we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by fleetmouse » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:18 am

Metacrock wrote:
fleetmouse wrote:If you're going to take the position that everything is equally mysterious, then "mysterious" clearly doesn't mean much. You might as well say that everything is schklorgle. The mind and a soda straw are both equally mysterious and equally schklorgle. So why are we doing philosophy of mind instead of philosophy of soda straws?
\
O I don' think I said anything about everything being mysterious. quite a few things are not mysterious at all.

Remember what I said about the easy way to find out is to explain to me what energy is. I'm still waiting.
Buckminster Fuller said that matter is knots in energy, so it follows that energy is un-knitted matter. :mrgreen:

This isn't far from the truth if you accept mass-energy equivalence (and surely you do unless you're a complete yokel)

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by fleetmouse » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:54 pm

met wrote:Seems an arbitrary call to me. Is the universe mysterious? Or is energy/change/movement mysterious? Just a sense that maybe some people have and some don't. It would be hard to argue, analytically. We only have experience of the one universe, so there's no more or less mysterious other universes to compare this one to....

Can we imagine possible other universes with greater and lesser degrees of mysteriousity than ours? :shock: Even that seems a little stretchy....
Mystery is subjective and epistemic though - how mysterious something is, is a function of how little we know about it.

So the less we know about these hypothetical other universes, the more mysterious they are, but it's not an inherent property of the hypothetical universes.

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by runamokmonk » Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:04 pm

fleetmouse
Buckminster Fuller said that matter is knots in energy, so it follows that energy is un-knitted matter.
hhmm, almost sounds like my congealed dream hypothesis.... :)

And maybe our evolutionarily adapted brains are the knitted up knots of our minds.

It would also account for the experiences of the supernatural and some PSI phenomenon/claims. And apparent acausal events, and also experiences of meaning. Our personal night dreams easily allow for this even though they can give the appearance of our solid universe. The congealed dream would create parameters for what is dreamt. As well, the congealed dream would also be a shared one and there may even be a master knot-patterner.

If our physical world is many knots in energy, or one big knot, then the knots create the stability and predictability. The knot would be the laws energy follows.

Of course, I am not sure I literally believe that. And I have no idea who Fuller is or what he meant.
Last edited by runamokmonk on Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by runamokmonk » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:48 pm

I actually have heard of him before in regards to science/engineering stuff. I found this quote of his on wikipedia

"We are now synergetically forced to conclude that all phenomena are metaphysical; wherefore, as many have long suspected — like it or not — "life is but a dream.""


I searched and found a longer quote.
"Science’s self-assumed responsibility has been self-limited to disclosure to society only of the separate, supposedly physical (because separately weighable) atomic component isolations data. Synergetic integrity would require the scientists to announce that in reality what had been identified heretofore as physical is entirely metaphysical — because synergetically weightless. Metaphysical has been science’s designation for all weightless phenomena such as thought. But science has made no experimental finding of any phenomena that can be described as a solid, or as continuous, or as a straight surface plane, or as a straight line, or as infinite anything. We are now synergetically forced to conclude that all phenomena are metaphysical; wherefore, as many have long suspected — like it or not — life is but a dream."
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/ ... nergetics/

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:33 am

That's really interesting. Nietzsche had a similar passage in BGE where he rails against the idea of substance and uses the ideas of Boscovich to say that there isn't really anything "solid" at the atomic level - in Nietzsche's case he's not calling it metaphysical, more using it as a cudgel against the idea of philosophers, broadly speaking, attaining some kind of foundational certainty.

So if there's a continuum between the physical and the metaphysical, then I don't see what argument could be made against emergence...? But we still have to contend with the problem that not all physical-or-metaphysical stuff appears to be conscious / aware / experiencing. Even thoughts or abstract ideas are not themselves conscious or are thought of as conscious. Does the logical principle of non-contradiction remember, know and feel?

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by Metacrock » Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:03 am

see science has to resort to metaphor (knots in energy) when it doesn't understand stuff. We know there's something we call "energy" and something we call "subatomic particles" but I'm not convinced we know what they are.

my hypothesis is that they are some substance akin to thought.

thought would be UN-knotted ignorance.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by Metacrock » Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:05 am

So if there's a continuum between the physical and the metaphysical, then I don't see what argument could be made against emergence...? But we still have to contend with the problem that not all physical-or-metaphysical stuff appears to be conscious / aware / experiencing. Even thoughts or abstract ideas are not themselves conscious or are thought of as conscious. Does the logical principle of non-contradiction remember, know and feel?
emergence is anti-reductionist. It looks like everything is the product of mind. I don't see how you can conclude otherwise.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by Metacrock » Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:06 am

fleetmouse wrote:
Metacrock wrote:
fleetmouse wrote:If you're going to take the position that everything is equally mysterious, then "mysterious" clearly doesn't mean much. You might as well say that everything is schklorgle. The mind and a soda straw are both equally mysterious and equally schklorgle. So why are we doing philosophy of mind instead of philosophy of soda straws?
\
O I don' think I said anything about everything being mysterious. quite a few things are not mysterious at all.

Remember what I said about the easy way to find out is to explain to me what energy is. I'm still waiting.
Buckminster Fuller said that matter is knots in energy, so it follows that energy is un-knitted matter. :mrgreen:

This isn't far from the truth if you accept mass-energy equivalence (and surely you do unless you're a complete yokel)
Bucky! you are quoting Bucky!?? can I quote charlie Brown? good grief.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by runamokmonk » Fri Apr 12, 2013 8:32 am

Even thoughts or abstract ideas are not themselves conscious or are thought of as conscious. Does the logical principle of non-contradiction remember, know and feel?
What? I am not sure where else a thought or idea would come from but a conscious mind. I guess the sentences I am writing is not conscious either but they appear to be products of a mind which the sentence originated in.

I like the dream analogy. It's all mind in a dream but can appear to not be conscious or mind. The rest of your dream outside of first person experience does not appear to know and feel or even be thought. But it is still all mind. Which is why I use the dream analogy for myself.

User avatar
runamokmonk
Posts: 339
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by runamokmonk » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:46 pm

After doing some more research today I think I may be talking about objective idealism. I'm still reading about it here~
http://www.relative-mindmatter.co.uk/4a ... ealism.htm

Post Reply