The Metaphysical and the Physical

[Tiberius]

Wow, so much posted since I last looked. Just some "tidbits" in response...

1) Light IS energy. All energy exists in the form of particles (and particles can have wave-like properties).

2) No one has ever been proven to have obtained special information through a dream that they could not have imagined, guessed, or gotten somewhere else beforehand - despite what pseudo-documentary specials on Fox television would have the public believe.

3) Dream interpretation can sometimes reveal things you might be preoccupied about or have experienced that day. As your brain is organizing its memories this is as normal as a computer scanning it's files. But very often dream interpretation is far overblown.

4) There is absolutely no reason to presume that what happens with the body and brain in meditation is anything other than completely mechanistic and understandable through physical laws. Indeed, there are a number of reasons to suspect just that.

5) When I said that the soul/heaven hypothesis had been proven irrelevant, it is clear when looking at the context and place in the paragraph, I was referring to the ORIGINAL version of these, which saw the afterlife/heaven as literally being outer space and the soul as being a physical gas-like substance that could have been weighed or captured in a jar. Please read the opinions of others and do not "skim" over them and mistakes of understanding like this should be easier to avoid.

6) Scientists have and do continuously research mystical claims. For thousands of years, there has yet to be one proven and reliably repeatable incident of anything happening or anyone's special abilities that could not be explained through normal scientific means under controlled conditions. This doesn't mean that there AREN'T such things, but it does make it incredibly improbably in my view. Of course, anyone without an agenda who has looked objectively at these things and come away with no evidence is labeled as a "debunker" so the mystics will only accept one answer - the one that confirms their delusional worldview.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is just wrong, a photon doesn't drop in frequency, it is the electromagnetic wave that drops in frequency, and thus produces less energy (photons) through radiation.

The oscillation associated with a photon slows/lengthens the lower its energy. If you look at Planck's law, it states the energy of EM is confined to quanta (photons) and its magnitude is proportional to its frequency.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tiberius
6) Scientists have and do continuously research mystical claims. For thousands of years, there has yet to be one proven and reliably repeatable incident of anything happening or anyone's special abilities that could not be explained through normal scientific means under controlled conditions. This doesn't mean that there AREN'T such things, but it does make it incredibly improbably in my view. Of course, anyone without an agenda who has looked objectively at these things and come away with no evidence is labeled as a "debunker" so the mystics will only accept one answer - the one that confirms their delusional worldview.

Well at least we know this much, somebody is under the delusion that "somebody" is under a delusion ...

And yet what is a delusion, if not one's own "subjective view?" Am afraid that's all we've got to work with, you know, with being human and all. Perhaps from now on we should keep our delusions (subjective views) to ourselves?

Hmm ... I wonder if this alludes to a "metaphysical concept" as well?

The mind is the fabricator of its "own reality." Therefore reality must be a delusion (of the mind).

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then how do you explain the fact that dreams are quite often triggered by something that happened earlier in the day? Or, why some dreams are pre-cognitive? Or why dreams hold deep "phsycological truths" about who we are? I don't think any of this can be disputed? Which tells me that there's something more than "physiology" going on.

1. Because that's what dreams usually are. The brain does not receive information from metaphysics, or is really original. It pieces together memories as a new tapestry, a process that has been show to be of physical usefulness in the maintenance of the brain.

2. This is, as we all know, unproven.

3. Because the dreams come from the brain, and clearly are influenced by it's state. And that many "interpretations" of dreams are too generalised to sort deep "truths" from fiction.

4. Not at all. IMHO, this suggests a fundamental root cause which lies precisely in physiology.

I think you may give mere physiology too little credit?

 

[physicskid]

Nothing is real

Which is real? 'Physical world' or 'non-physical world'(metaphysical)

Nothing is real? Or is it both are real? [?] The answer to this question is impossible to find out, so why bother to know? Metaphysics is a unnessary subject.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
1. Because that's what dreams usually are. The brain does not receive information from metaphysics, or is really original. It pieces together memories as a new tapestry, a process that has been show to be of physical usefulness in the maintenance of the brain.

2. This is, as we all know, unproven.

3. Because the dreams come from the brain, and clearly are influenced by it's state. And that many "interpretations" of dreams are too generalised to sort deep "truths" from fiction.

4. Not at all. IMHO, this suggests a fundamental root cause which lies precisely in physiology.

I think you may give mere physiology too little credit?

To the degree that you take something out of context, you destroy it, and it loses its essence or "soul." In which case physiology becomes the context (receptacle) of what spirituality is the essence. This only belies the relationship between the visible world, which we can see, and the invisible world which moves it, which then becomes "metaphysics."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by physicskid
Which is real? 'Physical world' or 'non-physical world'(metaphysical)

Nothing is real? Or is it both are real? [?] The answer to this question is impossible to find out, so why bother to know? Metaphysics is a unnessary subject.

Nothing is real? And yet everything is real, at least in the "subjective sense." Hmm ... but doesn't that also imply "nothing is real?" Then maybe it's a good thing we have metaphysics to bail us out? If you don't agree, then perhaps "I" won't respond to your next reply, because "I" am not real or, at least not neccessary, to your "subjective opinion."

