Quantum Questions, page 146) > > does it remind you something ? And God doesn't play dice. Yes, it hints at the Platonic illusion. > Einstein a platonist zealot ? He had a platonist's intuition in that regard and it may have mislead him about quantum mechanics. I wonder what Plato would have made of Einstein's theories? Hmmm... Plato meets Einstein.... could be an interesting story. > it suggests to me that we should not confuse > "how science makes laws" with "what are > ultimately laws"; It also suggests there are serious limits to what we can know about the universe, about matter. > if by methodology, every law is rooted in > observations (possibly from a limited set), > observations are also rooted in laws, > being made by increasingly indirect means > (simulation, new senses,...), and > mathematics is the preexisting substance of > laws. Some patterning property inherent in matter. > the increadible appropriateness of the > language of mathematics for the formulation > of the laws of physics is very... > disturbing to me. Oh... Really? Disturbing? Is it because mathematical formulas can't express any philosophy or experience beyond the Platonic mathematical experience which is perhaps nothing but a fantasy world of infinite lines and perfect spheres which may describe how our brains think about math, but not what the universe really is? Is it because mathematical operations don't seem to be able to express any teleology but only an ordered regularity and reactivity thus suggesting there is no God? Is it because the use of math points to only measurability as a measure of truth? Is it because at heart our mathematics can never be anything more than an elaborate metaphor about the world we describe? Is is because this math is only useful to technologists and really has nothing to say to philosophers and theologists thus hinting at an explanatory emptiness that makes you uncomfortable with what you can never know? Is it because no matter how many mathematical theories and equations we muster to describe the universe all we'll have is pages upon pages of mathematical symbols and there is no magic wand, no mental act of concentration and imagination, no magic spell or prayer, that can ever turn those theories of everything into anything. They will always be the symbols on paper that they are and only useful to technologists. They are, like trying to describe qualia via neural correlates, missing something about what the universe is.


	Re: What is matter ? (Part 2 - Plato) posted on 07/21/2002 6:42 AM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> but what is your interest in IA once >> you have installed the harware stuff >> made in matter land ? >A.I. is about what we are. It's about what it >means to be human, at least to be intelligent, I agree. And combining the many scientific fields which converge toward the study of human nature, they will strip it down to its spiritual essence, better than any religion. That's what i think. >in a material universe. Soon it will be about >what it means to be emotional and conscious and >even "spiritual." well, R Kurzweil does not take it for granted, to say the least: "My view is that consciousness, the seat of “personalness” is the ultimate reality, and is also scientifically impenetrable" (R. Kurzweil, §10, "the material world: is that all there is ?"). I firmly believe that advanced simulation tools & human-machine interactions will create a new methodology to investigate consciousness. Some of us display a tendancy to project their inner violence, predicting the genesis of a potentially hostile superintelligence ; but what about a fruitful symbiosis between humans & AI ? the former learning about their fundamental nature, the latter learning to become conscious (feeling more human when one sees the officer Data in Star Trek). >> I give you all the neurons we have in a >> brain, as many as stars in a galaxy. twelve >> digits number. >> I know, this is matter, you have all right. >> I grow up some neural nets for an internship >> at school. a three layers butterfly >> backpropagation net, a very basic classifier >> of written caracters. >There are more types of neural nets than we've >yet made. Neurons in the human brain are not the Yes, the one i ran needed a supervised learning phase though some of them can self-organize (Kohonen) without being given any clue to learn a categorization. Both are found to be "universal approximators" (i like this name, this could stand for brain & science in a way) and can be combined. >simple, somewhat amorphus, neurons represented >by any neural net chips or programs I can buy >today. The brain has far more structure and >layering. yes, they are models, idealized things, more manageable but still capturing some concept. >> no comparison with a brain even by introducing >> some modelling. >> this net was scalar, real numbers propagating >> i mean, but imagine you have many available >> states for each neurons (or more exactly many >> superposed quantum states), and a cosmic >> number of neurons. >> well. my little net is mere shit, my vision >> of patterns if equally shit and my >> understanding of quantum physics is so poor. >> Of course, "all is matter". >> this is warm and reassuring in a way. >Yes. It is. >And it can protect you from the mystical >bullshit that people try to pass off as >knowledge. I don't feel the need to be protected from any so-called suspicious knowledge. I am not scared nor do I feel threatened. I am neither a watchdog feeling righteous to protect Science nor an ignorant distording Science to fit his interests or beliefs. But i also think that, as human beings, our ideas - even the scientific ones - remain colored (biased ?) to some extend by a sort of emotional or affective content. Whatever we do or claim to be. And maybe in the past, we humans unduly misinterpreted & dressed some laws (or the offsprint of laws) with emotions & feelings that only existed into our brains, creating illusory gods. Though, great scientific discoverers also foster(ed) a religious vision. Isn't it a priest who first conjectured the Big Bang theory ? A further difficulty is the bias introduced on our representations by the way we experience things. We all experience gravity and classical mecanics, but do you feel or experience relativistic distortions or quantum entanglement in your daily life ? not yet i presume. But our human condition give us a direct experience of matter. Maybe this is a deep reason to feel ourselves materialists. Or all this is a semantic dispute. >> ... >> norm is fully rematterialized in a few >> months. > And at no time was Norm or Jeff ever anything > non-material. That's true, but when you see life as matter i see it as a first swerve from matter and its laws. half empty or full bottle ? You say a bird is still subjected to gravity, i say it has emancipated in a way and we both are true, it is a question of (contextual) viewing site. ... >>> What is "it" that obeys laws and is not >>> material? We were talking about non-material >>> stuff. What laws does something that I can't >>> even imagine existing obey? >> how does matter aggregate to make stars & >> planets ? > Gravity. yes, gravity, but beforehand space-time had to be seeded by small irregularities in the initial matter distribution. a few competing theories to account for these. >> how does matter aggregate to make life ? > Evolution. yes, evolution, but beforehand, the genesis of life (abiogenesis) of self-existing patterns. not so much clues about this. >>how does life aggregate to make consciousness ? >Intelligence and consciousness may have a >survival value. yes, it may and it has to, within neo Darwinian framework. Theoricists of consciousness are at sea. >> iteration seems to be a basic rule for >> creation, don't you think so ? >For evolution, not creation. Evolution of life >effects only patterns, it makes no new >material... unless universes also evolve? yes, or unless the iteration closes up into a creative loop (matter->life->consciousness->new matter engineered by conscious agents). ... >> is this kurzweil forum a massive Turing test ? > If I were him, I'd do it if I could. of course, so would I. >Are you really human? Or, are you some sort of >zombie chatbot yourself? well, i'm sure this definition does apply, to some extend: It also depends on your viewing site. Highly advanced space civilizations (those who have long ago mastered laws considered here as non-existent) could see me as a zombie chatbot. >Have you experienced Romona yet? Why doesn't >Romona ever come down here and chat with us? Maybe she has better to do with one of us (remember the symbiosis). ... >> do you know the meaning of "to transcend" ? > Do you? I find satisfactory the short definition given by R.K. (ie "to go beyond") in this debated chapter. ... >>> Are you sure all (or any) mathematics is >>> really self-consistent? >> no, i can't be sure. >You can if you want, look into Gödel's i was thinking to his work about undecidability as i said that i can't be sure. The funny thing is that Gödel considered himself as fundamentally Platonist. How naive. >> "Nature is the realization of the simplest >> conceivable mathematical ideas." >> (Einstein, in Quantum Questions, page 146) > He had a platonist's intuition in that regard and it may have mislead > him about quantum mechanics. maybe yes, though realization is also used to refer to the outcome of random processes, at least in French. I wonder how mathematical ideas (laws ?) do realize to build Nature, according to Einstein. But again, speaking about the platonist delirium, the way we experience things is decisive for our internal representations: when major conceptual breakthroughts were made, many of their discoverers, independantly of their cultural background, became intimately convinced that these were in a way pre-existing to them, just waiting for minds endeavoured "to boldly go where no one has gone before". > I wonder what Plato would have made of > Einstein's theories ? plato was not strictly speaking a scientist but a philosopher of science so i think he would have been more interested about the founding axiomatic of the general relativity than about the mathematical apparatus of it. >>the increadible appropriateness of the >>language of mathematics for the formulation >>of the laws of physics is very... >>disturbing to me. >Oh... Really? Disturbing? Yes, really, disturbing. I checked the word twice in my pocket dictionnary and this seemed an appropriate term to convey my feeling. >Is it because mathematical formulas can't express any philosophy or >experience beyond the Platonic mathematical experience which is >perhaps nothing but a fantasy world of infinite lines and perfect >spheres which may describe how our brains think about math, but not >what the universe really is ? I am not monomaniac or obsessed by the knowledge of the universal reality. I just have unanswered questions and i learn to live with them, being sometime troubled my some intellectual itching. But nothing really serious. >Is it because mathematical operations don't seem to be able to express >any teleology but only an ordered regularity and reactivity thus >suggesting there is no God? why would an underlying order/organization suggest that there is no God ? (btw, I tend to be a Buddhist, not a deist) >Is it because the use of math points to only measurability as a >measure of truth? no, the notion of measurability is vast enough for me not to get bored and my notion of truth transcends strict mathematical theories of proof, render it not fully measurable (but still experimentable). >Is it because at heart our mathematics can never be anything more than >an elaborate metaphor about the world we describe? Is is because this >math is only useful to technologists and really has nothing to say to >philosophers and theologists thus hinting at an explanatory emptiness >that makes you uncomfortable with what you can never know? nope. not only mathematics: my entire representation & belief system is a metaphor. I am not so uneasy to be only a mirror of things, i have enough to do trying to clean my own mirror to see more clearly. >Is it because no matter how many mathematical theories and equations >we muster to describe the universe all we'll have is pages upon pages >of mathematical symbols and there is no magic wand, no mental act of >concentration and imagination, no magic spell or prayer, that can ever no mental act of concentration and imagination ? are you trained in mathematics or science ? >turn those theories of everything into anything. They will always be >the symbols on paper that they are and only useful to technologists. and to theorists, and to economists, and also to artists, and many other people ranging from medicine to meteorological forecast. >They are, like trying to describe qualia via neural correlates, >missing something about what the universe is. yes, as if you try to put a wave into a tank to study it latter/apart jeff


