Materialism

[flyingcloud]

hair, fingernails?

just trying to develop an acurate definition

[altonhare]

hair, fingernails?

just trying to develop an acurate definition

You're giving examples, not asking for a definition (I presume the "definition" you're referring to, is a definition of life). I've already given a definition. Do you disagree with it?

If you agree with it, then we can talk examples. If you disagree with it, it is a pointless waste of time to discuss examples.

[flyingcloud]

I was happy to respond to the self locomotive comment, now it's all gone,

[flyingcloud]

something like self locomotion is the first criterion of "living" I think is how it went... gotta be faster on the quote button.

I will bow out of this conversation as I have nothiong constructive to add...

sorry for wasting time

[klypp]

Altonhare:

Allow me to make it clearer.

When the bear smells (perception) the honey, then runs (reaction) to the bee hive, we say he "guessed" that, when he arrived at location Y, there would be honey there.

When a person hears a gun (perception) shot and ducks (reaction), we say they guessed/predicted/foretold that a bullet would intersect their head's location.

When you see (perception) the baseball bat in front of your face with Big Bubba behind it, then jump (reaction) back, we say they probably guessed/predicted/foretold that the baseball bat was going to intersect your head's location.

A smell of honey is most likely caused by honey. True. But your bear should still be cautious. It need not be a beehive there. It might be a trap set up by some hunters. It might even be a teen elephant. http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020228/ ... 225-8.html
You never know these days...

To foretell a bullets trajectory from the sound of a gunshot is really impressive! Some of us would say it was impossible.
Anyways, it is no need to duck to avoid this particular bullet. If it was moving towards your head, you would most likely be dead without hearing a thing. Most bullets move faster than sound today. The only reason to duck would be that there might be a second bullet and it might be coming your way. But to even foretell that from the sound of the first shot... Wow!!! What was the name of your god again?

Even if you knew Big Bubba, you could not be 100% sure of what he was going to do next.

The only thing that got clearer here, is that you have the nasty habit of jumping to conclusions.

Some hypothetical omniscient being has to know what's going to happen a certain way in order for things to happen a certain way? You must be kidding.

Let's assume an omniscient but impotent being (all knowing but cannot influence the universe) exists.

Now let's assume he doesn't exist.

Are you really saying that, in the former case, state A is followed by state B but in the latter case its indeterminant?

I said before, determinant has nothing to do with predictable. Determinant simply means that identical situations give identical results. Whether you believe identical situations ever arise is another matter.

Like all to often, you're completely missing the point! And again you're confusing causality with determinism.
Laplace's definition is the common one. I've seen other definitions, but they're either essentially the same or confined to a special context.
Laplace's demon is an illustration of the following point: We will never be able to reveal all causes that led to the present universe, nor will we ever be able to foretell in detail what happens in the future. To say that only a "hypothetical omniscient being" can do this, is not to say that such a being exists. It is to say that determinism is idealism, not materialism!

Acknowledging matter doesn't make the pope a materialist. Likewise, acknowledging causality doesn't make someone a determinist.

The sad state of affairs is that we cannot foretell what the next snowflake will look like, neither where it will come from or finally end up. And among all the complexities in the universe in need of being foretold, the next snowflake would be the easy one!

[altonhare]

No, nor do I deny the existence of my liver, blood, cells etc. I view us as part of this thing called Universe rather than us being merely in it as I am 'in' the UK.
What if there is only one entity involved - the Universe? (This latter is the way I currently view things).

You asked how do these two go together. Just as my organs etc are part of me, I view me, the planet, the stars etc as parts of the Universe. Is that what you meant or have I missed the point?

The difficulty I have is you state, explicitly, that there is ONE (only) entity that exists (universe). Then in the very next statement you state that MANY entities (blood, liver, cells, etc.) exist. As far as I can tell, this is just a blatant contradiction, but I'm open to further explanation.

Any problems which science has with this are caused by scientists. Science restricts itself as to what it can or will investigate and also by using a strict methodology. There are several billion people on this planet each with a unique perspective/perception yet science would have
us all think and operate in one very narrow way. Everything in the Universe moves, evolves, changes etc yet science would lock us into one way of thinking. I prefer a more eclectic approach and stick my nose into all sorts of subjects.

