- #351
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Originally posted by Zero
You very well could be wrong...I've seen it before!
Lol, if you understood all the subtleties of that quote from me you wouldn't have posted that . You fell for it! You so crazzzy!
Originally posted by Zero
You very well could be wrong...I've seen it before!
Well, I figured you went through all the trouble to set that up and all...Originally posted by Fliption
Lol, if you understood all the subtleties of that quote from me you wouldn't have posted that . You fell for it! You so crazzzy!
I didn't say that 'information does something'...I was trying to make the opposite point. Material objects do things, and we call it information. Or something...semantics, really.Originally posted by sascha
For clarifying some more this issue of information and its role in matter, I would like to draw the attention to a conceptual problem. Here we have heard the opinion that information actively does something. As eg. Zero put it lately: "The mass of the nucleus 'instructs' the atom on how to 'react' to gravity. The number of electrons 'instruct' the atom on how to form chemical bonds, react to a magnetic field, etc." Adopting this idea implies attributing to information some kind of agency, a force aspect. This is not what information is generally meant to be (at least the link between regularity and agency should be clarified more exactly). What is going on in the minds here? A clear insight? (I don't think so, but what do the others say?) A conceptual conflation, by non-distinction? (This is what I feel is the case; such conflations are what usually pushes into having to pursue the problem -- here of information versus energy, in my jargon law versus force -- into ever smaller entities, which however does not solve the problems, as long as the conceptual conflation remains). Note that the empirical evidence is the same; only the interpretations vary -- according to the differences in the chosen concepts / categories at the outset.
Except that "action" is only accomplished out of that which is functional as "a whole," and so belies the "motive or intent" -- not some random occurrence.Originally posted by Zero
I didn't say that 'information does something'...I was trying to make the opposite point. Material objects do things, and we call it information. Or something...semantics, really.
It doesn't follow that something 'non-random' has 'motive' or 'intent'...no matter how many times you post it.Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that "action" is only accomplished out of that which is functional as "a whole," and so belies the "motive or intent" -- not some random occurrence.
No, the fact that motive and intent do exist, suggest that things don't happen by chance, but by "design."Originally posted by Zero
It doesn't follow that something 'non-random' has 'motive' or 'intent'...no matter how many times you post it.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, the fact that motive and intent do exist, suggest that things don't happen by chance, but by "design."
Whereas if something wasn't complete and fully functional -- or, at least endowed with that capacity -- then that rules out the faculty of choice, which can only be achieved through the stability (equilibrium) of the overall design. Hence without a choice there would be no intent, or motives, and "no glue" which binds things together.
And yet why does the sun bother to hold itself together if it wasn't "designed" that way? Why does it even exist, if there wasn't some principle (or glue) to tell it to cohere together?Originally posted by heusdens
Was the "sun" designed, is the way molecules and atoms interact "designed"?
Except that we use these same physical laws and turn around and use them to "design" everything we see around us which is "artificial." Which is to say it didn't come together naturally, and on its own.This are just stupid notions, since the physical laws can not have been designed.
And I suppose everyobdy just stood around and watched while it happened, Right? I don't think so. And, while a design is merely the blueprint which demonstrates functionality, it's the functionality of the design that we can't do without.Even in realms of human society, the term "design" is not what it seems to be. Is the car concept as we have it now "designed"?
No. There has just been development (started with the "invention" of the wheel) and then later improvements.
You make it sound like it almost came about by "magic."Non one had a thought before about the actual nowday design of a car. And every improvement is first tested, to see if it improves anything.
You just go ahead and keep thinking random thoughts and let us know when you come up with something interesting, Okay?So, there is just a continual interaction between the mind and the material world, which changes car design and develops old concepts into new ones.
This would be great if everything were on autopilot.Originally posted by sascha
The argument from design is, to my sense, not helpful for an ultimate understanding, because the basis for motive and intent is not clarified as yet by it. In the end the argument from design must resort to another belief, so the explanation in a strict sense is still not achieved.
You have to break it up into category huh? All I can I tell you is that things tend operate better from the standpoint of functionality, and don't tend to work well at all when they're dissected and spilled all over the table.This is why I prefer to operate in universal categories, i.e. which reflect securely the overall order and are applicable as much to inert as to alive structures (this distinction requires additional criteria).
What about one universal category, say the Universe itself?Now with this you still don't know what these universal categories are. For that we could go through the systematic developing steps of the approach I propose (which is published, even if partly only in German), or we might proceed more pragmatically, as we are doing. So, before we go into that approach in detail I will try the pragmatic path. As necessary we can switch to the other or not, or I might offer an abridged version of this approach.
What I'm saying is that science is so concerned with all the physical evidence, that it loses sight of the "navigator" which is at the controls, which is typically only operational from the standpoint of wholeness and being complete.Originally posted by sascha
I don't see how you see the connection between the need for strict explanation and this implying any operation in an autopilot mode. Can you be more explicit? By "the standpoint of functionality", do you mean functionalism? And dissecting is not the same as distinguishing. Which do you mean? Precisely for not distinguishing eg. life from non-life, scientists must separate life from matter for their analyses, for being able to apply their non-universal categories. If they would distinguish, they would not need to dissect.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What I'm saying is that science is so concerned with all the physical evidence, that it loses sight of the "navigator" which is at the controls, which is typically only operational from the standpoint of wholeness and being complete.
It would be much like taking a bucket of parts and using it to contruct a radio. Where you have the parts on the one hand, and a fully functional radio on the other which, is an entirely different medium than the parts themselves. In fact there's such a distinct difference between the two, that it's hard to imagine a relationship even existing in the first place, unless of course the radio becomes impaired or dysfunctional.