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/11/2002 12:30 PM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>>the way we measure and interact with our >>universe depends on our state of knowledge of >>it (briefly said: i see & measure what i know), >>so your definition is highly evolutive. It >>defines the object of the scientific enquiry. >Yes, my definition allows for scientific >knowledge to evolve. It's function is merely to >keep science targeted on its proper focus, >explaining the measurable world. The universe is only what we know of it, by measuring it. that's beautiful, really. Or, when asked about the material world (your universe) if it is all there is, the answer: The universe is made of a fundamental measurable stuff called matter. We don't know exactly what it is but we measure it and we know that all is matter. ...will elegantly & definitly close the chapter. but for my own, i prefer einstein's insight: "The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand. . . It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength." [The World as I See It] >> Some of them, are not scientists, but as they >> idolize science, they see atoms like planetary >> systems, like solid stuff orbiting, whirling >> and other funny variations around the bohr's >> model. > You can't name a single person, eh? dominique, gérard, christiane, carine, isabelle. are you happy with all these names ? i can give you more. >You just assume you know how people around you >think. well, you know, you can interact with people around you, share points of view or oppose them, listen to what they say (in general, what they say reflects or expresses what they think), and sometimes learn from them. >What you describe (someone seeing an atom like a >planetary system) is really just being >undereducated. ok. this is your point of view. mine is that it is really just being not educated in science, which is not the same thing that being undereducated, except in the mind of the ayatollahs of scientism. [about science] >It's the only method that error corrects itself >by actually going out and taking measurements >and making experiments instead of just making >philosophical arguments. Are you kidding ? This is one of the basic purpose of life. As a child, you were provided some basic tools to interact with this new world and you had to edify a set of internal rules to fully do this. Sometimes, these rules were not appropriate and collided with reality, making you frustrated, jealous, anxious or whatever suffering. And you learnt to correct these rules. Educational principles are based on this. >> Though we can be amazed by the unprecedented >> efficiency of Science - as a reliable way to >> construct a dual knowledge (theorical & >> practical) - without endorsing this >> totalitarian point of view. >Up to a point. But in the end science is only >grounded in that materialist point of view. "in the end" ? what do you know of the end of science ? am i talking to god ? ... >> Aren't you simply -like me- someone convinced >> by the relevance, the interest, the promises >> of the scientific exploration ? > Up to a point. to what point ? ... >>> Philosophical Materialism postulates >>> that "non physical" phenomena are "all in the >>> mind." For example, Plato's ideal non- >>> physical, non-material world of ideal forms >>> exists only in Plato's mind. Not really, it is available in many locations on the world wide web, in many books, in many heads. Not so bad, so many centuries after he died. Will it be the same for your thoughts ? >> yes, what is non-scientific is non-existent. >> what the human mind cannot conceive does not >> exist. >That's not what I said. In fact, in a previous >post I said the opposite. >There are probably things (and patterns) that >exist that are impossible for the human mind to >concieve or understand. The reason that >religious ideas are rejected is exactly because >they are concieved but refer to nothing >material, measurable... Nothing but their own >chain of ideas. Nothing but apparent mental >phenomena. read again Einstein, and so many great names of this science which help you think. >> do you have a wife or children maybe ? > No. I broke up with my last girlfriend almost a > decade ago and have not gotten another. >> If so, you probably think that their love for >> you, or your love for them, is only a mere >> biological outcome, a chemical maeltrom ? >That's over-simplistic, but yes. There is >evidence to back up that point of view. Our >sense of "love," of right and wrong even, have >probably evolved because they have proven >advantageous to our survival. Science has >demonstrated that humans do have pheremones and >other chemical triggers for behavior. And to some extend, that's probably a sufficient description. But how, for instance, should we account for people who spontaneously sacrifice themselves to save other lives, sometimes anonymously, without any reward, without any religious hope ? Do you consider that kind of altuistic behaviours as a human malfunction ? >> what kind of dispirited world do you live in ? >Love, interest in other people, etc. are logical >behavioral strategies. The people we know well, >who know us well, they are our most valuable >partners. So, interest in other people has a >survival advantage. It goes speaking of humans, do you consider a partner as a "survival advantage" ? why don't you seek for this advantage ? >>...but measurability is constantly evolving >>and upgraded so as for our scientific knowledge >>So what you consider as non-existent today,will >>become existent tomorrow only because you will >>be provided the conceptual/theorical tool to >>grasp it or the derived instrument to measure >>it ? >Yes. It's only effectively non-existent if you >can't measure it or its effect on the world in >ome way. However, since all human perception is >a form of measurement it's unlikely that there >are phenomena, other than mental phenomena, that >people can experience but scientific instruments >can't. This is a fascinating view of science, even when you try to hide behind adverbs. Have you heard about a strange phenomena observed in cristallography but also in many other fields: a brand new crystal form is hard to synthesize at first but that further syntheses become easier and easier ? >>For my own, since i more inclined to think that >>what we know (hence can measure)is immeasurably >>smaller than what remains to be known, i humbly >>recognize an horizon to my knowledge and the >>fact that some things can exist beyond that >>horizon. >But remember, Plato, Dembski, religion... these >ideas are not a recognition that there are >things beyond our knowledge, they are claims to >knowledge that has no means by which it can >really be known. I don't know Dembski's ideas but there are undoubtedly knowledges that are not amenable to the current science, or that will never be. If we were to deal with religious matters, we should limit our scope of enquiry to some revealed truths that are not contaminated with human misconceptions. A very difficult - if not impossible - task, all the more since many of these truthes are usually expressed by means of parabols, myths or poetry, which is obviously not the langage of science. Yet, i believe that what you disqualify as religiosity can foster a scientific vision. > ...There's a difference between >admitting you don't know and being wrong about >what you do know. yes, sure, and you think i am wrong about i know ? all what we know by science is ultimately (i like adverbs too) wrong or uncomplete, and is meant to be discovered as such. Though, it is useful. Ideas can be temporary vehicles, they can be partly wrong & true, or none of them, or be totally wrong but linking to a truth. >Religious ideas have consistently been proven >wrong by science. Yes, some of them have. Do you infer that all of them will be disproven by science ? >>...whether it has laws or principles of action. >>If they exist, they should be discovered to be >>the same in essence for all human believers. >They could be similar not because they reference >a real God or supernatural realm, but because >they are concieved by very similar human brains, >all built by a similar genetic blueprint, all >experiencing a similar world. or they originate from the same source. >> how two distinct realities (science and faith) > In what way is "faith" a reality ? In the way that many human on earth are faithful and act accordingly. They create a reality that you can access to or interact with. >> could be reconciliated within each of us. >Religious faith merely pretends to know more >than science. in your mind. >> The result, this concordat, will not be >> directly subjected to scientific enquiry but >> it can enrich (to my point of view) both of >> these realities to provide, for exemple, new >> visions to be translated into scientific terms >> and then tested. >Well, you can assume you know things that are >not in fact known, that have never been tested >by scientific experiment... i'm tired trying to explain in a langage which is not mine. i stop for now. jeff