If reality is only real in the sense of how we perceive it, then that implies there's a gap, which can never be bridged, except perhaps through "metaphysics."

 

[Royce]

A number of years ago I did a physical experiement with a friend of mine to witness it. I had a brand new Fluke digital voltmeter calibrated to .001 volt with a temperature probe calibated to .1 degree F. Using a silicon grease based heat sink compound to better transfer heat I held in my hand the tip of the temperature probe. The initial temperature of the palm of my hand was 96.4 Degrees F. By my will alone I was able to raise the temperature sensed by the probe to 106.8 degrees F. I did not squeeze nor rub the probe but held it firmly but motionless in the palm of my hand. It took several minutes for me to reach that temperature and once I read 10 D.F. over normal core body temperature I stopped and took the temperature of my other hand. It again read 96.4 D.F. I the tried to lower the temperature of my hand. By the same method I was able to bring the reading down to 87.6 D.F. in just a few minutes. I was able to do both with either hand at will but not as easily with my other (right) hand nor was I able to reach the same temperature extremes.
This is all absolutely true with no other changes than my will. I swear to the truth of the above by whatever I or you may hold sacred.
I am familiar with biofeedback theory and techniques. I can not explain by physilogical means only how I was able to raise the temperature read in my hand to 10 D.F. above normal.
I have read that some adepts are able to make water come to a boil or paper burst into flame by mental power or will alone. I have never seen this nor have I tried to do it. The point of this post is to show that the metephysical does exist and can and does interact and effect the physical. If not please explain how I was able to do this and please explain where the extra heat energy came from or where it went consistant with physilogical and thermadynamic theories.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Light IS energy. All energy exists in the form of particles (and particles can have wave-like properties).

So you say . . . I disagree. The only thing you can say for certain about energy is that it's the capacity to do work, period. No one has ever observed energy itself when its expended doing work, that is exactly why it's defined the way it is. You see the result of energy, but you cannot see energy. Therefore neither you nor anyone else knows what energy is, only what it can do. So I maintain that light is an oscillating luminescence that carries energy, and whose magnitude of energy is reflected by its frequency.

Originally posted by Tiberius
There is absolutely no reason to presume that what happens with the body and brain in meditation is anything other than completely mechanistic and understandable through physical laws. Indeed, there are a number of reasons to suspect just that.

There is the standard materialist position. I am familiar with both the physiological evidence and the experience of meditation, and I say there is no reason to assume it is "mechanistic and understandable through physical laws" unless, that is, you are already to committed to the materialist view.

You are doing what every materialist I've ever run into does, and that is to study only one side of the subject. They are full of facts about science, but don't know squat about meditation or the history of the enlightenment experience. That doesn't stop them from speaking like they are an authority.

Originally posted by Tiberius
When I said that the soul/heaven hypothesis had been proven irrelevant, it is clear when looking at the context and place in the paragraph, I was referring to the ORIGINAL version of these, which saw the afterlife/heaven as literally being outer space and the soul as being a physical gas-like substance that could have been weighed or captured in a jar. Please read the opinions of others and do not "skim" over them and mistakes of understanding like this should be easier to avoid.

Nonsense. I misunderstood and skimmed over nothing. I did not criticize what you said about the soul etc. for the reason you just listed, but rather because because you offered pagan beliefs as typical of metaphysics. I said, "You cite pagen beliefs as representing the metaphysical, and then compare that to modern science. Well, I could cite alchemy as representing science and play the same game."

My point was, again, that you know the science side but you don't consider it worth your time to understand the part of metaphysics that has some weight to it. I agree that there is a lot of silly stuff being claimed. In my opinion, all the talk about communicating with the dead (pets even!), supernatural claims, other such stuff is nonsense. But just like there are pseudo-scientists, there pseudo-metaphysists. When you represent all of metaphysics by the stupid ones, that is not a fair or accurate representation.

The subject of this thread is physical and metaphysical, not physical and superstitious. If we are going to debate the possibility of their interaction, or even that the metaphysical exists, at least do a little homework and read the best representatives of the metaphysical. Try Meister Eckhart, Kabir, the Sufi Ni'matullahi, the metaphysics of Socrates in Phaedo (IMO, the greatst of all the dialogues), the Hasid Israel ben Eliezer, Teilhard de Chardin, readings from the Greek Philokalia, Confucius, Brother Lawrence, the dialogues of the Buddha . . .

You know, come to a discussion either with a well rounded view, or with the willingess to learn. How can you "assume" things about a subject you've not investigated?

