Are you serious? The equation calls for the measure/quantity contained "in this matter" to come up with "that capacity" in joules. You're confusing identity with the equivalence.which is interchangeable with matter through said equation - was THE fundamental existent. — Wayfarer
Rule 1. Thingness is a metaphysical must have, if you're going to have an ontology. Without the thingness, it's either an accidental feature or a conditional feature which must depend on other essences for it to exist. Determinate things are what we call things in metaphysics.In my own thesis I define Energy as a form of Information (power to cause change in form or state), which is also a causal interrelationship (e.g. organization)*4, not a thing in itself. — Gnomon
Rule 2. Causation is at the heart of a metaphysical system -- and it is what we know as scientific causation that involves the physical/material entities. Without a thing that can cause something or in relation with causes, it has no essential existence.Energy is not a cause". Philosopher David Hume discussed the mysteries of Causation at a time before scientists had pieced together our modern notion of Energy. He referred to the producer of causation as an "illusion"*1, but Einstein might say it is a "stubborn illusion", that there is some kind of physical "connection" between Cause & Effect*2. — Gnomon
Rule 3: The Doctrine of Haecceity. That tree is a tree. Treeness is what makes a tree a tree. Use haecceity to assign an identity to a thing. There is mindness in "mind" as explained by Descartes or Kant. If you cannot have a uniqueness of a substance, then you don't have a system. All you have is a parasite feature that cannot exist without the other features. It is a conditional existence. Haecceity also calls for the "wholeness" -- the mind is a whole thing. If you posit that the mind exists, then it is the measure of all things.Energy is not a substance, not something in the sense of “some thing”. Energy often appears to be a substance that flows, for example if charging a battery or an electrical capacitor. — Gnomon
Rule 4: Prehension is what you are talking about and facts are what we spit out when we have enough prehension of a thing or phenomenon. We use language to put together a statement of facts. Information is our own expression of the thing that caused us to have this epistemic values. Your metaphysical system is working well if you could come up with data or information in the process of your existence. So, if the mind is the thing, then the mind perceives, makes logical connections, makes hypotheses, puts together a coherent explanation of the world.Data is defined as individual facts, while information is the organization and interpretation of those facts. — Gnomon
How else are you defining it then?I suppose you are restricting the term "cause" to some particular traditional definition. — Gnomon
Then it fails to be a thing (being a thing would qualify it as a candidate for the fundamental reality or existent.But it's now clear that Energy does not have a material existence. Instead, it is merely a (mathematical??) relationship between things*2 — Gnomon
That's for you to explain in this thread. I'm waiting for an explanation as to why it is a cause, and why it is fundamental.If the ability or capacity or power or force that we refer to as Energy is not a Cause, what is it? Isn't Causation what Energy does? — Gnomon
If it's relative, then it cannot be a cause. It's also contradictory to "conserved".Energy is relative, but what's interesting that for any observer, it's always conserved. — Gnomon
How so? Energy is not a cause.But as was made clear by the four causes, 4 is the perfect answer here. — simplyG
Energy is a measure of capacity, not the thing it is measuring. It is not a cause. It cannot be a cause. It is also not a thing that exists as if it has a categorical substance. Please define "energy". If energy exists, it's because there are things!Inches & miles are conventional measures of space, not space itself. — Gnomon
Assumption can be dangerous. Think deeper. Is energy a cause of ideas? I refer you to Aristotle's 4 causes.Perhaps I wasn’t clear, ideas itself require no energy themselves to be elucidated or thought yet…there must be something producing then…could that not be some type of energy? — simplyG
In philosophy, energy cannot be the fundamental existent as it is not a thing.Here's a brief sample of personal opinions from individual scientists saying that Energy is the fundamental principle of the universe*2. — Gnomon
Well, first off, "Enformationism" is a made-up word for something like information. Not a problem at all. But I believe this has to do with the information theory which has been done by the likes of Shannon. I have not read Shannon, I looked up the origin of this school of thought. Here's a simple summary of what it means:As a starter, please explain, in your own words, what you think the Enformationism Thesis is all about. With that information, I may be able to see why you say "enformationism is not gonna cut it". What do you think Enformationism is trying to "cut"? Do you view it as a "new scientific paradigm", or a "disguised theological premise", or what? — Gnomon
So far so good.Information theory is the mathematical study of the quantification, storage, and communication of information. — Wiki
