The Trust Molecule

[Paul's Here 0]

]I do not perceive matter and energy. Those are abstract concepts. What I perceive are precepts integrated by my senses. There is nothing physical about percepts (qua percept). They are the human method of apprehending the world. Everything else is conceptual, spiritual knowledge.

Various kinds of energy are perceptible, detectable and measurable. Have you ever been burned? You perceived heat. Have you ever been in motion? You perceived kinetic energy. And just what, pray tell, is spiritual anything? What is it made of and what laws govern it.

ruveyn

You perceive the phenomena, not the concept. Your mind processes the phenomena and then conceptual processes happen from there.

When my cat experiences pain from extreme cold vs extreme heat, it doesn't know or understand it's experiencing pain from perceiving a lack of thermal energy vs an excess of thermal energy.

And without science, neither to humans.

[Paul's Here 0]

]I do not perceive matter and energy. Those are abstract concepts. What I perceive are precepts integrated by my senses. There is nothing physical about percepts (qua percept). They are the human method of apprehending the world. Everything else is conceptual, spiritual knowledge.

Various kinds of energy are perceptible, detectable and measurable. Have you ever been burned? You perceived heat. Have you ever been in motion? You perceived kinetic energy. And just what, pray tell, is spiritual anything? What is it made of and what laws govern it.

ruveyn

You perceive the phenomena, not the concept. Your mind processes the phenomena and then conceptual processes happen from there.

When my cat experiences pain from extreme cold vs extreme heat, it doesn't know or understand it's experiencing pain from perceiving a lack of thermal energy vs an excess of thermal energy.

And without science, neither to humans.

Correction: "neither do humans."

[Scott A. 0]

How did you form the concept "car" based solely on the Periodic Table of Elements? Where does the concept come from? A car is just a lump of metal, plastic and other elements without a driver and his purpose in making it move. Without that spiritual purpose, you have no basis for referring to the object as a car.

There is nothing spiritual in nature, you say. Yet you keep arguing as if it makes a difference to you. If you're just elements, then why do you persist in this argument? Nothing I say will make a difference to you and nothing you say will make a difference to me. We're "all just elements," right? You need to learn to introspect to find the "non-elemental" aspect of nature.

Yes.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I have two sealed boxes in an empty room. One box contains a living man, while the other box contains all the unassembled raw elements of carbon, nitrogen etc which make a man. If the laws of physics (combined with ginormous computers) can allow me to predict exactly the future of the unassembled contents in one box, then (by your premises) shouldn't I be able to predict the future of the "assembled contents" (man) in the other box? Therefore free will is an illusion, right?

I have not the foggiest idea.

ruveyn

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

You're implication that reason is a mythology is somewhat worn thin by your attempts at argumentation.

I never said that and I reason every day of my life. I said humans are physical entities that obey physical laws. If there is any more to us than that demonstrate this by empirical means. Facts count. Facts rule. Theories sometimes serve. Show me facts. Facts I believe. Theories I can conjure with and even appreciate sometimes (particularly if they are supported by facts). Facts are sold. Theories have a vaporous quality.

ruveyn

[Paul's Here 0]

You're implication that reason is a mythology is somewhat worn thin by your attempts at argumentation.

I never said that and I reason every day of my life. I said humans are physical entities that obey physical laws. If there is any more to us than that demonstrate this by empirical means. Facts count. Facts rule. Theories sometimes serve. Show me facts. Facts I believe. Theories I can conjure with and even appreciate sometimes (particularly if they are supported by facts). Facts are sold. Theories have a vaporous quality.

ruveyn

Interesting. From rationalism to empiricism. I've suggested several facts to you, and you have not responded to any of them.

1. Demonstrate your ability to introspect and how that is just composed of "elements."

2. Identify an entity (a thing) that you describe as "car" without human purpose. Identify how you know the entity falls within that classification. Demonstrate how purpose is composed of "elements."

3. "Facts rule" but facts are only identifications viewed from a certain context with a human purpose. Without that purpose, facts are just random events occurring within the space-time continuum. What elements make up the process of identification?

4. Demonstrate the elements (facts) of your ability to "reason every day of my life." What is the gravitational attraction on your reason? If I cut up your reason and make it into a fine grid like pattern, what diffraction pattern does your reason produce when light or electrons pass through the grid? What element is reason?

5. What facts can you show me that will make me believe "facts rule"? If "facts rule" is your epistemological guide, what elements from the Periodic Table make up that guide?