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/12/2002 12:23 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>... i prefer einstein's insight: > > "The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest > and noblest motive for scientific research. ... Einstein seems to have been a pantheist. > Only those who realize the immense efforts and, > above all, the devotion without which pioneer > work in theoretical science cannot be achieved > are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out > of which alone such work, remote as it is from > the immediate realities of life, can issue. What > a deep conviction of the rationality of the > universe and what a yearning to understand. . . > It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man > such strength." [The World as I See It] Of course, I don't like Einstein's choice of words. There appear to be other kinds of "religious feelings" and motivations in the minds of those who consider themselves believers that have nothing to do with Einstein's feelings. I'd say Einstein is using the term religion metaphorically for his statement doesn't jibe with a dictionary definition of "religious." >> You can't name a single person, eh? > > dominique, gérard, christiane, carine, isabelle. > are you happy with all these names ? i can give > you more. Very funny. I don't know any of those people, do they post messages anywhere on the net, write books about their views? You took advantage of the ambiguity in my words. > you can interact with people around you, share > points of view or oppose them, listen to what > they say (in general, what they say reflects or > expresses what they think), and sometimes learn > from them. You can also prejudge people and be blinded by those prejudices. I'm not saying you are, just that I don't know. > ... really just being not educated in science, > which is not the same thing that being > undereducated, except in the mind of the ayatollahs > of scientism. Ayatollahs of scientism? Well, I must be one of the ayatollahs because I think people who don't have a basic grasp of what science has to say about the modern understanding of the atom do not have enough of a well rounded education to paricipate the important political debates of our time. > [about science] >> It's the only method that error corrects itself >> by actually going out and taking measurements >> and making experiments instead of just making >> philosophical arguments. > > Are you kidding ? > This is one of the basic purpose of life. Life has a purpose? In what way? The point is in your favor. You're right, science just does what we all do naturally in life, just on a more refined scale. However, there are things which block this natural process. Religion tends to be one of them. > As a child, you were provided some basic tools > to interact with this new world and you had to > edify a set of internal rules to fully do this. > Sometimes, these rules were not appropriate and > collided with reality, making you frustrated, > jealous, anxious or whatever suffering. And you > learnt to correct these rules. Educational > principles are based on this. That's not the same thing as science. It's a more general statement. Science is like that, but more focused. A child isn't necessarily given a rule that statements about reality must be "flasifiable" or "testable" to be valid. In fact, the usual upbringing punishes a child for testing outside the boudary of social rules and finding out which statements are false. Thus, lying to your parents, cheating on tests, etc. can be a form of scientific experimentation. Nor are all children told about Occam's Razor and other rules for judging theory and hypothesis. These error correcting features of science are not standard. Outside of science, the ideas that criticize modern science, the people that Kurzweil is debatting in this book we are reading here, some of them have taken an anti-science stance and do offer up ideas that violate Occam's Razon and falsifiability. >>> Though we can be amazed by the unprecedented >>> efficiency of Science - as a reliable way to >>> construct a dual knowledge (theorical & >>> practical) - without endorsing this >>> totalitarian point of view. >> >> Up to a point. But in the end science is only >> grounded in that materialist point of view. > > "in the end" ? what do you know of the end of > science ? am i talking to god ? Yes. At least I will be after the singularity. Okay, I'm kidding. I'm not talking about the end of science. I'm talking about the here and now of this forum. It's in reference to the book we're supposedly disscusing on this forum. The end is after all the arguments are made against Kurzweil's claims. Kurzweil's future technologies are grounded in materialism, it's the primary strength of his argument. To assume otherwise, to assume that there is something that cannot be measured or percieved by the measuring senses of the human animal but yet can be known by "a non-material mind" as Dembski and Denton seem to suggest does not constitute a valid argument. Science has no choice but to test it's theories against measured material phenomena. Matter is the only thing you can experiment with. ... >>> Aren't you simply -like me- someone convinced >>> by the relevance, the interest, the promises >>> of the scientific exploration ? >> >> Up to a point. > > to what point ? The point where science makes the technology I want to have. I'm only mildly curious about things like Black Holes, the formation of galaxies and the geology of the moon. I'm more interested in and promised by the technological exploitation of science. That's the real final test of human knowledge. In the end the only thing we really know is how to do things. You can theorize and speculate all you want about the world beyond, but you don't really know anything certain if you don't know how to do something with that knowledge. Our only real certainty is the certainty of our ability to accomplish things. As such there is no real test of most of the cosmological theories about the origins of the universe. ... >>>> Philosophical Materialism postulates >>>> that "non physical" phenomena are "all in the >>>> mind." For example, Plato's ideal non- >>>> physical, non-material world of ideal forms >>>> exists only in Plato's mind. > > Not really, it is available in many locations > on the world wide web, in many books, in many > heads. Plato never saw the internet, nor did Plato write about what he found in my head, only his own. He had only words for clues about what was in other people's heads. Plato's ideal forms were Plato's alone, they may have been similar to other constructions in other people's brains, made from the same genetic blueprint, but not necessarily identical and never "the same." What exists in books and on the internet are only imperfect imitations of what was in Plato's head. They are only enough to give you a dim clue of how Plato's brain really worked and what inner visions he saw in his mind. > Not so bad, so many centuries after he died. > Will it be the same for your thoughts ? Who knows. > ...read again Einstein, and so many great names > of this science which help you think. Read what by Einstein? > But how, for instance, should we account for > people who spontaneously sacrifice themselves to > save other lives, ... The first thing you have to remember is that those who sacrifice themselves to save others aren't the only ones who sacrifice themselves. On Sept 11 of 2001 a group of Islamic fundamentalists flew a few airplanes into a couple skyscrapers not to save people, but to kill them. There are also suicide bombers. > sometimes anonymously, without any reward, > without any religious hope ? Do you consider > that kind of altuistic behaviours as a human > malfunction ? Malfunction implies there is a function. The function such self-sacrifice works against is survival of the individual, but it works toward another function, the survival of the larger gene human pool. >... do you consider a partner as a "survival > advantage" ? why don't you seek for this > advantage ? Because I have no need or desire for a marriage partner. Other kinds of partners I get on occasion. > Have you heard about a strange phenomena observed > in cristallography but also in many other fields: > a brand new crystal form is hard to synthesize at > first but that further syntheses become easier and > easier ? Nope. > I don't know Dembski's ideas but there are > undoubtedly knowledges that are not amenable > to the current science, or that will never be. http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/meme/memelist.html?m%3D19 http://www.kurzweilai.net/bios/frame.html?main=/bios/bio0191.html http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/ http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/replynfl.html http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm > If we were to deal with religious matters, we > should limit our scope of enquiry to some > revealed truths that are not contaminated with > human misconceptions. A very difficult - if not > impossible - task, So, we should try to do something impossible? > ...all the more since many of these truthes > are usually expressed by means of parabols, > myths or poetry, which is obviously not the > langage of science. Yet, i believe that what > you disqualify as religiosity can foster a > scientific vision. Well, I don't entirely disagree. People are religious and what happens in the brain of religious people can and has been studied. Religion does refer to one area available to materialist investigation; mental phenomena, seen as brain phenomena. http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum/EpilepsyF/11.17.971.12AMNeuro-EpilepticO http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Eguae.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1728.77081 http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1175/n2_v31/21280041/p1/article.jhtml?term=god http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm http://www.scienceandreligion.com/b_myst_2.html


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/12/2002 3:09 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Norm, earlier, you wrote: > > If there were a hidden actor who could do that, you'd certainly try to get to know him and be on his good side. and I wrote: > Then the actor would not be hidden. Different issue. I might have missed your point. If you mean "believing (religiously, faith) in a hidden actor" would affect how a person thus behaves in the world, this is no doubt true. But studying the world to develop "predictive rules" (science) would be a fruitless exercise, since no matter how "consistent" the derived rules might appear, they could change in a flash, at the whim of the "hidden actor". Hence, the _honest_ scientist cannot operate from the "hidden actor" premise. The entire enterprise consists of finding all non-hidden-actor explanations for observable manifestation. The only thing that that "scientist" and the "religious" have in common, is the inability to "prove absolutely" that their particular method is the one that leads to some (possibly unapproachable) real-final-truth behind the universe. Cheers! ____tony____(TB)