 

[Royce]

In support of Les and to add to my previous post about the "experiment", it has just occurred to me that any and all acts of will are perfect and well documented and accepted cases of the metaphysical effecting and affecting the physical. Biofeedback is proven and an accepted phenomena. It is a classic example of mind over matter.
The mind and will are of the metaphysical by deffinition and the brain and body are of the physical, yet our minds and our will constantly make our bodies do physical things and change their states. Simple things like willing my arms and hands to move and type this post is an act of abstract thought and will effecting the physical reality of the universe.
By my will alone I have changed the universe, added to it and changed the energy state of countless electrons and photons. We all do this every moment of our lives. Is this not proof of the metaphysical and it's effect on the physical? This is so natural and commonplace that we never think of it as such; but, it is.
While you may claim that brain activity is merely the electrochemical physical action of brain cells, you can not deny that thought, will and/or purpose exists or that they effect the physical reality that is the material universe.
I may be wrong; but, I think that this logic is infallible and undeniable even to a pure materialist. I invite all of you to prove me wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Royce
A number of years ago I did a physical experiement with a friend of mine to witness it. I had a brand new Fluke digital voltmeter calibrated to .001 volt with a temperature probe calibated to .1 degree F. Using a silicon grease based heat sink compound to better transfer heat I held in my hand the tip of the temperature probe. The initial temperature of the palm of my hand was 96.4 Degrees F. By my will alone I was able to raise the temperature sensed by the probe to 106.8 degrees F. I did not squeeze nor rub the probe but held it firmly but motionless in the palm of my hand. It took several minutes for me to reach that temperature and once I read 10 D.F. over normal core body temperature I stopped and took the temperature of my other hand. It again read 96.4 D.F. I the tried to lower the temperature of my hand. By the same method I was able to bring the reading down to 87.6 D.F. in just a few minutes. I was able to do both with either hand at will but not as easily with my other (right) hand nor was I able to reach the same temperature extremes.
This is all absolutely true with no other changes than my will. I swear to the truth of the above by whatever I or you may hold sacred.
I am familiar with biofeedback theory and techniques. I can not explain by physilogical means only how I was able to raise the temperature read in my hand to 10 D.F. above normal.
I have read that some adepts are able to make water come to a boil or paper burst into flame by mental power or will alone. I have never seen this nor have I tried to do it. The point of this post is to show that the metephysical does exist and can and does interact and effect the physical. If not please explain how I was able to do this and please explain where the extra heat energy came from or where it went consistant with physilogical and thermadynamic theories.

I'm sure that is true - nothing about changing your body temperature is metaphysical. If anything, this proves that the brain and the body are one. Your experiment gives a strong indication that there is no mind-body duality and that the activity of the brain is purely mechanical. If I build a complex robot with a robot brain it could do the same thing.

The "extra energy" did not come out of nowhere - it is stored in your fat cells. What you did was no more fantastic than when I get in my car and start it up. The engine heats up, and that heats the surrounding metal. It gets the energy from the gas in the tank. Tell me, had you eaten in the last few days? Why do you think we have to eat?

All you did was get excited and that raised your adrenalin level. The ability of the brain to control the activity of the body has been shown in many many ways and is purely physical and explainable. On the other hand, if you were to "boil water" with only your mind, and without touching it, then you could get a million bucks - all you have to do is do it under controlled conditions that rule out trickery, with mutually agreed to procedures. So far, no one in history has ever been able to do this. But a lot of people have made a lot of money creating flim flam TV specials that suggest such.

 

[Royce]

If all I did was raise my adrenilin level then why did my other hand stay relatively cool? Why was I able to burn off the energy and adrenlin level so fast, within a few minutes, that I could lower the temperature of the same hand by 15-20 degrees. How could I raise or lower the temperature detected in my hand to extremes that would render my body unconsious at best or dead under normal circumstances. It was not my body changing its temperature but my hand or possibly just the probe.
Either way, as I later posted, it is mind/will over matter. Mind and or will is metaphysical, not spiritual or mystic, but metaphysical by the definitions given in the beginning of this thread.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
There is the standard materialist position. I am familiar with both the physiological evidence and the experience of meditation, and I say there is no reason to assume it is "mechanistic and understandable through physical laws" unless, that is, you are already to committed to the materialist view.

It's not an assumption. While physical explanations don't explain the claims of some people, we have no real evidence that any of those bizarre claims even ever happened in the first place. But it is clear that the physical side is explaining the thing we know happen very well so far. Sure, there might be some sort of metaphysical phenomenon, but there's no reason to think so given what data we really have. Once something inexplicable can actually be shown to have happened in the first place, then we can begin talking about explanations. But I'm not going to debate explanations for things which no one can even prove happened at all.

You are doing what every materialist I've ever run into does, and that is to study only one side of the subject. They are full of facts about science, but don't know squat about meditation or the history of the enlightenment experience. That doesn't stop them from speaking like they are an authority.

Give me one example of something that has happened which cannot, in principle, be explained through physical means. Then prove that it actually happened and show it happening in repeatable and controlled conditions. Until we actually establish that any mumbo jumbo has actually taken place, then there's no point in researching causes.

Nonsense. I misunderstood and skimmed over nothing. I did not criticize what you said about the soul etc. for the reason you just listed, but rather because because you offered pagan beliefs as typical of metaphysics.

Wrong. I did not say that "pagan beliefs" are typical of metaphysics. I gave a history of the perspective that things like souls and heaven (metaphysical concepts) were seen as. And it was accurate. My very post explained the changes that took place in the perspective over time - and that would NECESSARILY mean that those early views were not typical of modern metaphysics.

My point was, again, that you know the science side but you don't consider it worth your time to understand the part of metaphysics that has some weight to it. I agree that there is a lot of silly stuff being claimed. In my opinion, all the talk about communicating with the dead (pets even!), supernatural claims, other such stuff is nonsense. But just like there are pseudo-scientists, there pseudo-metaphysists. When you represent all of metaphysics by the stupid ones, that is not a fair or accurate representation.