As far as I'm concerned science is simply applying non-contradiction, the particular method of application is not set in stone. Your theory/explanation can come from a bad dream or inspired by waxing philosophical while up late one night drinking. You can use whatever "method" you want to get your ideas, but in the end your explanation for a natural phenomenon must not invoke a contradiction.

Do you think this is overly narrow? I insist that we must have *some* criterion, not EVERY string of words and symbols represents an explanation we should take seriously. There has to be SOME way to filter those strings of symbols which refer to an explanation that might possibly be True.

Do you disagree with having one or more criteria? If not, what is/are your criterion(a)?

Yes it is an entity of parts but they are parts of a whole, they are not (totally) independent parts. It creates them out of itself not out of nothing. 'Creates' is a somewhat misleading word and carries lots of religious baggage, 'constructs' would be a better word in my opinion.

Okay, so it is not creation ex nihlo, but rather creation by motion which I totally agree with (if I understand the interpretation "construct" correctly). In "construct" you take parts that are already present and move/manipulate them in a particular way. A bunch of trees are manipulated into a cabin, for instance.

In my previous post I used the analogy of a silent auditorium. Consider what happens once the music begins: it is still the same air it is just that the air is now vibrating at various frequencies.

The same air, yes. The people are moving their diaphragm, lungs, mouth, etc. which is pushing constituents of the air. The frequencies at which it vibrates depends on just how the people move their diaphragm/lungs/mouth/etc. Sound is the alternating compression/rarification of constituents. If the compressed and rarified regions are very large we call it low frequency and if they are small we call it high frequency.

On another thread you are having a debate with JL about vibration. I may be misrepresenting your views here but you appear to be saying that vibration is a property of a thing or is something a thing does.

Yes, vibrate is something an object does. I don't think I ever said it was a "property of a thing" though. I haven't defined "property" and it would be what I'd call a strategic word in such a claim, so the statement is empty coming from me. Pointless to the convo anyway.

The way I view it is that the vibration is the thing. No vibration equals silence, stillness, darkness depending on which analogy one uses. (Let there be light, in the beginning was the Word, Aum, etc (and the Maya, the Egyptians and others share this view)). It's a cart and horse thing.

Okay, you claim that the word "vibration" refers to a thing. If you define thing as I do, as shape, then you can draw vibration. Anything with shape is visualizable (to be distinguished from "seeable").

I maintain that vibration is the motion of an object, where motion is simply two or more locations of an object. Therefore vibration/motion is not synonymous with the thing itself, but rather is something the thing does. We need at least TWO pictures to conceptualize motion/vibration whereas an object is depicted in a SINGLE picture. Whether this picture is on the page or in my head is irrelevant.

I would go further to state that, while motion can be conceptualized in as little as 2 pictures, what is commonly thought of as vibration requires at least THREE pictures.

0
An object

0 A
_0A
Motion


0 A
_0A
0 A
Vibration

I need the underscore because the forum interprets leading spaces as nothing. The forum is not a philosopher.

Ancient writings such as the Rig or the Iliad are written in verse. They have a certain (deliberate) number of lines; same with the total number of syllables; same with the number of syllables per line. All this is done to produce a certain vibration. One reads such works with an open mind not a focused brain.

I appreciate music, poetry, and love. I wanted to be a poet when I was younger, but was told my poems lacked conformation to form . I was too young to understand that not all adults are right.

I listen to classical music, I feel the beat, and let my emotions flow. I have an open mind, but I don't accept or repeat every notion that strikes me, or every string of sounds I hear. There's gotta be something at the end of the yellow brick road, a theory has to stand up to some form of scrutiny.

[altonhare]

A smell of honey is most likely caused by honey. True. But your bear should still be cautious. It need not be a beehive there. It might be a trap set up by some hunters. It might even be a teen elephant. http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020228/ ... 225-8.html
You never know these days...

Indeed, it's unfortunate that guessing/prediction/foretelling is fallible.