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/12/2002 5:12 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> Norm, earlier, you wrote: > >>> If there were a hidden actor who could >>> do that, you'd certainly try to get to >>> know him and be on his good side. > > and I wrote: >> Then the actor would not be hidden. >> Different issue. > > I might have missed your point. If you > mean "believing (religiously, faith) in > a hidden actor" would affect how a person > thus behaves in the world, this is no > doubt true. That's only part of my point. There are other ways a so called "hidden actor" could be manifest. For example, the Bible talks about God hiding from the wise and powerful to reveal himself to the poor and down trodden. In such a case, the hidden actor is only hidden from some. Such a case could be like the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" where people are told the Emperor's clothes are only visible to people of a higher mental state and so admitting you don't see the clothes is akin to saying you're of some lower mental state, so everybody lies and has doubts about their own mental state. People who believe in God do not consider God to be hidden. They think they experience him. Some fundamentalists (and William Dembski) think they see signs of God in the design of nature and reject evolution. > But studying the world to develop "predictive > rules" (science) would be a fruitless exercise, > since no matter how "consistent" the derived > rules might appear, they could change in a > flash, at the whim of the "hidden actor". It depends on what you mean by God. To Einstein "God" meant the order inherent in the universe, not the possibility of prayer's answered or a god that acted on whim.


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/12/2002 5:44 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Norm, I understand the intent, but I claim there is a fundamental problem. Suppose God chose only to reveal Godself to half of us. What does "reveal" mean to a conscious mind? A "willful disbeliever" is not going to be convinced by anything presented to the senses, as this "demonstration" might just as well be a fancy trick by some more-powerful non-god-being, still manifest of "matter". Alternately, if God "changed our minds by force", as it were, they are not "our minds" at all. If someone takes the word "God" to mean "the order present in the universe", it once again becomes the unreachable, underlying cause, and not (of necessity) a conscious being who deliberately created or maintains the order. Alternately, if one posits a "conscious-being-God" as responsible for the "order", they might alter it at any point, being that it is in their power. What it means to "Be a Mind" seems to be avoided in all of this. Cheers! ____tony____


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/12/2002 5:57 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
It may (may) help to try and distinguish between "argument over terms" and "argument over principles". If the former is confused, resolution of the latter becomes truly hopeless. The "principles" argument, if I mght put it so, is whether the "prime-cause-of-everything" is/was a "conscious cause" or a "non-conscious-cause". Words like "God" and "Order", if used interchangeably, will not suffice to resolve (even) what the issue is ABOUT, no less lead to any agreeable answer. If we are consistent in terms, we may discover that the assertion "X is revealed only to believers in X" is both irrefutable, and non-demonstrable (no less, circular.) ____tony____


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/13/2002 11:25 AM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> It may (may) help to try and distinguish > between "argument over terms" and "argument > over principles". If the former is confused, > resolution of the latter becomes truly > hopeless. Good point. > The "principles" argument, if I mght put it so, > is whether the "prime-cause-of-everything" > is/was a "conscious cause" or a "non-conscious- > cause". Alas, "consciousness" itself is one of the terms that is confused by different meanings. > Words like "God" and "Order", if used > interchangeably, will not suffice to resolve > (even) what the issue is ABOUT, no less lead to > any agreeable answer. Blame pantheism and deism. > If we are consistent in terms, we may discover > that the assertion > > "X is revealed only to believers in X" That not only applies to religion, it applies to the assumptions of materialism. > is both irrefutable, and non-demonstrable (no > less, circular.) I agree.


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/12/2002 6:42 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> What does "reveal" mean to a conscious mind? Check out these links, already posted here, but also relevant to your question: http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum/EpilepsyF/11.17.971.12AMNeuro-EpilepticO http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Eguae.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1728.77081 http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1175/n2_v31/21280041/p1/article.jhtml?term=god http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm http://www.scienceandreligion.com/b_myst_2.html > Alternately, if God "changed our minds by > force", as it were, they are not "our minds" at > all. That's the way it often happens in the Bible and yes, our minds are not our own. > If someone takes the word "God" to mean "the > order present in the universe", it once again > becomes the unreachable, underlying cause, and > not (of necessity) a conscious being who > deliberately created or maintains the order. > > Alternately, if one posits a "conscious-being- > God" as responsible for the "order", they might > alter it at any point, being that it is in > their power. > > What it means to "Be a Mind" seems to be > avoided in all of this. Yep, religious people don't seem to be able to get a grip on the fact that we explain the mind in naturalistic terms, not nature in terms of mind. Also, a lot of the terminology is purposefully designed to confuse. Einstein, Jefferson, and many public figures who get quoted by both atheists and theists are purposefully using a fuzzy terminology. It's a way of speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once. Kurzweil has a bit of this trait himself. We live in a world that is made up of mostly believers in religion and these terminologies are designed to say what we want without being easily understood by an enemy camp.


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/17/2002 12:56 PM by TonyCastaldo@Yahoo.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> The only thing that that "scientist" and the "religious" have in common, is the inability to "prove absolutely" that their particular method is the one that leads to some (possibly unapproachable) real-final-truth behind the universe. This is the other Tony, TC, and an atheist and scientist. I disagree. We have lots in common. In particular the operation of our minds. We all argue from truths we find self-evident. Unfortunately, the self-evident fact of a God and/or soul to the religious is not self-evident to the rest of us. Having argued seemingly interminably with the religious I find the argument always comes down to them saying "I can't believe that." After twenty years I finally chose to take this literally, they are incapable of believing there is no God, no matter how much evidence, statistical or otherwise, is thrown before them. No matter how cogently the point is argued. No matter what is said. All the rest of their argument flows from this fact that is to them incontrovertible. The precise nature of God or the soul might be argued, but not the very existence of it. The mental operation is similar. For me and my atheist friends the evidence is overwhelmingly against God or souls, but in truth this springs from beliefs in physics, mathematics, logic and even probability we take as self-evident. To us it simply makes no sense to believe in such falsehoods, they are dangerous and counter-productive and obviously we don't find God or a soul to be remotely self-evident. But I know my own mind well enough that I can posit a hypothetical, "Say an immortal soul exists", and from there I can see how the argument would evolve to the current claims of religious believers. They think the same as us; it is just our core beliefs that differ. By "core" I mean those beliefs that they cannot explain except emotionally; they *know* they have a soul, so much of their emotional well-being hangs on that fact that they will never be dissauded from it. Next time you hear someone say "I can't believe that," take it literally, they are talking about devastating emotional trauma if they were to stop believing in their soul. Do atheists have such beliefs? I'm not so sure. I know two dollars plus two dollars makes four dollars, but that kind of thing is self-evident to almost everyone. As far as believing things that I only "know" in terms of a feeling, I don't think I do. Instead I have a basic skepticism in claims that cannot be proven; a lack of faith and a willingness to say "I don't know," at least until overwhelming evidence arrives. How did the universe start? I don't know. I am more comfortable saying "I Don't Know" than proposing a God that created it, and then having to ask "How did God come to be?" I don't know. For those that have answered "He was always there," I say "Then let us just say the universe was always here, we don't know where it came from, and we can cut God out of the picture." They say "I can't believe that." I get that. I really do. TC


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/18/2002 8:29 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> They say "I can't believe that." > > I get that. I really do. How much do you "get that" ? Do you think it might be indicative of a different state of consciousness?