Every mystic has their own little favorite superstition that they say is the "real" one. hehe. :)

The subject of this thread is physical and metaphysical, not physical and superstitious.

Can you explain the difference?

...the metaphysics of Socrates in Phaedo (IMO, the greatst of all the dialogues)...

If you have read Phaedo then you should know what I was talking about. Socrates clearly believes that all of what he's talking about (the gods, afterlife, underworld, souls, etc.) are purely physical and natural phenomenon that exist in this realm. When he talks of the realm of the gods, he LITERALLY means that which you see in the night sky. When you look at the language in Phaedo, then it is obvious that socrates believed you could actually visit the gods if you had a rocket ship (pretending for a moment he knew what one was).

It was only after alternate explanations of the stars, earth, and biology started taking over the stage did people start to look at these concepts as "metaphysical" or immaterial.

You know, come to a discussion either with a well rounded view, or with the willingess to learn. How can you "assume" things about a subject you've not investigated?

A well rounded view? When one side is a bunch of baloney and the other is accurate then what you call a "well rounded view" would not be desireable. And I have investigated it to great lengths. I know it's easier to claim I haven't than to actually provide some sensible reason to believe in the metaphysical, but I hope that you do - it would make great reading. Think that metaphysics is real? Then prove it. People like yourself have been trying for thousands of years and have not been able to yet.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Royce
If all I did was raise my adrenilin level then why did my other hand stay relatively cool?

Ever seen an infrared image of a human? Our temperatures vary all over our bodies. Sure, it's possible through microimpulses in our muscles and nerves to excite one part of our bodies. Nothing metaphysical there.

Why was I able to burn off the energy and adrenlin level so fast, within a few minutes, that I could lower the temperature of the same hand by 15-20 degrees?

Because bodies can and do change temperature and excitement levels very quickly - often QUICKER than a few minutes. Perfectly normal and within observed biology.

How could I raise or lower the temperature detected in my hand to extremes that would render my body unconsious at best or dead under normal circumstances. It was not my body changing its temperature but my hand or possibly just the probe.

The above is a mix of exaduration and misunderstanding of temperature.

Either way, as I later posted, it is mind/will over matter. Mind and or will is metaphysical, not spiritual or mystic, but metaphysical by the definitions given in the beginning of this thread. [/B]

Well, it's BRAIN over matter. And since the brain is physical, then it's really MATTER over MATTER.

But I know what you're saying about the "mind" being metaphysical. This is a different subcategory of metaphysical that you've described and I've been meaning to get to...

There are many things in our vocabulary and in the world that are not "physical" per se, yet not spiritual or mystical. For example, "democracy", "capitalism", "socialism", "mind", "Windows 2000", "party", and so on.

These are nouns, but they are not words that represent physical objects. Rather, they represent activity, patterns, and situations. These things are REAL and, as you said, part of this universe, but not physical.

The Mind is the name we give to the pattern of electrochemical activity in the brain. This pattern codes for information - memories, attitudes, and active thought (a form of computation or information processing). So, the "mind" is not an object, but a description of activity - a PATTERN.

I am perfectly willing to entertain notions such as these. If you wish to refer to all patterns of activity as "metaphysical" just because they, like democracy, cannot be held in the hand or put on a scale, then I suppose that's ok with me, but there's the whole other class of "metaphysics" that DOES involve alleged things outside the natural universe, which this must be distinguished from.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
Either way, as I later posted, it is mind/will over matter. Mind and or will is metaphysical, not spiritual or mystic, but metaphysical by the definitions given in the beginning of this thread.

I think we could develop a description of the "meta" part of metaphysical which most anyone might agree. I doubt few would disagree that mind wills the body. If we look at the behavior of matter not under the control of consciousness, it just sits there for the most part, or if inanimate matter does have dynamics, they are quite predictable.

In the interests of finding a common ground, and since this is a science site, I try not to stray too far from what facts support, even if I might suspect a lot more is going on than the facts. The best sorts of facts are those everyone can easily see. For instance, even if we are a product solely of matter as materialists claim, then some part of this "living matter" has certainly transcended itself in order to manifest in the areas of will, creativity, love . . . no unconscious matter can do any such thing.

Though hoping to find common ground, I am starting to suspect that those of us who appreciate the meta of physics are wasting our time talking to radical mechanists. They look at reality the way someone might examine music only by studying the notes, never sitting down and listening deeply and with all one's being. The "feel" of existence seems irrelevant to them, whereas to me at least, it is more relevant (to my existence) than the facts because if I couldn't feel, I wouldn't care if I existed at all.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Tiberius



A well rounded view? When one side is a bunch of baloney and the other is accurate then what you call a "well rounded view" would not be desireable. And I have investigated it to great lengths. I know it's easier to claim I haven't than to actually provide some sensible reason to believe in the metaphysical, but I hope that you do - it would make great reading. Think that metaphysics is real? Then prove it. People like yourself have been trying for thousands of years and have not been able to yet.