To foretell a bullets trajectory from the sound of a gunshot is really impressive! Some of us would say it was impossible.
Anyways, it is no need to duck to avoid this particular bullet. If it was moving towards your head, you would most likely be dead without hearing a thing. Most bullets move faster than sound today. The only reason to duck would be that there might be a second bullet and it might be coming your way. But to even foretell that from the sound of the first shot... Wow!!! What was the name of your god again?

To predict a bullet's trajectory from the sound and be right would be incredible!

To simply predict/guess it? Anyone can do that!

Try again Klypp?

We will never be able to reveal all causes that led to the present universe, nor will we ever be able to foretell in detail what happens in the future. To say that only a "hypothetical omniscient being" can do this, is not to say that such a being exists. It is to say that determinism is idealism, not materialism!

But if you read all my posts you would see that I 100% agree that no human will ever be able to make a 100% prediction about anything, much less everything, and that this has nothing to do with my definition of determinism.

You should go back and read some. I'm particularly curious how you'd answer the hypothetical scenario I described.

An omniscient living entity is impossible for reasons I've described. Any living entity works to maintain itself, otherwise it would simply fall apart and no longer be identified as a living entity. Therefore no living entity can devote ALL its effort to observation. Only in the context of an entity which can devote itself entirely to observation can we even conceive of "perfect knowledge". As I said, no living entity can achieve this, all living entities devote themselves only partially to observation.

[altonhare]

something like self locomotion is the first criterion of "living" I think is how it went... gotta be faster on the quote button.

I will bow out of this conversation as I have nothiong constructive to add...

sorry for wasting time

Any contributions you have are entirely welcome, I did not intend to "run you off" or anything.

A fingernail is alive or not pursuant to the definition. If it moves on its own and engages in some degree of unpredictable behavior it's alive. If you tear your nail off and put it in a vacuum chamber, will it move itself about? On the other hand, if you take out some of the cells and place them on a dish, will they move themselves about? On the other other hand, if you toss a rock in a vacuum chamber, will it move itself about?

Nonliving entities are non locomotive, this is the definition I've proposed. You may think your hair is alive because it appears to move out of your head. On closer inspection you find that there is an entity beneath your scalp that is actually pushing the hair out. The hair itself is not, nor was it ever, alive. The cells that comprise it, on the other hand, may have once been alive (or may still be, who knows until we look that closely).

You may object and say "living entities cannot comprise a nonliving entity!" I answer that if I chop a branch off a tree, we do not consider the branch to be alive because it isn't locomotive, even though the cells comprising it may still fulfill the definition of life. A good question is, was the branch EVER alive? Could it ever move on its own, or was it the entity "tree" that moved itself, of which the branch was merely a part? Did some part of the tree move the branch or could the branch actually move itself?



Unpredictability
This got me thinking on the "unpredictability" criterion. I need to create some new definitions. Specifically I need to differentiate between a guess and a prediction. I have used these words synonymously up until now and I think that needs to end. A "guess" is what I have heretofore been calling a prediction/foretelling/guess, it is fallible. A prediction is infallible.

We may *guess* that the earth will be at distance X from the moon in Y minutes. But it turns out that an unforeseen comet slams into the moon, sending it careening toward the sun. On the other hand, we may *predict* that, if object X is moving with velocity Y, then it will be at position Z in A minutes. In a prediction, we set up a hypothetical scenario and state what will happen. In a guess we try to state what will actually happen, in a real scenario. Thus we may say that, if the earth and moon are moving THIS way and NOTHING else is moving THEN the moon will be at distance X from earth in Y minutes.

So it seems my "unpredictability" criterion for life is impotent. Everything humans engage in is either guessing or prediction from hypothetical premises. One person may decide that *any* level of unpredictability fulfills the unpredictability criterion, rendering it superfluous. Any person who decides on some level of unpredictability is invariably invoking an arbitrary and unsupportable "level".

However observation and intuition tell me that living entities are much more complex than nonliving ones, and that "life" is an emergent property from this complexity. It has to do with chaotic systems and lag time, at least. At some point the complexity of a system reaches a "breaking point" in its level of unpredictability rather than the unpredictability of the system simply increasing steadily and constantly with complexity. I can't put my finger on a precise cause yet, but I am trying. As such I don't have a rigorous set of definitions and logic to lay this down with, and my "unpredictability" criterion is still ill-conceived.