	Re: I get that. posted on 07/19/2002 12:22 AM by TonyCastaldo@Yahoo.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> How much do you "get that" ? Completely. They are as incapable of giving up their soul as I am incapable of believing in one. >> Do you think it might be indicative of a different state of consciousness? Absolutely. Remember that some of these religious people I love and would die to protect, including my wife and members of my family. Having said that, they are different than me. I will be rude and say they are not as smart as me, as evidenced by my consistently high IQ testing scores, my college grades (I kept a 4.0 taking 27 hours per semester my first year in college), and in my earnings and profession (contract digital signal processing for weapons, sensors and communications), in which I am in the top 1% of earners. I am always better than they are at analysis, logic and math. So is it a different state of consciousness? Yes. Not better. Not higher. Worse, in most respects. The religious are incapable of reasoning about God objectively; they must bring their feelings into the argument. They presuppose the existence of the God they are arguing for. They insist an intelligent designer is present because an intelligent design is present; a fallacy. To put this in terms of a super-intelligent AI, it would be like claiming an even SMARTER AI had to exist to create the super-intelligent AI, and an even SMARTER human had to exist to create the even smarter AI. It simply isn't true; intelligence and consciousness, however inpenetrable they may seem, can arise from simpler, mindless rules like "random mutation" and "survival of the fittest". So yes, it suggests to me a different state of consciousness, an impaired state in which simple logic and arithmetic and easily observed evolution (You can watch evolution in action among bacteria in just a few days) is all cast aside. It suggests to me a consciousness so wedded to the idea of immortality and so fearful of the abyss that it refuses to really believe in anything that contradicts that, and ends up so marinated in false reasoning that it is easily tricked and gulled into giving money, time and devotion to dressed up charlatans, liars, and saddest of all to other dupes that really believe the bullshit they spoon feed to the masses. It suggests to me a consciousness operating at less than half capacity, under the impression that somehow God will punish the wicked, thereby giving the wicked a free ride through life, harming others with impunity because God doesn't really ever do anything about them. A consciousness that doesn't even realize their belief visits harm and horror on their fellow man because their logic has been corrupted by years of priests and parents short-circuiting their natural skepticism by saying "It's true because I say it's true," thereby strangling their natural scientist in its crib, dooming that person to a life of taking things on "faith" and growing up to be exploited by every authority figure they encounter, priests, police, bosses, politicians and lovers, condemned to a life of near slavery. It suggests to me another state of consciousness, a state of damage, a state of addiction to a concept of immortality rooted in a fear of non-existence and a fear of random losses. I find the religious astonishingly self-centered. There have been some kidnappings of young girls, recently. Almost all young girls believe in God, chances are those young virgins were praying their heads off and begging God to save them as they were raped and choked to death. So God didn't listen to those desperate prayers or the fervent prayers of their mothers; yet grown professional football players think praying will help them win games; and I know grown adults that think God will keep them from getting into a car accident or will help them find a job. And don't bother telling me about God's plan: If his plan involves a six year old being raped to death by a drunken janitor, I vote for another plan. If the current situation is a plan, God is a sick bastard, a pedophile sadist, a rapist, a serial killer that likes to slice chunks out of his living victims with razor blades, a suicide bomber in a kindergarten, a drug addict driving his father to suicide. And don't bring up Satan unless you want to admit God is not all powerful. Yes, it suggests a different state of consciousness. A state of suspended logic and wishful thinking, a state of pure emotion uninformed by what should be common sense. And still I love my wife and family. They are wrong and their wrongness contributes to evil in the world. Not greatly, but it contributes. They can't help it. Their fear of a world without souls and a God and an afterlife is too great, and atheism offers nothing to alleviate that. So I forgive them. Being an atheist doesn't make me heartless or emotionless. I sympathize with their fears, I understand them. Yes, I get that.


	Re: I get that. posted on 07/19/2002 1:21 AM by azb0@earthlink.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Wow Tony. That was intense :) I largely agree with your premises, although I don't know that "intelligence" is necessarily a factor (there are rational, intelligent, genius-level folks who have the believe-in-God thing as well.) They might argue, "The appearance of fallacy is due to your belief in the primacy of logic, that the universe is amenable to logical explication." In other words, "give up logic, and the fallacy disappears." Both sides, (although perhaps more on the God-side) feel that even if the "we" cannot fathom the explanation of everything, that explanation must exist. Their explanation "cuts to the chase", admittedly. It is "most unfortunate" that these "cut to the chase" believers seem way disproportionally to fall prey to the "I spoke to God, and He tells me that YOU should do X" exploiters. Most of human suffering seems rooted in this extension of "validity of supreme authority" to "submit to someone who claims to speak for supreme authority" trap. There are some folks who seem to have "jumped the fence", from time to time, in either direction, so it may not be entirely fixed. I liken it to the catastrophy-theory "fight-or-flight" reaction, taken to extreme. Cheers! ____tony b____


	Re: That was intense! posted on 07/19/2002 9:42 AM by TonyCastaldo@Yahoo.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Thanks. I know you share some of these views so don't think I'm railing against you; I'm just illuminating a few points. >> I don't know that "intelligence" is necessarily a factor (there are rational, intelligent, genius-level folks who have the believe-in-God thing as well.) A good point that illustrates intelligence is not enough. I have talked to a handful of such people and their argument for God is also emotion based. Ultimately (I think) fear based, even if they won't admit it. To come to atheism as a logical conclusion a person obviously needs the logic to see it is the only outcome that makes any sense, but also the courage to surrender their fantasies of immortality and cosmic justice. It takes courage because it exposes them to random danger and puts responsibility for the safety and happiness of them and their family in their own hands. God won't protect them. It takes courage because it means this life is their only life, and it isn't easy to face non-existence. The atheist that sacrifices his life for another sacrifices far more than the Christian or reincarnationist; because those people believe their essence will continue after the sacrifice, while the atheist knows he is giving everything. An atheist's sacrifice is greater than Christ's on the cross; because Christ didn't think it was oblivion. >> They might argue, "The appearance of fallacy is due to your belief in the primacy of logic, that the universe is amenable to logical explication." In other words, "give up logic, and the fallacy disappears." Yes. I DO believe in the primacy of logic. I have direct experience that the universe is amenable to logical explication, a lifetime of it, and so does every person on the planet. Gravity works, no matter how much you pray. And they don't "Give up logic", they only give up parts of it. If they truly gave up logic they'd have no reason to believe in God, because nothing would have to be explained. Everything could be as it is because that is the way it is. No, they have to corrupt the use of logic entirely. They have to look at clear evidence and conclude that God had reasons we cannot fathom. My pedophile rapist example illustrates this. To believe God is all powerful and does not prevent this defies logic. To believe God loves children and allows them to suffer and lose their life in the most painful, humiliating and pointless way possible, scarring their parents with a horror for the rest of their lives, that defies logic. It isn't that something worse could happen; God could prevent that too. God could give the sick bastard a stroke that killed him before he ever spoke to the child; or better yet simply change the pedophile's mind and let masturbation suffice. To imagine there is some cosmic logic that makes such an act PREFERABLE to a million less harmful alternatives is the fallacy. It presumes logic and order in the world where non exists. >> Both sides feel that even if "we" cannot fathom the explanation of everything, that explanation must exist. I disagree. Some things are chaotic systems, including the human mind and life. By chaotic I mean the mathematical definiton, in which a tiny changes in a variable can lead to a major difference in the system-state down the road. So some things happen that cannot really be explained at all. Why Child X instead of Child Y? No real reason, a confluence of random crap, including whatever led the pedophile to that street, what motivations had X outside playing instead of inside watching cartoons or playing a game, which includes the fact that it wasn't raining and perhaps that her parents trusted in God to protect her, in her own front yard. In these cases it is an accident of time and place, any real explanation will contain so many senseless details that it will be unsatisfying. The real explanation is the pedophile is sick, he determined to acquire a child, and the little dead girl is the first one he happened across that he could take with impunity. >> Most of human suffering seems rooted in this extension of "validity of supreme authority" to "submit to someone who claims to speak for supreme authority" trap. Yes, a great deal of it. Out of fear a person is convinced to surrender a large portion of his free will for an afterlife behind the curtain, to be delivered only upon death. To believe it they have to believe in something they were told, without any objective evidence at all. This is the very definition of faith; to believe the Bible is the word of God simply because it (written by men) and others say it is, and after some time of hearing this perhaps some personal and powerful emotion accepting that as truth. Once a person has made this leap and bypassed (or destroyed) their ability to determine truth objectively, they can make it repeatedly. They believe without evidence. And that is a paradise for con men, liars and thieves. >> Some can cross over... Some can, but it usually takes a catastrophe. It did not for me; I arrived at non-belief in the Christian God around the age of 10, but even then I had some mystical ideas. I don't think I rejected all supernaturalism until I was about 20. Which seems late, but I didn't claim to be the smartest person on the planet and I had the same emotions to struggle with as everybody else. (Of course that will be the line quoted in rebuttal; as if admitting I am not the smartest person somehow implies I am an idiot and thereby invalidates my entire argument -- It is common for the religious, steeped in authoritarian culture, to confuse attacking a person with attacking their logic. And for their audience I guess they ARE the same!) The truth is most people aren't mugged, raped, crippled or getting their children murdered, so in their experience life is going OK and God is protecting them and giving them what they need. It goes back to self-centering. As long as it is happening to someone else they don't have to think too much about what that implies for them. In fact they are actively DISCOURAGED from thinking about that with facile explanations from the intellectually damaged telling them God has a mysterious plan and still loves them; that this life isn't important; that they will be reunited with their lost ones. They are living their lives at random and calling it a plan. Perhaps if a trauma is severe enough, they break through and realize God didn't protect them and doesn't love them, that in fact God doesn't exist. but as much as I would welcome another atheist, I don't wish such trauma on anybody. I'd rather see them deluded and reasonably happy. TC