...and therefore can pass off as a metaphysical speculation on the nature of existence? Energy, if you recall is a property, and as such, a regulative law. But energy applies to every entity. Think of what you're trying to answer when you try to answer the metaphysical problems. Aristotle, Plato, Descartes have all tried and succeeded in narrowing down what it is to exist -- or what it the essence of an entity like a human being.The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter. Thesis & blog provide technical references. — Gnomon
I might have led you to that idea. Apologies.Oh. I took that to be the meaning of the 'smallest unit', which is typically considered the atom. — Wayfarer
I disagree. They had a notion of the atoms, in physics, but couldn't articulate it as we moderns articulate it. They were warm, but didn't quite get to the physics part of it. Speaking of which, earlier I said Parmenides was not an atomist. Well, all his musings point to that, actually.Parmenides was a mystic. He had more in common with the Vedic sages than with moderns. — Wayfarer
I guess you haven't been paying attention. If you really care to know, just peruse the few posts below of exchanges with Gnomon where, after hundreds of previous exchanges with him over the last few years, he had finally copped to his own crypto-"Panendeism"-of-the-gaps sophistry. :mask: — 180 Proof
Therefore, I wrote down my personal interpretation of the philosophical implications of 20th century Quantum Physics & Information Theory under the heading of Enformationism. The “-ism” ending was intended to posit a 21st century worldview, to supersede the outdated ancient philosophies of Materialism (Atomism) and Spiritualism (supernaturalism)*3. The key insight is that Information is essentially a form of (physical but not material) Energy (negentropy), which is able to transform into Mass, which we experience as Matter. — Gnomon
That was Democritus and Leucippus, the atomists. Parmenides was not an atomist. — Wayfarer
The 'Truth' section of the poem concludes with a recapitulatory metaphor: being is like a well-rounded sphere equal from every side; it is not right for it to be any bigger or any smaller anywhere, since nothingness cannot prevent it from reaching uniformity, and, since there is nothing in its own nature which would cause it to be asymmetrical, it rests evenly within its bounds…
The Parmenidean version of ultimate reality is thus one from which all
' distinction, difference, change, and plurality have been excluded, yet one which, in accordance with the Greek horror of the infinite, preserves its definiteness so that it can also be the truth, the implicit and single object of all language. Parmenides is thus the ' first metaphysician (or, if you prefer, theologian) to argue for those eternal attributes also shared by Plato's forms, by Aristotle's primary movers, and by their descendants in the history of philosophy. This picture of the truth as a single, abiding whole is next contrasted by the goddess with the picture to which the mortals subscribe. — Scott Austin
I still don't know why you have received such reactions. What forums did you go to? Because, here, it would be out of place to label you as religious and irrational, unless, of course, you're talking about religion and theism.Although the mental/ideal Metaphysics I want to talk about is entirely secular & scientific, it is typically dismissed as a religious & irrational topic. So, I end-up spending most of my time denying that I'm talking about emotion-driven religious doctrines. That should be obvious though, since all of my quotes & links are to professional scientists & philosophers ; not to anti-science apologists. Yet the prejudice against Metaphysics keeps me on my back foot in non-physical topical threads. And attempts, such as this, to set the record straight are often dismissed as "whining". — Gnomon
I just want to talk about non-physical topics without being labeled a traitor to the received belief system of Materialism. I have replied to accusations of anti-science motives, by asserting that, for practical purposes, I am a Materialist ; but for theoretical reasons, I am a Metaphysicalist. :smile: — Gnomon
You can't talk about a metaphysical theory without using a justification from both the material (sensible) world and concepts (object of the intellect). I just gave you Parmenides who couldn't stay away from shaping the truth into something we mortals could grasp, even though he purportedly rejected the sensible world.By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining. — Gnomon
Funny you chose superposition -- easily mistaken to be non-physical, even if to be taken as an experimental truth. Quantum notions are physical.Therefore, by "scientific Metaphysics" I simply refer to such "weird" quantum notions as Superposition/Entanglement, and shape-shifting Information in both mental & material forms. — Gnomon
No. It is not tainted by its association with Christian theology and I also want to say that you are wrong, with all due respect to you. Parmenides started talking about metaphysics over 450 years before Christianity. Did you know what Parmenides and his contemporaries wanted to know? The ultimate reality -- what is the smallest unit they could reduce existence and still be true to the real.Does your one word response mean that "metaphysics" is irrevocably tainted by its association with Christian theology? — Gnomon