Here we go again. How can you claim to have an unbiased opinion and a well rounded view when you claim that one side is a bunch of baloney. This is a biased view and shows that you have not even looked FOR much less AT existing evidense to form an unbiased fair opinion. By your own words you condemn yourself to the level of a materialistic bigot. One who because of their mind set refuses to acknowledge the existence of anything outside their belif system. This is scientific objectivism? Not in my mind. It is just as irrational and illogical and closed minded as any superstistous, religious fanatic. I do not in any way mean this personally or to be offensive. Read you own post and see the contradictions.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tiberius
It's not an assumption. While physical explanations don't explain the claims of some people, we have no real evidence that any of those bizarre claims even ever happened in the first place.

You say it isn't an assumption and then you speak of metaphysics only as bizarre. There's an assumption! I've already agreed with you about bizarre claims. Can't you imagine any sort of metaphysics that isn't bizarre?

Originally posted by Tiberius But it is clear that the physical side is explaining the thing we know happen very well so far. Sure, there might be some sort of metaphysical phenomenon, but there's no reason to think so given what data we really have.

The empirical method reveals only physics, and so "physical side" is explaining the physical side! If the only way you examine reality is through a method that only reveals physics, then exactly what else should you expect to find? If you look only at the universe's mechanics, how else can you describe it? If you only accept mechanistic explanations, then what else will you hear?

It is no different than someone who has a fetish. Fetishists will tell you a certain object has incredible potency (i.e., to stimulate them), but really it is the way they are looking at the object. A fetish for mechanics can similarly distort one's view, making it flat and lifeless to all but those sexy mechanics.

Originally posted by Tiberius
Can you explain the difference?

Read some of the works I recommended, there is a whole other category of inner person than the superstitious.

Originally posted by Tiberius
If you have read Phaedo then you should know what I was talking about. Socrates clearly believes that all of what he's talking about (the gods, afterlife, underworld, souls, etc.) are purely physical and natural phenomenon that exist in this realm. When he talks of the realm of the gods, he LITERALLY means that which you see in the night sky. When you look at the language in Phaedo, then it is obvious that socrates believed you could actually visit the gods if you had a rocket ship (pretending for a moment he knew what one was).

Boy, how could you possibly have misunderstood Socrates more! For one thing, one of the charges against him at his trial was his ridicule of the gods and cult practices. He believed none of it. When he did speak of them in dialogues, it was simply using language and phrases of the time to communicate.

Originally posted by Tiberius
A well rounded view? When one side is a bunch of baloney and the other is accurate then what you call a "well rounded view" would not be desireable. And I have investigated it to great lengths. I know it's easier to claim I haven't than to actually provide some sensible reason to believe in the metaphysical, but I hope that you do - it would make great reading. Think that metaphysics is real? Then prove it. People like yourself have been trying for thousands of years and have not been able to yet.

Well, you have not investigated the practice of samadhi or union prayer as it's called in the West, and you don't know anything about the enlightenment experience. This is the "legitimate" area of metaphysics, and doesn't deserve you lumping of the pseudo-science stuff in with it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Where's the Beef?

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Though hoping to find common ground, I am starting to suspect that those of us who appreciate the meta of physics are wasting our time talking to radical mechanists. They look at reality the way someone might examine music only by studying the notes, never sitting down and listening deeply and with all one's being. The "feel" of existence seems irrelevant to them, whereas to me at least, it is more relevant (to my existence) than the facts because if I couldn't feel, I wouldn't care if I existed at all.

What's the whole point in examining every single last aspect that went into the cow, that went into the steak, that's conveyed in front of you on a plate, when the whole point is to sink your teeth into it and chow down!?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
To the degree that you take something out of context, you destroy it, and it loses its essence or "soul." In which case physiology becomes the context (receptacle) of what spirituality is the essence. This only belies the relationship between the visible world, which we can see, and the invisible world which moves it, which then becomes "metaphysics."

That only works so long as you already assume that the metaphysics exists. If you do not, then you can find a purely physical explanation, and description. Hence, this is not evidence of metaphysics, but is in fact neutral as far as the argument goes.

If all I did was raise my adrenilin level then why did my other hand stay relatively cool?

I don't think you did raise your adrenilin level. I think you dilated the surface capillaries in your warming hand. Cooling is acheived by contracting these same capillaries. The body frequently does this to transfer heat out of the inner parts of the body, and this system is know to be controlled (normally subconsciously) by a specific part of the brain. It is very probable that you manage to achieve some degree of bio-feedback with the homeostasis part of your brain, and hence have some control over it.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Royce
Here we go again. How can you claim to have an unbiased opinion and a well rounded view when you claim that one side is a bunch of baloney. This is a biased view and shows that you have not even looked FOR much less AT existing evidense to form an unbiased fair opinion. By your own words you condemn yourself to the level of a materialistic bigot. One who because of their mind set refuses to acknowledge the existence of anything outside their belif system. This is scientific objectivism? Not in my mind. It is just as irrational and illogical and closed minded as any superstistous, religious fanatic. I do not in any way mean this personally or to be offensive. Read you own post and see the contradictions.