[Paul's Here 0]

You're implication that reason is a mythology is somewhat worn thin by your attempts at argumentation.

I never said that and I reason every day of my life. I said humans are physical entities that obey physical laws. If there is any more to us than that demonstrate this by empirical means. Facts count. Facts rule. Theories sometimes serve. Show me facts. Facts I believe. Theories I can conjure with and even appreciate sometimes (particularly if they are supported by facts). Facts are sold. Theories have a vaporous quality.

ruveyn

I know you never said that. That's why I said "implication." What physical laws does "purpose" and "reason" obey?

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

I know you never said that. That's why I said "implication." What physical laws does "purpose" and "reason" obey?

I never implied any such thing. You happened to -infer it-. That is your problem, not mine. Please note the difference between "implication" and "inference". Do not confuse your inferences with other people's implications. Doing so will only cause you to be confused.

ruveyn

[piz 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

[Paul's Here 0]

I know you never said that. That's why I said "implication." What physical laws does "purpose" and "reason" obey?

I never implied any such thing. You happened to -infer it-. That is your problem, not mine. Please note the difference between "implication" and "inference". Do not confuse your inferences with other people's implications. Doing so will only cause you to be confused.

ruveyn

Without proof, your assertions are arbitrary.

[Paul's Here 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

ruveyn

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

Here's a "wet machine." Are you smarter than that? WHY?

[Carlos 0]

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

Here's a "wet machine." Are you smarter than that? WHY?

LOL

[Paul's Here 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

ruveyn

You have no factual basis for such statements.

[Paul's Here 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

ruveyn

Again, more logical fallacies.

[Paul's Here 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

ruveyn

And one more thing. Speak for yourself.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

ruveyn

And one more thing. Speak for yourself.

I am a wet machine. There is nothing about me that is not physical. Not a thing.

ruveyn

[Carlos 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

ruveyn

And one more thing. Speak for yourself.

I am a wet machine. There is nothing about me that is not physical. Not a thing.

ruveyn

There's nothing substantive added by repeating the same statements ad nauseam.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

ruveyn

And one more thing. Speak for yourself.

I am a wet machine. There is nothing about me that is not physical. Not a thing.

ruveyn

There's nothing substantive added by repeating the same statements ad nauseam.

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

ruveyn

And one more thing. Speak for yourself.

I am a wet machine. There is nothing about me that is not physical. Not a thing.

ruveyn

There's nothing substantive added by repeating the same statements ad nauseam.

Sir: You wrote "and one more thing. Speak for yourself"

which is exactly what I did. Now you complain that I did what you asked?

ruveyn

[Carlos 0]

There's nothing substantive added by repeating the same statements ad nauseam.

Sir: You wrote "and one more thing. Speak for yourself"

Paul's Here wrote "speak for yourself", not Carlos.

which is exactly what I did. Now you complain that I did what you asked?

ruveyn

When Paul said "Speak for yourself" it obviously was not literally a command to "speak" like when a dog is commanded to "speak".

[piz 0]

Discuss the following line from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged, with emphasis on "indivisible," entity," and "attributes." Contrast separating mind from brain with separating red from apple.

...man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness...

[Paul's Here 0]

There's nothing substantive added by repeating the same statements ad nauseam.

Sir: You wrote "and one more thing. Speak for yourself"

Paul's Here wrote "speak for yourself", not Carlos.

which is exactly what I did. Now you complain that I did what you asked?

ruveyn

When Paul said "Speak for yourself" it obviously was not literally a command to "speak" like when a dog is commanded to "speak".

Such is the nature of a machine.

[Paul's Here 0]

Somebody please point at an "epistemology" for me...

Do you have a theory about how people come to know the things they say they know? If you do, that is an epistemology. It is a mental construct, but it references conditions, processes and objects that take place in the world outside our skins.

ruveyn

Huh??? In Post 16 you said "If the world consists of something more than matter and energy in space and time, what do you suppose it could be?" Now what are you talking about here???

Our brains are made of energy and matter (mostly organic molecules) and all brain processes are physical. Even ideas are physical being neural activity (mostly ions going through membranes). Got it? We are wet machines.

ruveyn

And one more thing. Speak for yourself.

I am a wet machine. There is nothing about me that is not physical. Not a thing.

ruveyn

I have never seen only physical objects respond to questions. How are you able to do it? I'd like to patent you and make a million bucks.