You are falling into the camps of the analytics and the continental. You don't know it yet, but that's where you're heading. I have no objection to the direction you're moving, but please do not re-design the metaphysics as if you've found an undiscovered truth that could finally save it from itself. It does not need saving.That's why I have proposed a modern meaning for the term, spelled "Meta-Physics", and defined as the science of the non-physical. By "non-physical" I include all Theories & Conjectures & Models & Metaphors used by scientists and philosophers to describe abstract concepts that have been de-fleshed of any material substance, with only a skeleton of logic remaining. — Gnomon
Deal. :up:I'll be more sure to write with exacting precision — Benj96
Those that take don't take antibiotics kill themselves faster. — Benj96
That's what you think. Those who take antibiotics are slowly killing themselves. When you take antibiotics, you're not letting the natural processes of your body to do its job. Have some faith in the process -- let your body do its thing.Bacteria are stressed by the presence antibiotics. Humans are not or far less stressed by the presence of antibiotics. — Benj96
Define this word please.apkky — Benj96
Therefore, there are living things that aren't stressed out like some humans are stressed out.If all conditions were inherently stressors, then life would not exist because it would be stressed into oblivion. — Benj96
I was expecting you would say this. In that case, we're not talking about the same stress as human stress. It becomes, all conditions are stressors. Which moots your point.According to who? Trees undergo stress like we do. The stressors may not be the same. But a tree can experience detriment to it's growth potential. — Benj96
Metaphorically, yes. Not the way you think it works. All life has a cycle. A wild tree with fruits has no stress or disorder or mind to direct it. But its fruits, too, will rot at the completion of the cycle.This is how the mind protects DNA. And how DNA protects the order that confers a healthy mind. — Benj96
True, there are mitigating factors that can increase the average life expectancy. There was another thread in the forum that talked about lifespan. Advances in medicine and human conditions contributed to an increase in life expectancy. I mentioned that improving the quality of drinking water alone had contributed a lot to the well being of people.The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause disease. It is that human behavior can cause positive genetic changes that will increase life expectancy. It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of disease. It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA." — T Clark
Because it's only in his mind that the curse is working. You said it in the OP that the curse isn't real. But if he believes that curses are real, then, yes he's bound to that curse.And how might he go about stopping her reign of influence over his bad days? — Benj96
This is the best option -- he needs to confess to his criminal act and ask for forgiveness (he needs to serve time for the crime, of course).By making amends for his originals wrongdoing. An apology is not enough; she also demanded that he confess. If he's done that, he's already in prison, unless the authorities either didn't take him seriously or decided to let him off. Which might be sufficient for the 'witch', but not for his conscience. He doesn't just need to be be freed; he needs to feel free. He needs to do something positive to restore karmic balance. — Vera Mont
If he took option 1, then he needs to "release" her from the responsibility so that when bad days come to him, he doesn't attribute it to the curse and takes it as just life that happens to everyone. So the only way he is freed is for him to stop making her the responsible party for his bad days.Bad things will still happen to Jeremiah since she was bluffing.
And then Jeremiah will hold her responsible. — TheMadMan
She can't. The instruction reads that she has no memory of prior awakening or what day it is. She doesn't even know that the experimenter tosses the coin, because they do it when she's put back to sleep. The question to her is "what are the odds that a coin will land heads (or tails)". Since she must know what a coin is, and what heads and tails is, she must answer "1/2".To answer correctly, sleeping beauty must evaluate the probability she is experiencing each of these events. — hypericin
I said the average -- which means it is the largest stats. If you look at the diagram, in 2017 (The Past Year), the numbers of those involved are fairly small. The average person in a given population are not involved.I was surprised by how high the percentages are. — T Clark
What I said prior was the average person has no interest in governance or politics. How did you come up with the opposite given the stats?Do you see that as evidence that people aren't interested in political issues. It seems just the opposite to me. — T Clark
Without memory of prior awakening or knowledge of what day it is, she would have to answer 1/2. What SB remembers is she was put to sleep and she awakens. The coin is tossed once in her memory.They ask her one question after each time she awakens, however: What is the probability that the coin shows heads?