	Re: That was intense! posted on 07/19/2002 1:34 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Tony, I hear you. My reason for claiming to be "agnostic", rather than atheist on the general "supreme being thing" is that I generally cannot commit myself to "believe" in that to which I cannot "prove via reason". Of course, I am taking this position, using "Supreme Being" in a sense to which most God-believers would be abhorrent. It simply designates "some sort of ontologically removed intelligence supporting or responsible for everything", and not the "loving, angry, jealous, ... God that cares (or even considers) individuals". Since I cannot "rule out by pure logic" such a "God", to believe it does not exist is just as unsubstatiable a belief as believing it does exist. What really Blows My Mind are those who believe in the (typically) biblical God, along with heaven and hell, and can ACTUALLY concieve that they might be able to spend "blissful eternity in God's presence", while their disbelieving brothers and sisters spend FOREVER in the Burning Torment of Hell. To me, that kind of belief represents a FUNDAMENTAL disconnect with the very concept of having a "mind capable of feeling". Their ability to rationalize this to themselves is unfathomable to me. BTW, interested in what you think of the "Continuity of Being" post. Cheers! ____tony b____


	Re: That was intense! posted on 07/19/2002 2:33 PM by TonyCastaldo@Yahoo.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I don't understand why you can't rule out a supreme being, of whatever form, on purely logical grounds. I do. The arguments for one are tautological or circular. Nobody attempts to explain the origin of God; yet uses God to explain all unknown things. That is not just senseless, logically speaking, but defeating true insight by putting a facade of "explanation" in front of the truth. I cannot prove unicorns have never existed, or that dinosaurs did not roam the earth a hundred million years ago speaking conversational Latin, or that Stephen King is not receiving his books telepathically from aliens in the Andromeda Galaxy. Yet I do not reserve even a smidgen of maybe for these "possibilities" because to do so is insane. Logic tells me the difference between pure invention and actual possibility. I can't imagine any reason for even believing in the possibility of a supreme being; other than emotional ones. The basic logic is this: To fit the facts this intelligence needs to create the universe then step aside and let it run without intervention for 13 billion years, give or take a few billion. Let's not examine unknowable motivations for doing this; instead let's examine why even suppose an intelligent being? So we can satisfy our sense of cause and effect, I think. Where did the Universe come from? When did Time start? When will it end? What exactly does it mean to not have time before time started, or not have time after time ends? These questions are not answered by supposing an infinite intelligence, they are just rephrased and removed once from our inspection. They become "Where did God come from?" And similarly unanswerable questions. Anybody that believes in a supreme being, including yourself, replaces one set of very difficult questions (but just possibly answerable ones) with impossible to answer questions that tie the inquisitive mind into circular Gordian knots. Can you prove Tyrannosaurs did not tell ribald jokes in a language with a grammar amazingly like that of 12th Century Spanish? No. Can I prove the Universe is not an intelligent design? Of course not, but logic tells me it is pointless to think in the direction of the obviously false, except in the pursuit of pure entertainment. TC


	Re: That was intense! posted on 07/19/2002 2:58 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
TC, I am really trying to deal in "formalisms" here. In this sense, failure to find a logical reason for "supposing an unknowable exists" is not equivalent to "ruling it out on logical grounds." What you are really saying (I think) is that such supposition serves no purpose in the furtherance of "logical investigation" of truth. But the (supposed) "truth", felt or seen by the "believers" is NOT an "evidentiary article" employable in the furtherance of intellectual endeavors. The fact that many of them often "try" to use it so, is simply evidence of their own confusion about the "faith" they claim to possess. They fundamentally believe it is a matter of "faith", and yet they fall into the intellectual's trap of trying to argue why their "faith" is justified. "Justification for Faith" is oxymoronic. Faith needs no justification. In a similar way, the successes of the scientific method in producing "predictably repeatable understanding" of the universe, only lends strength in the "truthfulness-finding of the endeavor" if one already has faith that "predictably repeatable defines or converges to truthfulness". I work from the assumption that it DOES converge to truthfulness. But I also recognize this to be an article of my "faith", so to speak, and fundamentally unprovable. Cheers! ____tony b____


	Re: That was intense! posted on 07/19/2002 3:13 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
TC, Your last sentence: > "Can I prove the Universe is not an intelligent design? Of course not, but logic tells me it is pointless to think in the direction of the obviously false, except in the pursuit of pure entertainment." This seems an inconsistent position to me. It seems you are saying that if you cannot prove something, it must lie "in the direction of the obviously false". Proposition A: The universe is an intelligent design (so, try to prove a negative) Proposition B: The universe has thoughtless origin (so, try to prove a negative) Seems that either way, the "unprovability of the negative, OR positive" cannot be used to claim that either one lies in the direction of obvious falsehood. Cheers! ____tony b____


	Re: That was intense! posted on 07/19/2002 4:46 PM by TonyCastaldo@Yahoo.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
It isn't that the unprovable is obviously false. I was trying to point out that one can construct all sorts of unprovable hypothesis that are nevertheless so outlandish we would be insane to discuss them as if they were actually possible. "God" or a "supreme being" fall into this category of unprovable supposition. Proposing the infinitely complex to explain a rather trivial unanswerable question like "What was here before the universe existed?" is an obviously false step in the logic of understanding the universe. The only reason the God question gets better play is that so much rides on the answer; but logic tells us that the stakes don't change the logic. No matter how much money is riding on that blackjack hand in front of you, it doesn't change whether you should take the next card or pass on it. With your life riding on the game your emotions may beg you to stick on 14, but your intellect should know better. "Unprovable" does not mean "False". But the Supreme Being is unprovable precisely because believers purposely construct their arguments to preclude any logical investigation. For any observable phenomenon or experiment, the SB is capable of making it look precisely as if He is not there while actually being there. There is (by design) no possible experiment that will prove, unequivocally, that a supreme being exists or existed. And finally, because of this unprovability, there is no REASON for a supreme being to exist. It doesn't solve anything or change the outcome of any experiment. It has no demonstrable real world impact. The only logical conclusion is that the original thinkers on this problem, some 50,000 years ago, were in error. They were people without great experience just coming to grips with logic and infinite projection, so we shouldn't be surprised. The Supreme Being is a pure invention of the human mind. To retain it and keep your beliefs consistent with all of scientific knowledge you must reduce the SB to inconsequentiality. Which makes its existence a moot point. If it exists it has no effect on life; it can neither be contacted or communicated with; it cannot change anything. It is not worthy of discussion or contemplation; it means nothing. Why imagine Thor hurls lightning bolts out of anger, if you cannot determine what angers or pleases Thor? If nothing you do propitiates him; if no pattern of behavior emerges that either reduces or increases the frequency of lightning bolts? Thor might as well not exist, and if we get past the idea of Thor, perhaps we can study weather and at least PREDICT lightning bolts. Perhaps even control them someday and render Thor harmless to humans, or even beneficial. We could make Thor our servant providing natural electricity by the carload. Most people have gotten past the idea of Thor, admittedly. When they get past the SB perhaps we can study the "weather" attributed to it; the social dynamics, psychology and poverty that creates criminals and pedophiles. Perhaps we can get predictive about this and take precautions; as with weather. Perhaps we can exert control over it and retain freedom; minimizing or eliminating the mental illness that pervades the criminal element. Who knows? Nobody knows; because as long as people cling to the idea of a supreme being they interfere with the proper study of the problems. They don't want to fund them, they don't want to believe them, they don't want to rob their savior of the powers attributed to him. TC