And here the parts themselves become relegated to the "subsconscious" aspect of the radio, and the broadcast medium, that for which the radio is designed, become its "consciousness." And yet science is so preoccupied with the "subconscious workings" of the radio, dissecting it and categorizing it, that it tends to lose sight of the broadcast medium itself, which is really the only reason it exists in the first place. You know, what's the point in having a radio if you can't listen to it?
Whereas the same as with the navigator. If the navigator expires, then what purpose does a clump of decomposing tissue and bones serve? In which case I would be more concerned about what the navigator has to say before he leaves?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that life can only be valued from a standpoint of wholeness, which reflects "the medium" of life itself. And, that "wholeness itself," becomes the overall design.
Whose reality?Originally posted by Zero
All of this is great philosophy, and makes you feel better, that is fine. The fact that it has absolutely no bearing on reality should be recognised, however.
Optical illusions prove my point more than they do yours, bucko.Originally posted by amadeus
Whose reality?
What do you see here:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/9609/pz/vaseface.gif
Can you contemplate the fact that it is a vase, two faces, both, and neither, all at the same time?
Reality is as simple as the mind which observes it...
Hey, the image is not coming in. Or is it just me? I think what you need to do is take the "image tags" off the link. At least you can click on the link and view the image from there. You'll notice that's how it works on my post here. Or, maybe not? ...Originally posted by amadeus
Whose reality?
What do you see here:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/9609/pz/vaseface.gif
Can you contemplate the fact that it is a vase, two faces, both, and neither, all at the same time?
Reality is as simple as the mind which observes it...
At least somebody gets it...Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think Sasha's post is basically right. Materialism doesn't produce secure knowledge. Any physical theory is always at risk for falsification.
But what is the alternative? Idealism is moonshine. Religion is meaningful to those who have it but balderdash to others, including devotees of other religions.
The very contingent truth that materialism offers is the only genuine variety of truth available.
You keep talking about 'true reality', but at some point, you have to pull back the curtain and show it! Otherwise, what purpose does it serve?Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only problem with materialism is that what we see is the effect, not the cause. The true reality is the intent or motive, the interior aspect (or design) which stirs "the effect" into existence.
In other words the outer reality is merely the manifestation of the inner reality.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only problem with materialism is that what we see is the effect, not the cause. The true reality is the intent or motive, the interior aspect (or design) which stirs "the effect" into existence.
In other words the outer reality is merely the manifestation of the inner reality.
Which would you rather do? Admire the house from the outside? Or, get down to the business of settling in and experiencing the house for what it was designed for -- "living."Originally posted by Zero
You keep talking about 'true reality', but at some point, you have to pull back the curtain and show it! Otherwise, what purpose does it serve?
We can determine a lot about causes from effects, once you measure the effect. In fact, I would say it is vital to any coherent way of looking at things to be able to measure effects accurately and consistently. If not, then you really can't say anything at all about causes, can you?
Maybe if you would stop covering up the weakness in your argument with metaphors which don't represent reality...never mind, I've asked you before, and you refuse. You look at a wall, and see a house.Originally posted by Iacchus32
Which would you rather do? Admire the house from the outside? Or, get down to the business of settling in and experiencing the house for what it was designed for -- "living."
Now you tell me which is the greater reality?
Hey, maybe you got the nicest house on the block, but what good is it if you don't live in it?
With human beings? Definitely. There's no doubt about it. In fact there's nothing about the human condition which doesn't belie "intent."Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Who says that there has to be an intent or motive?
Huh? one-celled organisms are conscious? No, they aren't...except tehy have to be, for your made-up fantasy to work.Originally posted by Iacchus32
With human beings? Definitely. There's no doubt about it. In fact there's nothing about the human condition which doesn't belie "intent."
Speaking of which, why is it most prevalent amongst living things, from the smallest one-celled organisms, with just an inkling of it, all the way to the top of the food chain, man himself, with all the fully blown ramifications? Why is that?
Could it be that it has something to do with consciousness, and the intelligence derived therefrom? You can take that to mean yes. But what is consciousness, if not that which is transcendent? And why do we only seem to have "coherence" when we're fully functional and intact? How else could we transcend the whole scope of the field -- "objectively" -- at a single glance?
Thus seemingly the "highest of proclivities," where does it come from? And what do we mean by "conscious intent?"
No, what you're telling me, is that a house has no functionality to it (this is the key ), in which case there's really no sense in building it because nobody "intends" to live in it.Originally posted by Zero
Maybe if you would stop covering up the weakness in your argument with metaphors which don't represent reality...never mind, I've asked you before, and you refuse. You look at a wall, and see a house.
That doesn't make any sense...could you stop speaking in metaphor for like 10 minutes?Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, what you're telling me, is that a house has no functionality to it (this is the key ), in which case there's really no sense in building it because nobody "intends" to live in it.
How is it that we "feel" the sense of touch then, if it wasn't for the myriads of single cells which make up our skin?Originally posted by Zero
Huh? one-celled organisms are conscious? No, they aren't...except tehy have to be, for your made-up fantasy to work.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
How is it that we "feel" the sense of touch then, if it wasn't for the myriads of single cells which make up our skin?
Or what do you say we step it up a couple of levels to the family dog? Why would he bother to come when you called his name?
All I'm saying is that the "objective reality" is the house -- from afar if you will -- which does not belie the true reality -- as subjective as that is -- of the life "lived" within the house.Originally posted by Zero
That doesn't make any sense...could you stop speaking in metaphor for like 10 minutes?
Because there is no evidence that there is an 'inner' and 'outer' reality.Originally posted by Iacchus32
All I'm saying is that the "objective reality" is the house -- from afar if you will -- which does not belie the true reality -- as subjective as that is -- of the life "lived" within the house.
Why is that so difficult to understand?