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
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 8:00 pm

And there is also Pluralistic Idealism
Pluralistic idealism such as that of Gottfried Leibniz[44] takes the view that there are many individual minds that together underlie the existence of the observed world and make possible the existence of the physical universe
But I'm not so sure I would say that individuals minds make possible the existence of the physical world. Although, I would be interested in that. I would tend to believe we are in God's mind and the individual minds, being made in God's image, may also interact and create (or worse, from being fallen, or from ignorance). Sort of like a shared dream, in the dream God is dreaming us up in, as well.

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 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:38 am

Metacrock wrote: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.
All language is metaphor and ultimately we're not describing what things are but how they behave. I don't see that as a problem.
my hypothesis is that they are some substance akin to thought.
But are you a dualist? Saying that thought or mind is some kind of energy means that thought or mind is physical, because energy is physical (and equivalent to mass, remember?)

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 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:40 am

Metacrock wrote:emergence is anti-reductionist.
OK, that's fine with me.
It looks like everything is the product of mind. I don't see how you can conclude otherwise.
By simply not being an idealist.

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 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:43 am

runamokmonk wrote:
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.
If thoughts are themselves not conscious then consciousness is not a necessary element of thought. I have shelves full of books that are full of thoughts but not a single book is conscious, as I understand consciousness. Wikipedia isn't conscious either.

Perhaps thoughts aren't dependent on minds, but rather minds are dependent on thoughts.

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 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:47 am

runamokmonk wrote:And there is also Pluralistic Idealism
Pluralistic idealism such as that of Gottfried Leibniz[44] takes the view that there are many individual minds that together underlie the existence of the observed world and make possible the existence of the physical universe
That sounds like relativism or subjectivism to me...
runamokmonk wrote:But I'm not so sure I would say that individuals minds make possible the existence of the physical world. Although, I would be interested in that. I would tend to believe we are in God's mind and the individual minds, being made in God's image, may also interact and create (or worse, from being fallen, or from ignorance). Sort of like a shared dream, in the dream God is dreaming us up in, as well.
OK, let's say that everything is a thought in God's mind - we STILL have to account for why humans are conscious and rocks and trees are not, and it must be an account in terms of structure and function rather than substance - because those rocks and trees are also thoughts in God's mind, and so are made of the same "stuff" ultimately as we are.

(I've bolded and underlined that passage because it's the main idea I'd like to see followed up on in my flurry of posts today)

(will have to read up on objective and pluralistic idealism, thanks for the pointers!)

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by met » Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:24 am

fleetmouse wrote:
Metacrock wrote: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.
All language is metaphor and ultimately we're not describing what things are but how they behave. I don't see that as a problem.
my hypothesis is that they are some substance akin to thought.
But are you a dualist? Saying that thought or mind is some kind of energy means that thought or mind is physical, because energy is physical (and equivalent to mass, remember?)
IS energy physical? If energy is just movement and matter is (essentially) energy, then what's moving?

I also think your not having a problem with not knowing what things are is interesting ... it demonstrates a mindset.
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

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 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:48 am

met wrote:IS energy physical? If energy is just movement and matter is (essentially) energy, then what's moving?
Well, exactly. As I said above, ultimately we're not describing what things are but how they behave. Conventionally, we describe anything that interacts with a physical system as physical.
I also think your not having a problem with not knowing what things are is interesting ... it demonstrates a mindset.
What I mean is that I recognize the limitations of our ability to characterize things, and for any answer that "this" is one of "these", you can ask "but what are these?"

This is not to say that we don't have knowledge - we certainly have a better understanding of the world than our ancestors, even though we still have lacunae and limits.

However if you want to read my remark as anti-intellectual or anti-curiosity and take a snide jab at me, that's cool, I can take it, because I am a bad motherfucker. :mrgreen:

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by met » Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:16 pm

No, I was thinking more about the idea we have that if we know how something works so that we can control and/or predict it, we tend to think of that as total understanding. Cuz our minds are - at least in large part - machines for manipulating the environment to enhance it for ourselves. That's what they're for and what they do. (This convo seems reminiscent of things in that Nietzsche thread? )
fleetmouse wrote:Well, exactly. As I said above, ultimately we're not describing what things are but how they behave. Conventionally, we describe anything that interacts with a physical system as physical.
That's just defining things into being what u want. Clearly, consciousness interacts with physical systems. If u define everything that interacts with the physical as "physical" then the whole discussion becomes moot, doesn't it?