I welcome anyone else's thoughts and ideas on this matter. The discussion in the thread "Experience, Electricity and Consciousness" I consider relevant. I think intractable complexity has to do with how long it takes a signal by a living entity to be detected by another one. Don't get me wrong, there is no such thing as a random event or an event without a cause. I am talking about the ability of living entities to guess the actions/behavior of other living entities. I also think the amount of effort devoted to perception/reaction has a lot to do with life's characteristic unpredictability. It seems intuitive that, as a living entity devotes more and more effort to observation the events it observes become less and less unpredictable. However at some point the living entity is not exerting enough effort to maintain its structural integrity and falls apart.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

The difficulty I have is you state, explicitly, that there is ONE (only) entity that exists (universe). Then in the very next statement you state that MANY entities (blood, liver, cells, etc.) exist. As far as I can tell, this is just a blatant contradiction, but I'm open to
further explanation.

The problem, it appears to me, is you getting hung up on the word 'entity'. Let me put it this way: There is one whole called by us Universe. This whole has many parts called by us stars, planets, humans etc. I have one body which has many parts. Where is the contradiction in this?

Do you disagree with having one or more criteria? If not, what is/are your criterion(a)?

No I don't disagree with having criteria, rather I view science's criteria as too restrictive. As to what my criteria are, I don't think in those terms. I don't have a set of rules or definitions which I measure everything against. I just do what I do, which is mostly read
and think. As I've stated previously I read eclectically so I have some 'knowledge' of lots of disparate subjects. I've been doing this for over four decades so I have varying degrees of depth in the 'knowledge' of these subjects. I do not consider myself an expert in any one of
them.

The same air, yes. The people are moving their diaphragm, lungs, mouth, etc. which is pushing constituents of the air. The frequencies at which it vibrates depends on just how the people move their diaphragm/lungs/mouth/etc. Sound is the alternating
compression/rarification of constituents. If the compressed and rarified regions are very large we call it low frequency and if they are small we call it high frequency.

In my analogy the auditorium was the Universe so the conductor becomes the mind or will of the Universe. The conductor moves the baton (the will is put into action or made manifest) and the music begins (physical reality is created or made manifest). This is an analogy not
a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Yes, vibrate is something an object does. I don't think I ever said it was a "property of a thing" though. I haven't defined "property" and it would be what I'd call a strategic word in such a claim, so the statement is empty coming from me. Pointless to the convo anyway.

There you go again with your obsession with definitions and what in Zeus' name is a 'strategic' word? I wonder if anyone else reading this thread had a problem with my use of the word 'property' in the context which I used it.

Okay, you claim that the word "vibration" refers to a thing.

What I am saying is that if the aether vibrations at frequency x it is a tree. If it vibrates at y it is a human, etc. If there is no vibration then there is no thing of any description. The thing is
result of the frequency of vibration. The vibration is not a result of the thing. A thought is a thing to me and it has no shape.

There's gotta be something at the end of the yellow brick road, a theory has to stand up to some form of scrutiny.

There was nothing at the end of the Yellow-brick road. The Wizard was a phoney who used technology to fool people. Dorothy did what she did
using only her own internal resources. The 'theory' I subscribe to has stood up to several thousand years of scrutiny. Scientific theories come and goes like fashions. Who now reads Kepler, Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo? How many have read Newton and Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc. other than a relatively* few scientists? The way the Universe works has not changed but science is still groping in the dark. Science is still trudging along the Yellow-brick road but the ancients never left Kansas.
*No pun intended.
Now it's back to the Chronicle of Eusebius for me.

[altonhare]

The problem, it appears to me, is you getting hung up on the word 'entity'. Let me put it this way: There is one whole called by us Universe. This whole has many parts called by us stars, planets, humans etc. I have one body which has many parts. Where is the contradiction in this?

I'm paraphrasing so correct me if I misrepresent:

Grey Cloud: There is only one entity, the universe.

Grey Cloud: Many entities exist such as blood, cells, etc.

The word I am zeroing in on is in italics and, unless I miss my definition of "only", is the reason these two statements are contradictions.

There you go again with your obsession with definitions and what in Zeus' name is a 'strategic' word? I wonder if anyone else reading this thread had a problem with my use of the word 'property' in the context which I used it.