	Re: That was intense! posted on 07/19/2002 5:54 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
TC, I agree (again) with the heart of your observations. And it is probably splitting hairs to point out that the "inconsequentiality" of a hopelessly inaccessible (or at least, unverifiably accessible) Supreme Being is precisely an inconsequentialty to "logic and the furtherance of science." The person who "prays for rain", and (by random accident) gets rain, will be exceedingly difficult to dissuade, even if the rain comes no more or less often than random chance might predict. The person who finds the strength to complete a hard task by repeating "I think I can, I think I can..." may be appealing to something "entirely in their head", but yet is still "effective" from their point of view. Your last paragraph really gets to the "nub" of the tension. As I wrote many posts earlier (in one of the threads, to "Wildcat"), it seems "both camps" want to "save" the other, and yet see each other as a threat or a frustration. The God-Plan types have a "plan" that works for them, despite all the horrors of the world. They see the "science-humanist-centric" types as suffering from what I might call "mortal hubris delusion". "We can only save ourselves, and we can succeed." They see this as a fundamental falsehood, and may even feel threatened by the "successes of science", in some cases. The Science-Plan types have a plan that works for them, but it works better when there is greater concentration of effort and education. These types will naturally feel frustrated by the complacent, and sometimes obstructionist activities of the others. That's my take on things, at least. Cheers! ____tony b____


	Re: I get that. posted on 07/19/2002 7:36 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> There have been some kidnappings of young > girls, recently. Almost all young girls believe > in God, chances are those young virgins were > praying their heads off and begging God to save > them as they were raped and choked to death. The above statement made me recall something I was told when I was younger, growing up religious. When I was having a hard time with life my father told me: "God never gives us anything we can't handle." It would certainly be nice to believe that, but what happened to those girls turns that statement into an obvious sham. I can't imagine those young girls handling what happened to them in any way. Yet, for me, I have been able to handle things in my life quite easily -- so far. Part of the "trauma" of becoming an atheist is knowing that this may not always be the case. There is no God that I can trust to protect me from things I can't handle. I've just been lucky so far. The human need for comforting lies and delusions probably powers a lot of religious belief.


	Re: I get that. posted on 07/20/2002 6:11 PM by TonyCastaldo@Yahoo.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Having been through two murders (my brother's, then years later my sister's) and the sudden deaths of my father (early heart attack) and a close cousin (hit by a car at night), I can say that you get through the horrible. The only other choices are suicide or insanity; I guess. Some people choose a form of insanity; I know a woman who hasn't gotten over the grief of her father dying (of cancer when he was 78) 15 years ago. It still brings her to tears, she is still in a depression over it. Which is a pity; because I'd met her father a few times. He was a cheerful person despite having faced many family deaths in his lifetime; and I doubt he would have wanted her to still be this despondent, or grieve forever. No, those little girls didn't "handle" it, unless handling it means injurious shock caused by excruciating, flesh ripping pain followed by death. And if that's what "handling it" means, then I'll be sarcastic and say Yeah -- God never deals you a situation you can't handle; not even a bullet through the brain. TC


	Re: I get that. posted on 07/20/2002 10:24 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Wanna see something really stupid and crazy? A claimed scientific proof of God: http://home.attbi.com/~ghammond/index.html Explore the depths of the religious delusion.


	Re: I get that. posted on 07/21/2002 2:06 PM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
hello there, >> Do you think it might be indicative of a >> different state of consciousness? >Absolutely. Remember that some of these >religious people I love and would die to >protect, including my wife and members of my >family. >Having said that, they are different than me. I >will be rude and say they are not as smart as me, maybe you are rude, yes, or maybe they enjoy a different kind of intelligence than yours [], or maybe you are just not as smart as you think. [] hence you cannot see it: do you find yourself sometimes frustrated by their seemingly approximative or fuzzy way to formulate things ? >as evidenced by my consistently high IQ testing >scores, my college grades (I kept a 4.0 taking >27 hours per semester my first year in college), do you think these tests can measure the whole & complete processing of our brains ? to me, IQ tests are very rought instruments. >and in my earnings and profession (contract >digital signal processing for weapons, sensors >and communications), in which I am in the top 1% >of earners. that's also part of my technical field. >I am always better than they are at analysis, >logic and math. maybe you've been harwired by your studies in a way they haven't ? >So is it a different state of consciousness? >Yes. Not better. Not higher. Worse, in most >respects. a different state of consciousness as a consequence of a possible different balance between the two specialized processors of our brain: http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/UBNRP/Split_Brain/Hemispheric_Specialization.html >The religious are incapable of reasoning about >God objectively; for most of them, there is no point to reason about God objectively. jeff


	Re: I get that. posted on 07/21/2002 5:11 PM by TonyCastaldo@Yahoo.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Hello back. >>.. or maybe they enjoy a different kind of intelligence than yours [*], or maybe you are just not as smart as you think. A common charge anytime somebody claims to be smart, and of course unanswerable. I won’t argue that I’m as smart as I think. The claim serves no purpose really, it is just bragging as a short cut toward saying "I am excellent at seeing all of the logic of problems, I can handle large amounts of information under stress with excellent results, and I can prove that with objective measures and a proven track record 25 years long". But what the religious enjoy is not intelligence, of which I have a specific and functional definition. The ability to ignore simple logic is not intelligence; clinging to emotion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not intelligence. Intelligence is partially the ability to detect patterns and project them. A machine can be intelligent without being conscious or emotional. The more "noise" a system can cut through and still detect a signal, the more intelligent it is. When we are talking about a radio frequency or even a stock market auto trader, we are talking about nano-intelligence, limited to a highly contained and defined environment. When we talk about the real world and human beings, we get a flood of information and the humans best able to filter out "the noise" and recognize underlying patterns are by definition the most intelligent. The patterns can be social, physical, monetary, biological, environmental, mathematical, whatever. Often a human is excellent at one or some, and suck at others. They are obviously the most likely to achieve what they want, but what they want depends upon their EMOTIONS. Some want to work as little as possible and be entertained; some want to make huge piles of money, some want to be in love and raise a family, some want power or prestige. Most want some combination of these things. >> Do you find yourself sometimes frustrated by their seemingly approximative or fuzzy way to formulate things ? NO, I don’t. I have excellent mental models of how their minds and emotions work. Frustration results from an inability to understand or influence. PART OF BEING INTELLIGENT is knowing when to quit; it is recognizing a pattern of non-discovery (or non-profit, or non-influence) and accepting it and moving on to something more profitable. Here is an example. My daughter Kim is impulsive with money, and extremely creative in justifying logically to herself what she emotionally wants to do. This year she inherited a large sum of money from a relative on her mother's side. I knew months before she got the check she would blow about $50,000 of it immediately. And sure enough, she went and bought an SUV, new off the lot, the day after the check cleared. She already had a car I had bought her new when she started college in ‘97, (a Honda for $20K) but she wanted an SUV bad. So I knew what would happen, but I also know what emotional buttons to push to get the majority of the money into non-liquid investments that will be protected from impulsivity and will earn her a relatively safe income and make her happier and more secure in the long run. (The same techniques that worked to get her to finish college, not switch her major, etc). I was not frustrated by the lost $50K in the least; I know my limitations and I worked for the three months between notification and final disbursement to remind her of her longer term goals and dreams and get her thinking beyond the big check. I might have been frustrated if, like her mother, I had tried to get her to invest all of it. That wasn’t going to happen, and I tried to explain that to my wife as well. I wasn’t frustrated when my wife continued to the point of a yelling argument with Kim either – My wife has difficulty letting go (she tells Kim "I’m not trying to run your life, sweetheart, but you’re making a HUGE MISTAKE!") (Which I find hilarious, because OF COURSE she's trying to run her life...) I gave my best shot at preserving harmony, it didn’t work, and there wasn’t a lot else I could do but watch it happen. They made up quickly enough, which I anticipated also (although my wife still grumbles about the SUV, of course). No I'm not frustrated by their thinking. I have a good track record of predicting what will happen with them. They know it. I tell them, and I know when to quit repeating myself. I think frustration results from a desire for control, and I don't exactly desire that. I want them to be happy so I warn them or try to tell them what might happen, but harping on it will only make them unhappy, too. It would have to be pretty damn important for me to force my will on them and control them. A drug addiction or escaping an abusive boyfriend might qualify, but so far nothing life threatening has occurred. Lost jobs and screwed up semesters and squandered money aren't bad enough, sometimes life experience is required for people to really understand something well. >> Do you think these tests [referring to my IQ tests and my high school grades] can measure the whole & complete processing of our brains ? To me, IQ tests are very rough instruments. These tests measure something. Maybe roughly, but it is folly to think they measure nothing. Whether that is the whole processing of our brains – Of course not. We process emotions and feelings; our brains clearly operate under rules of thumb that do not always apply, our brains are easily tricked, inspired and led by others. I include my brain amongst them; I am by no means some logical machine. In fact I consider my logic and analytical thinking to usually be the servant of my emotions!! I have no problem using logical analysis or predictive power to make myself happier or give myself a good time. IQ Tests measure some component of pattern recognition and analytic ability. The precise balance of nature and nurture are open to debate, but they measure something that exists. I personally believe that pattern recognition and analytic abilities (and there are more than one) are the root of "intelligence", by which I mean predictive power. The better my mental model of Kim is; the more likely I am to correctly predict her behavior. Which lets me act intelligently now by rejecting some courses of action as non-productive. Unlike my wife, who couldn’t get what she wanted or adjust what she wanted to the reality of Kim’s personality, and ended up with no influence at all. >> Maybe you've been hard-wired by your studies in a way they haven't ? I don’t think studies have anything to do with it, but I might be hard-wired differently than most. My ability in analysis, logic and mathematics was apparent in grade school. >> A different state of consciousness as a consequence of a possible different balance between the two specialized processors of our brain: http://www.macalester.edu/~psych/whathap/UBNRP/Split_Brain/Hemispheric_Specialization.html Perhaps. I don’t believe this page you provide, though, it is too simplistic. As a left-sided person (left handed, left footed, left eyed, left eared) I should be right hemisphere dominant but I am obviously not. As right handed people they should be left hemisphere dominant but are not; in fact they suck at linear analytic thinking, and are artistic and holistic. >>The religious are incapable of reasoning about God objectively; > For most of them, there is no point to reason about God objectively. Maybe that is part of my point; their feelings are more important to them than the truth. They are self-centered. The truth doesn’t matter, they are capable of accepting the lie, so they do because it makes them feel better. TC