On a deeper level, that doesn't get u around the problem anyway. There is no energy in a spacetimeless void. There has to be interelationships because "energy" is really just how we describe our observations of the interactions between things. Energy exists (for us, the best we can tell) only in interrelationships. But if its all energy, then there's no stuff to interrelate, only the interrelationships. So that opens up the question, if its all interrelationships, then interrelationships between what? Between "nothing?" If the universe is just a huge set of interrelationships between nothings, i'm not sure "physical" is the best or most accurate description(?)
fleetmouse wrote:.... because I am a bad motherfucker.


whoa - understood! U ARE! :o :o :o
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

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 » Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:07 pm

met wrote:No, I was thinking more about the idea we have that if we know how something works so that we can control and/or predict it, we tend to think of that as total understanding.
And I'm saying the opposite - that I recognize that total understanding (if that's even a coherent concept, which I have my doubts about) eludes us no matter how well we know how something works. And I'm reconciled to that. I don't think we should treat it as a crisis. Feel free to have panic attacks over it if you wish.
fleetmouse wrote:
Well, exactly. As I said above, ultimately we're not describing what things are but how they behave. Conventionally, we describe anything that interacts with a physical system as physical.
That's just defining things into being what u want.
How so? The standard definition of energy is the capacity to perform work in a physical system. And mass and energy are equivalent. This is what energy has meant well in advance of the present discussion.

If the definition of energy gives you indigestion perhaps you'll want to define consciousness in different terms, because this one is taken. ;)
Clearly, consciousness interacts with physical systems. If u define everything that interacts with the physical as "physical" then the whole discussion becomes moot, doesn't it?
Not at all, but it sets some limits on what consciousness can be in substantial terms. In functional terms it's still wide open.
On a deeper level, that doesn't get u around the problem anyway. There is no energy in a spacetimeless void. There has to be interelationships because "energy" is really just how we describe our observations of the interactions between things. Energy exists (for us, the best we can tell) only in interrelationships. But if its all energy, then there's no stuff to interrelate, only the interrelationships. So that opens up the question, if its all interrelationships, then interrelationships between what? Between "nothing?" If the universe is just a huge set of interrelationships between nothings, i'm not sure "physical" is the best or most accurate description(?)
What is an interrelationship?

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: we gotta get this thing kick started again.

Post by met » Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:08 pm

fleetmouse wrote: What is an interrelationship?
:o Well.... um ... think of it in formal logic or set theoretical terms. Call it a relation, in a formal sense. Formal relations can be transitive, reciprocal, commutative or whatever. But they always define a pattern, either between elements or between other relations, no matter whether chaotic or regular. There may be be basic elements defined in (the most primal) sets in our model. OR, as is case with a lot of number-modelling set theory constuctions, there can be a rule that sets contain only other sets, no basic elements exist. And we don't even need to know what's contained to study the relations according to the rules. But in the second case, if there is no primal "stuff" in our model, only patterns of relationships, it seems more like a model of a model, not a model of a "real" thing. Indeed, seems rather more akin perhaps to "thoughts in a mind" - patterns for modelling "stuff" - than to "things" in themselves....

fleetmouse wrote:How so? The standard definition of energy is the capacity to perform work in a physical system. And mass and energy are equivalent. This is what energy has meant well in advance of the present discussion.

If the definition of energy gives you indigestion perhaps you'll want to define consciousness in different terms, because this one is taken.
... only problematic when EVERYTHING is defined as energy. Or potential energy - ie the possibility of dissolving existing relations and creating different ones....
fleetmouse wrote:And I'm saying the opposite - that I recognize that total understanding (if that's even a coherent concept, which I have my doubts about) eludes us no matter how well we know how something works. And I'm reconciled to that. I don't think we should treat it as a crisis. Feel free to have panic attacks over it if you wish.
Wishing? How does wishing enter into it? :o I suppose Nietchze would say wishing enters into it because we observe and define, or attempt to observe and define exactly and only the relations we WISH for? ;)
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Post Reply