I have no problem with you using it, I just don't want anyone else to think I stated it because I think they'll jump on me quicker/harder if they think I said something that conflicts with something else I said, since I do make a big deal about consistency and definition.

A "strategic word" is a word that, in my experience, has different meanings to different people. It also generally makes or breaks a statement/argument. It's not that important.

What I am saying is that if the aether vibrations at frequency x it is a tree. If it vibrates at y it is a human, etc. If there is no vibration then there is no thing of any description. The thing is
result of the frequency of vibration. The vibration is not a result of the thing. A thought is a thing to me and it has no shape.

The aether vibrates at different frequencies. But if it doesn't vibrate there is nothing there, not even aether? But if aether is a thing, i.e. something, then there is a thing there even when it doesn't vibrate.

There was nothing at the end of the Yellow-brick road.

Exactly. I strive to avoid repeating Dorothy's mistake.

The 'theory' I subscribe to has stood up to several thousand years of scrutiny.

Is longevity one of the reasons you ascribe to a theory, belief, whatever you call it?

Science is still trudging along the Yellow-brick road but the ancients never left Kansas.

I would say that, while so-called "scientists" were reckless and foolhardy enough to go trudging down the yellow brick road and ancients were wise enough not to forsake Kansas for that option, they still never made it out of Kansas.

[junglelord]

Your mind is a creation of the NWO. John Taylor Gatto - State Controlled Consciousness
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1399
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ogCc8Ob ... re=related

This "discussion" is a smokescreen for an intellectual pursuit.
Its a creation of the state controlled consciouness, loud and clear, which means its all static and white noise.
Sounds like an unknown language. So far no one is speaking the same one....keep it up guys, man its a blast.

[flyingcloud]

something like self locomotion is the first criterion of "living" I think is how it went... gotta be faster on the quote button.

I will bow out of this conversation as I have nothiong constructive to add...

sorry for wasting time

Any contributions you have are entirely welcome, I did not intend to "run you off" or anything.

A fingernail is alive or not pursuant to the definition. If it moves on its own and engages in some degree of unpredictable behavior it's alive. If you tear your nail off and put it in a vacuum chamber, will it move itself about? On the other hand, if you take out some of the cells and place them on a dish, will they move themselves about? On the other other hand, if you toss a rock in a vacuum chamber, will it move itself about?

Nonliving entities are non locomotive, this is the definition I've proposed. You may think your hair is alive because it appears to move out of your head. On closer inspection you find that there is an entity beneath your scalp that is actually pushing the hair out. The hair itself is not, nor was it ever, alive. The cells that comprise it, on the other hand, may have once been alive (or may still be, who knows until we look that closely).

You may object and say "living entities cannot comprise a nonliving entity!" I answer that if I chop a branch off a tree, we do not consider the branch to be alive because it isn't locomotive, even though the cells comprising it may still fulfill the definition of life. A good question is, was the branch EVER alive? Could it ever move on its own, or was it the entity "tree" that moved itself, of which the branch was merely a part? Did some part of the tree move the branch or could the branch actually move itself?

[/quote]

hair is dead from the time its created, so is the nail, the living / dna is the semantics I was arguing and it sucks the life energy right out of me so I quit, no running off, I chose the battle

why a vacuum chamber if there is no such think as a true vacuum,

why seperate, isolate that which it intrically -(sp) sorry don't have the spell check working yet,= connected to everything else, I'm not a things moving on their own sorta equals life kinda person I will follow some more suggestion but sometimes it's hard to tune past all the interference

thanks for the thread suggestion, now I need a babysitter...

don't fall prey to the tower of babble

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

I'm paraphrasing so correct me if I misrepresent:
Grey Cloud: There is only one entity, the universe.
Grey Cloud: Many entities exist such as blood, cells, etc.

You misrepresent. I wrote:

The problem, it appears to me, is you getting hung up on the word 'entity'. Let me put it this way: There is one whole called by us Universe. This whole has many parts called by us stars, planets, humans etc. I have one body which has many parts. Where is the contradiction
in this?

I repeat, where is the contradiction in this?