Why do you assume that I must be biased just because I've taken a position? How the hell do YOU know what I've "looked for" and what I haven't? Do I know you? Is it completely unthinkable that I have seriously considered and studied nonmaterialist ideas, and then come to the decision that they are unsupported? You can't possibly imagine that someone could do this so you claim that I've just discounted these things outright. You are completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that a person could seriously consider all sides and come to the conclusion of naturalism. Nice.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
That only works so long as you already assume that the metaphysics exists. If you do not, then you can find a purely physical explanation, and description. Hence, this is not evidence of metaphysics, but is in fact neutral as far as the argument goes.

And yet your argument works only if it's "unknowable." Which I and many others have suggested to the contrary. If it exists then it "has" to be knowable, at least in some form.

 

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The empirical method reveals only physics, and so "physical side" is explaining the physical side! If the only way you examine reality is through a method that only reveals physics, then exactly what else should you expect to find? If you look only at the universe's mechanics, how else can you describe it? If you only accept mechanistic explanations, then what else will you hear?

Show me another effective method for gaining data than the empirical method and I'll consider it.

Boy, how could you possibly have misunderstood Socrates more! For one thing, one of the charges against him at his trial was his ridicule of the gods and cult practices. He believed none of it. When he did speak of them in dialogues, it was simply using language and phrases of the time to communicate.

I have not misunderstood Socrates, you have. I have broken down this and other books in Plato's Dialogues line by line. Socrates was ACCUSED of being an atheist and it was a bogus charge, and he himself said specifically that he was not. He merely had a different take on the nature of the gods than a number of the more superstitious masses, who didn't care for him questioning their nature, and so thus came the accusation. Socrates, according to Plato at least, believed in the gods, the afterlife, an immortal soul, and the underworld. Not only do I know this, but I know how and why he came to those exact conclusions. But he believed these were physical in nature. In other words, these were his scientific theories of the time. In essence, he was a materialist because materialists were all that there was in the western culture before the enlightenment. For example, most of the writers of the Christian Bible were actually materialists because they thought that heaven was the night sky and that you could reach hell with a shovel.
[/quote]

Yeah, a well rounded view. You have not investigated the practice of samadhi or union prayer as it's called in the West, and you don't know anything about the enlightenment experience.
[/B]

And you've bought into all this without having read every single thing some random person on a chat board might throw at you (unless you have read every book in the world, in which case I apologize). Besides, if I'm criticizing things other than what you're talking about, then why be mad that I haven't read them? They're obviously irrelevant to what I'm saying in that case. So, why don't you tell us about union prayer to take an example - a summary?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
This was discussed at a thread in the physics area where I asked if light ever spontaneously loses energy. A photon can lose energy if it collides with another particle, and according to Marcus at least, the expansion of the universe is causing light to "stretch" to longer wavelengths and therefore lose energy (the very reason for cosmic background radiation).

Light has energy in it's momentum, and also it's frequency. So while light will always travel at c, it can have various energy levels which are associated with the frequencies of the EM spectrum. At any rate, it is not possible to find light that isn't traveling at c, or at a certain spectrum.

My point is, if a photon can drop from infrared to microwave frequency, for instance, and it does not alter c, then it means energy has nothing to do with c. Similarly, if one cannot get light to stop oscillating by lowering its energy, then oscillation (again, not the rate of oscillation) is also independent of energy.

Remember that the momentum of light is also a form of energy. So no energy, no c.

And my larger point is that light is NOT energy, but is something in its own right. It does "carry" energy, and as it is energized it takes on the various characteristics observed at different wavelengths.

Light is certainly a form of energy, just like everything else.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Show me another effective method for gaining data than the empirical method and I'll consider it.

Data? What does that have to do with this discussion? Gathering data is very relevant to studying physics, but utterly irrelevant to the deeper sort of metaphysics I have been trying to get you to consider. Those people who want to gather data using metaphysics I say are wasting time; and those people who want to understand metaphysics by gathering data are also spinning their wheels. For understanding metaphysics, check out samadhi meditation. It enlighened the Buddha, and many others as well.

Originally posted by Tiberius
I have not misunderstood Socrates, you have.

I am not going to argue Socrates with you, it will take years. Let's agree to disagree (radically!).

Originally posted by Tiberius
the writers of the Christian Bible were actually materialists because they thought that heaven was the night sky and that you could reach hell with a shovel.

This is too sloppy for words. Which writers are you referring to? There are far too many writers contributing to the Bible to generalize about. And what part of the Bible do you mean? The whole thing, or just the NT? In the NT, quote me one writer, just one saying that.

Originally posted by Tiberius
And you've bought into all this without having read every single thing some random person on a chat board might throw at you (unless you have read every book in the world, in which case I apologize).

I haven't read every book. But it is my area of expertise and where I am formally educated, and something I've been trying to understand for 30 years. I don't expect someone who isn't interested in metaphysics to be an expert, but if not, then I do expect you to make sure what you say is accurate when you are fault-finding, which is what you have been doing.

My objection is to you not specifically singling out the bogus practices of mind readers, pet psychics, etc., and infering from them a general criticism of all metaphysics. That is sloppy scholarship.

The reason I find that objectionable is because I am a big fan of science. And I am a big fan of metaphysics. I don't see why the two need to be at odds. If I ever run across some metaphysical assertion that contradicts a known physical fact, I wouldn't accept it -- supernatural phenomenon, for instance.