The scholarly political theories we learned from higher education are only good inside the lecture halls. What we see in actuality is quite a different matter.I agree, and I think this situation has emerged due to the continuous disappointments on politics and all what is related to governance, political theory, etc... I mean: it is not a generational issue but a dysfunctional praxis. — javi2541997
I'm not saying you are wrong, but how do you know this is true? Does this hinge upon what 'have an interest' means? — Tom Storm
That means a superior nation would not emerge. The average person does not have an interest in governance, politics, and nationwide ideals.So yeah, if the youth are into self governance, self discipline and not following some fanatics or fanatic ideology, a superior nation will emerge. — Beena
:100:Too many people are failing in life and too many are serious nut cases and too many are willing to make money any way they can without concern about the harm done to others. On top of that, we are destroying our democracy as all our institutions are failing. — Athena
Wow. I had no idea. Thanks.1963. There was turmoil all around, with the Klan playing the crowds. At one point there was an explosion, which someone said was one of the confederate canons at the ROTC building going off. One of the civil rights demonstrators yelled, "I hope they hit the bastard this time!" (meaning Wallace). — jgill
I touched on this issue in another thread. In philosophy, the accepted belief is the causal theory of perception -- which means the CNS, and which means they accept the duality of existence and consciousness: the physical brain and the mind that perceives of time. Without the temporal perception, we would be like the enteric nervous system -- able to perform a function, but without self-awareness, no time perception, no self.I was expecting a philosophical not a biological answer (eg a definition of what memory means to some philosophers). — GrahamJ
No, that's not correct. The ENS could function without the input from the CNS. It doesn't record information, as we know information. It's not through memory. I don't know how to explain it.I knew about the enteric nervous system (though I'd forgotten the name). If it records some information, and later uses that information to make a decision, I would call that memory, or even a 'mental record'. — GrahamJ
It means retrieving the information from memory. Mind you, bodily functions such as hunger is not memory based, nor the bowel movement ( I will explain it for those uninitiated, upon request). — L'éléphant
Yes please. — GrahamJ
I agree. Nonetheless, those narrow-minded people, like you said, would make it like he was advancing an argument.He's not advancing a wild argument that is indefensible but more like he grew up knowing one thing and seeing another needs to adjust. Spending 70 years of your life knowing one thing and then having to change course is hard but he's not making any wild claims. — Darkneos
Two women replied, calling me misogynistic and demeaning, and referring to me as "puffing on a corncob pipe through withered lips" and avoiding the civil and women's rights movements in the 1960s. To which I replied I was on campus and had demonstrated against George Wallace as he stood in the doorway to the admissions office at the U of Alabama, denying entrance to a black man, and that, actually, I had joined the women's lib movement during that decade. — jgill
Oh, I responded incorrectly, Tom. I meant to say, that foundationalism is itself a theory, a school of thought, if you will, which has a logical system of statements pointing towards their view. But to answer your question, yes, the postmodern tried to do away with the foundationalist notion of grounds. I actually disagree with them since they, too, were trying to ground their assumptions on some structure of society/government.There is no irrefragable piece of knowledge that founds any thought system - not even the cogito. If this approach involves an act of performative self-refutation, or engenders a regress problem, that only seems to further suggest the inability to obtain a foundational justification. Thoughts? — Tom Storm
If you mean if foundationalism as a theory is on the same level of argument as presuppositions (statements expressing premises), no.Is there a difference for you between presuppositions and foundationalism? — Tom Storm
Yes.But to have an organized anti-system is to have a system, right? — Tom Storm
This would be a fair response against foundationalism -- but it also means that it hasn't undermined foundationalism.Which is why I usually say I hold that human thought is paradoxical and that much of what we call reality is human projection based on our limited perspective. From this 'dimly lit' vantage point I generally hold that I (or any of us) don't have enough information or wisdom to make reliable judgements about the nature of reality. — Tom Storm