I wrote:

What I am saying is that if the aether vibrations at frequency x it is a tree. If it vibrates at y it is a human, etc. If there is no vibration then there is no thing of any description. The thing is result of the frequency of vibration. The vibration is not a result of the thing. A thought is a thing to me and it has no shape.

To which you replied:

The aether vibrates at different frequencies. But if it doesn't vibrate there is nothing there, not even aether? But if aether is a thing, i.e. something, then there is a thing there even when it doesn't vibrate.

Nowhere in that passage did I use the word 'nothing'. Either of my two teenage daughters would have understood what I meant but as you seem to
want to play semantics I will restate:
If the aether does not vibrate, i.e. there is no frequency, then there will not be any thing or things produced by the aether. The violin string is not moving, therefore there is no sound. The violin string is still there though. The violin string is still there though still, if we are
playing word games.
You wrote:

Is longevity one of the reasons you ascribe to a theory, belief, whatever you call it?

Again you appear to be deliberately missing the point of what I wrote. Its longevity is, for me, a reason to approach it with respect and curiousity as to what it is that has enabled it to endure so long. Having approached and studied it I now have some idea of what this is.
I'm happy enough with the word 'belief' as my beliefs are backed up by study and contemplation.

The ancients never left Kansas because there was, and is, no reason to do so not because they tried and failed. Dorothy never left Kansas either, it all happened in her head. Or did you think she really was transported to Oz by the tornado?

[klypp]

altonhare:

I need to create some new definitions. Specifically I need to differentiate between a guess and a prediction.

Ever heard of a thing called a dictionary???

[altonhare]

You misrepresent.

You are looking at the problem through a modern Western lens (i.e. one with an Abrahamic tint). You assume that there are three entities involved: Man, Universe and Creator. What if there is only one entity involved - the Universe? (This latter is the way I currently view things).

I'm not deliberately misunderstanding. You said here that there is only one entity involved in the creation/construction of humans etc. The universe built these things out of various constituents, meaning there was more than one entity involved (the constituents).

Did you misspeak or am I still misunderstanding?

If the aether does not vibrate, i.e. there is no frequency, then there will not be any thing or things produced by the aether. The violin string is not moving, therefore there is no sound. The violin string is still there though. The violin string is still there though still, if we are
playing word games.

I'm really not trying to play word games, GC, please forgive me for seeming inexorable. I want to imagine/conceptualize what you're talking about. Or is it simply inconceivable, "something" that is neither existent nor inexistent?

I recognize the string is an analogy, but I will try to understand this via the string analogy. I have a picture in my mind of a fluid. If a portion of it vibrates/undulates this might be perceived as an atom, electron, dog, etc. Essentially an undulating portion of this fluid results in the observation of obstruction (matter essentially?). If a portion is not undulating it will not be obstructive. When undulation portions come near each other they interact in various ways by virtue of the way they are undulating (I use undulate because vibrate is often used to imply restricted up/down motion, when I believe a portion of this fluid can compress/contort/vibrate/move in more than one direction).

Is that a fair depiction?

I'm happy enough with the word 'belief' as my beliefs are backed up by study and contemplation.

So am I. Theories/explanations are not right or wrong, that would be nonsensical. Only someone's belief in an explanation is either exactly right or wrong. Until we bust out the omniscient ninja moves and take a look at the fundamental constituent nobody knows.

The ancients never left Kansas because there was, and is, no reason to do so not because they tried and failed. Dorothy never left Kansas either, it all happened in her head. Or did you think she really was transported to Oz by the tornado?

Eh, the direct analogy to Oz starts to break down here. No I did not think she was transported to Oz, heh. What I mean is that, it may be wise to wait until our eyes are open before walking out the door, but we'll never learn what's out the door until we leave the house. Modern so-called "scientists" left running like a bat out of hell with their eyes closed and they'll likely fall off a cliff. The ancients were wise enough to wait and use their sight-free time to think and lay down their thoughts. Now those with their eyes open can take the work of past ages and confidently "walk out the door".

Ever heard of a thing called a dictionary???

If the dictionary is your Holy Book, that's your business. It's not mine, so we will inevitably speak over/past each other. You should find someone who uses the same Book as you to communicate effectively with.