My experience has been that metaphysical understanding is an inner thing, and physical understanding is an outer thing. In terms of acquiring knowledge in each other's domain, they don't seem very compatible, and I am perfectly happy with that.

 

[Royce]

Les, my point was that, simply stated, the metaphysical mind can interact with the physical universe, which addresses one of the original questions of this thread. I thought this was obvious but now the mind and will is even being denied existence.
I thought that once the point made that the meta does interact with the physical on the mind and will level, which I thought would be accepted as obvious, then by extention, we could speculate that spirit or soul exists then the case had already been made that they too could interact with the physical reality.

 

[quantumdude]

Boy, are you guys confused.

Rather than address all the posts in this thread, I am going to speak in some generalities and then comment on the one post that lies at the root of the conceptual problem.

Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality. Physicists make use of the concept because the dynamical behavior of physical systems is such that this mathematical function is conserved.

Some examples of energy forms and the state variables that determine them:

KE of a particle: K=(1/2)mv² State variable: v
PE of a particle in a gravitational field: V=-GMm/r State variable: r
Energy of a photon: E_γ=hf State variable: f

et cetera...

In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Energy may be physical, but why do you think it is particles? Take light/EM for example. If light is energy, then why does the loss of energy result in a longer wavelength and a slower oscillatory rate?

Because that is how energy is defined.

All we should see is less energy and no other characteristics remaining behind. Are you saying energy is wave-ness and oscillitory rate-ness?

Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.

And then, what is the "particle" of heat? Heat isn't a particle as far as I know.

Heat is not quantized, but a macroscopic phenomenon. The state variable in this case is the temperature, and that is what is measured.

Personally, I don't think light/EM is energy, but rather is something that can be energized. Light appears to be something unique to itself -- luminescence plus vibrancy -- which remains present whether you increase or decrease its energy.

It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has an energy that can be calculated.

I don't think you are anybody else knows what energy actually "is." That is why in physics energy is only described in terms of what it does -- work. Energy is a mystery, and if you have the secret of it, please share so we can all know.

Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

 

[Iacchus32]

Ahh, "wisdom" is the interior of what knowledge is the exterior. Knowledge is the physical, of which wisdom is the metaphysical. This is why science doesn't get it.

Science "follows" the path of knowledge, while the mystic "searches" the path of wisdom.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Tom
Boy, are you guys confused.

Actually I was hoping someone would step in who can speak with authority. I’ve been trying to pick a fight to test my understanding of something. If you will tolerate it, let me challenge you a bit to see what comes out of it.

You say, "Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality."

At the old PF, Integral said this too, basically saying that energy is a means of measurement. So when you say “state variables that do have reality,” aren’t you meaning by the term “reality,” that which can be observed, measured, and quantified? Does energy fail to qualify for that (i.e., reality) because only energy’s effects can be seen (work), while energy itself (whatever that is) is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable?

Originally posted by Tom In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.

Got it. But building on my previous point, is it that energy is “nothing,” or is it that energy is unobservable, immeasurable, and unquantifiable? You know it is “real” because you can see its effect on things, but for the sake of predicting and working in physics you have to find a way to observe, measure, and quantify. Since energy is contrary to that, you observe, measure, and quantify its effects on things.

Originally posted by Tom
Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.

That seems to agree with my line of reasoning.

Originally posted by Tom
It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has an energy that can be calculated.

This is why I picked the fight. A number of people have been saying that energy is light. I used to think so too, until I realized light can be more, or less, energized. To me it is illogical that light can gain or lose energy without losing base characteristics, like c or oscillation. In every other instance where energy is required to move something, energy is expended. But light travels at c no matter what its energy. Therefore, energy is not responsible for c; c must be related to something else altogether.

It is harder to make the case with oscillation (as a base characteristic of light) because it does slow and elongate in lower energy states. My argument there is that maybe light has a “base state” of vibrancy which energy is exaggerating. Since oscillation frequency increases as the wavelength shortens, then possibly “energy” is potentialized by compression of the base state of light, and made available for work when it decompresses.

Originally posted by Tom
Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

That’s the only thing you said I can’t see. If you assign a definition or a number to something, that is just its representative. You may understand the representative system you’ve set up, but it doesn’t mean you understand that which it represents.

 

[Eh]

What exactly are you imagining light is? Do a thought experiment here. Take a photon, and then list the various properties it has. Can you find a property that isn't related to energy?

 

[MavinMI6Agent009]

I think that there's a psychophysical dualism construct that acquires two basic powers of the human mind and brain: the cognitive and the conative. Both are cooperative and interactive. Whatever exists physically exists as an individual thus each individuality has materialism in existence. Regardless of what an object may be such as a building, car, or tree, their is always some physical embodiment material. Just my 0.5 cents.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tiberius

There are many things in our vocabulary and in the world that are not "physical" per se, yet not spiritual or mystical. For example, "democracy", "capitalism", "socialism", "mind", "Windows 2000", "party", and so on.

These are nouns, but they are not words that represent physical objects. Rather, they represent activity, patterns, and situations. These things are REAL and, as you said, part of this universe, but not physical.

The Mind is the name we give to the pattern of electrochemical activity in the brain. This pattern codes for information - memories, attitudes, and active thought (a form of computation or information processing). So, the "mind" is not an object, but a description of activity - a PATTERN.