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/21/2002 11:24 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The concept of measurement should not be the beginning and end of enquiry. When you measure something, all you are doing, really, is holding up two objects (mentally or physically) and comparing them. Is A bigger or smaller than a line on a ruler? Is the path of A through space longer or shorter than that of B in the time it takes for the Earth to move through a given portion of its rotation? In fact, what you are comparing in all dimensions is length -- the length of a line in one direction compared to a meter rod or ruler. Is size really the only thing that matters?


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/21/2002 12:54 PM by normdoering@mad.scientist.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
> The concept of measurement should not be the > beginning and end of enquiry. In some ways it's not, but I'd like you to tell us what else is there that a mathematical theory can do? Or a non-mathematical one? What kind of explanations should science allow?


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/22/2002 2:04 AM by grantc4@hotmail.com	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
How about Kurzweil's patterns or Wolfram's algorithms? Of course, mathematical formulas are themselves algorithms, but they are more limited than computer algorithms which include logical operations and recursion. Besides being bigger or smaller, things can also be similar or dissimilar. The human mind categorizes experience and there is more we can do with a category than count the items in it. We can see it as being useful or not. And we can see the ways in which it can be used. Every way welearn to look at the world we live in gives us a new way to use it. Every way we find to divide our world gives us a new tool with which to control it. Mathematics helps us with this, but it is neither the beginning nor the end of what we can know about the universe. All of human culture is useful to us and it consists of a good deal more than mathematics. That's why we have laws, emotions, relationships, organizations, and aspirations. We learn as much from telling stories about the world and the people in it as we learn by mathematical analysis. Ethics and morals have got to be as important to us as science or science will destroy us. We still have a lot to learn that can't be expressed numerically.


	Re: What is matter ? posted on 07/22/2002 6:46 AM by jeff.baure@wanadoo.fr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
>> The concept of measurement should not be the >> beginning and end of enquiry. >In some ways it's not, but I'd like you to tell >us what else is there that a mathematical theory >can do? it can help us to pre-mentalize things that we do/can not experiment directly in our phenomenal reality. For instance, mathematical hyperspaces (more than 3D), weird metrics or operators existed long before Einstein imagined a 4D space-time structure or superstring theorists, not mentionning exotic topologies, fractal worlds... it basically spurs our imagination and encourage us to project beyond real things, a fundamental attitude if we are to understand our world, it enables us to see underlying links/organization that are hardly observable otherwise, and undoutedly points toward beauty & aesthetics. so its cool. jeff


	Re: What is matter ?/What is spiritual? posted on 07/22/2002 3:14 AM by niborjus@netscape.net	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Regarding spiritual experiences: <The assumption that spiritual phenomena are mental phenomena is leading to ways to investigate those phenomena. <There's also PET scans, there's Michael Persinger's work which uses electromagnetic waves to induce "spiritual" experiences. I have also seen a program on PBS where investgation of brain damage showed a man who had intense "spritual" experiences where he even thought he was god sometimes (and even lasted several hours sometimes) every time he had a brain siezure. They had another guy who thought his home and family where not actually them, even though he recognized them (no memory loss). They think they figured out that this was due to damage to part of the brain dealing with emotion, suggesting that damage to his emotional response to them interfered with his perception of what was real. The physical brain (and entire body?) definitely is at least part, if not all, of our experience of reality and spirituality. However, (that was a great example), proving this may be like proving Santa doesn't have flying reindeer! It may be only with proper maturation that we (human kind?) can realize for ourselves that there is no "Santa Clause" in the first place. (We would have to prove that people have a biological reason and capability to experience a mental "spirituality" and compulsion to profess to others the "truth" and similarity of it to other's "spiritual" experiences. That is to say, the spirituality that many people experience is so similar to other's experiences that when following a specific path of religion it can more reliably be reproduced than if one was to believe and follow a different path. This gives the appearance of objective verification of each path. Well by definition there can only be one "ultimate" reality, and forgetting this, that appearance is only true if you don't believe that humans are similar enough and our minds suseptible enough to the "suggestive", genetic and environmental (I think it is all of these) influences in our lives that it can be these influences that cause this experience.) However, part of the scientific process is simple collection of data. If you flip a coin 1 million times and it always lands on heads, and you find a lot of reasons why it always lands on heads, then one day it lands on tails; well, (if you have nothing better to do) you will eventually have to explain, not ignore, why it landed on tails. So far in human history, there have been a lot of alleged "tail landings" (ie. supernatural events (ie. telepathy, telekinetics, things that can be shown and described to violate our accepted view of physical possibility (ie. the brain or body does not generate or cause to generate sufficient measureable forces to bend a peice of metal several feet or several thousand miles away)))). On the practical side, about what matter is, here is a question: is matter ultimately reduceable to one single substance (such as if we had found that protons, neutrons, electrons and protons were all made up of varying quantities of a more basic substance) or is matter ultimately always going to be made of a variety of different irreduceable substances? The next question if the former is true is what then causes this substance to congeal into apparently different substances? The question if the latter, is where did these different substances come from, but the answer is easy: from the begining of the universe. :-)


	Re: What is matter ?/What is spiritual? posted on 07/22/2002 3:04 PM by azb@llnl.gov	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Niborjus, You wrote: > On the practical side, about what matter is, here is a question: is matter ultimately reduceable to one single substance (such as if we had found that protons, neutrons, electrons and protons were all made up of varying quantities of a more basic substance) or is matter ultimately always going to be made of a variety of different irreduceable substances? The next question if the former is true is what then causes this substance to congeal into apparently different substances? The question if the latter, is where did these different substances come from, but the answer is easy: from the begining of the universe. In the ordinary sense, there is no "matter". By the "ordinary sense", I mean like a fundamental "materielle", such as a primal "grey basis stuff" that "particles" are made of. Consider the fact that an electron has no diameter. Take a tub full of water illuminated by an overhead light, let the water come to rest. Then drag your hand in a sweeping motion across the surface. You will create "eddies/vorticies" in the water. Hard to see in themselves, but easy to see in the shadows they make on the bottom of the tub. They will even "orbit" around one another, sometimes congeal and sometimes divide. These are your "particles". There is your "matter". They are essentially standing-wave manifestations in the "physical field" of energies. A proton has a "diameter", but even this is a "mathematical distinction". It simply represents the distance at which the strong nuclear force overrides the effect of the longer distance EM force, they is the distance where interactive behaviors change. There is no "surface" to a proton. It is not a "material" as if one could shrink oneself down to it, and carve one's initials in it with a pocket knife. Same goes for quarks, etc. Think of them all as "energy knots". As to your second question (why the organization appears at the leves it does) we would all like to know this. Certain "patternist" views are clearly at work, but why these particular patterns are "favored" by the given energy fields is still a matter of conjecture. Cheers! ____tony b____

Brain Archive

Joy Drives Off the Road?