I am perfectly willing to entertain notions such as these. If you wish to refer to all patterns of activity as "metaphysical" just because they, like democracy, cannot be held in the hand or put on a scale, then I suppose that's ok with me, but there's the whole other class of "metaphysics" that DOES involve alleged things outside the natural universe, which this must be distinguished from.

What could there be "outside the natural Universe"?

What phenomena would you classify as "metaphysical"?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Tom
Boy, are you guys confused.

Rather than address all the posts in this thread, I am going to speak in some generalities and then comment on the one post that lies at the root of the conceptual problem.

Energy is a defined mathematical quantity. It has no physical reality apart from its functional dependence on state variables that do have reality. Physicists make use of the concept because the dynamical behavior of physical systems is such that this mathematical function is conserved.

Some examples of energy forms and the state variables that determine them:

In a dynamical physical system, the state of the system at a given instant is a sort of snapshot of the system, determined by the complete set of state variables. The energy of the state is nothing more than a number associated with the state, calculated by means of rules that associate state variables with forms of energy.

Because that is how energy is defined.

Actually, we should not "see" energy at all. We do not measure energy, we measure the values of state variables. What we "see" is light with a lower frequency, and from that information we calculate its energy to be lower.

Heat is not quantized, but a macroscopic phenomenon. The state variable in this case is the temperature, and that is what is measured.

It agree that the statement "light is energy" is false. Rather, light has an energy that can be calculated.

Actually, since energy is a simple matter of mathematical definition, we do know exactly what it is.

So "energy" is not "independently real" but is a "function" of that which is "real"? This is a serious inquiry...so don't hurt.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Royce
Les, my point was that, simply stated, the metaphysical mind can interact with the physical universe, which addresses one of the original questions of this thread. I thought this was obvious but now the mind and will is even being denied existence.
I thought that once the point made that the meta does interact with the physical on the mind and will level, which I thought would be accepted as obvious, then by extention, we could speculate that spirit or soul exists then the case had already been made that they too could interact with the physical reality.

That is a pretty good argument . . . if (IMO) you are talking to people who already suspect something metaphysical is in charge.

But I have found that in debating with those who doubt that, they won't allow such a long inferential leap. Someone whose mind is already made up is hopeless, but the open-minded skeptic, who is so because he needs evidence and for things to make sense, might listen if you can make your case each and every step along the way.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I think we could develop a description of the "meta" part of metaphysical which most anyone might agree. I doubt few would disagree that mind wills the body. If we look at the behavior of matter not under the control of consciousness, it just sits there for the most part, or if inanimate matter does have dynamics, they are quite predictable.

Actually, "metaphysics" -- according to Webster -- is quite respectable...NOT the "woo-woo" thinking we have come to associate with the word.

METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) ad, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (cosmology).

METAPHYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning; too abstract; excessively subtle; SUPERNATURAL...and here's where the problems begin!

Actually, anything that "happens" in the Universe should be thought of, by definition, as NATURAL. Yet even "consciousness" is not worthy of discussion -- let alone INCLUSION -- within cosmological theory ...as if consciousness is not a PART of the Universe at all.

I purposely didn't include one word that Webster did (actually, I'm using 'The American Heritage Dictionary"); the word is "immaterial". I would assume they mean "without substance" and not "without function".

Thus, it would seem, that when a materialists cannot detect, measure or test a "substance" then...it (whatever the "it" may be ) doesn't exist.

Some things can only be "measured" by their EFFECTS...yet, again, consciousness is left out in the cold because its effects can't be definitively demonstrated or predicted.

Of course you know there have been experiments on "intention's" effect on "random events"...but even these are inconclusive.

I, too, would like to "unite" -- via persuasive logic, if nothing else -- that which is UNITED ALREADY: the natural forces/processes/ingredients of the physical and non-physical Universe.

Good luck with that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Actually, "metaphysics" -- according to Webster -- is quite respectable...NOT the "woo-woo" thinking we have come to associate with the word.

METAPHYSICS: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) ad, often, the study of the structure of the Universe (cosmology).

METAPHYSICAL: Based on speculative or abstract reasoning; too abstract; excessively subtle; SUPERNATURAL...and here's where the problems begin!

Actually, anything that "happens" in the Universe should be thought of, by definition, as NATURAL. Yet even "consciousness" is not worthy of discussion -- let alone INCLUSION -- within cosmological theory ...as if consciousness is not a PART of the Universe at all.

I purposely didn't include one word that Webster did (actually, I'm using 'The American Heritage Dictionary"); the word is "immaterial". I would assume they mean "without substance" and not "without function".

Thus, it would seem, that when a materialists cannot detect, measure or test a "substance" then...it (whatever the "it" may be ) doesn't exist.

Some things can only be "measured" by their EFFECTS...yet, again, consciousness is left out in the cold because its effects can't be definitively demonstrated or predicted.

Of course you know there have been experiments on "intention's" effect on "random events"...but even these are inconclusive.

I, too, would like to "unite" -- via persuasive logic, if nothing else -- that which is UNITED ALREADY: the natural forces/processes/ingredients of the physical and non-physical Universe.

Good luck with that.

Good post.