Goblin
Sorcerer
it only changes shape
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is energy?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
it only changes shape
Koldo
Outstanding Member
How one would proceed when trying to rule out the possibility that the soul is responsible for consciousness?
The brain is often referred as something akin to a radio receiving waves from the soul. Has any experiment to (dis)prove this been formulated at least theoretically even if not feasible at this day and age?
I am genuinely curious.
Ahhhhhh....what really is 'ENERGY" ?
Can it be reduced to a fundamental base, invalving only quarks ?
And what in the universe is smaller than a quark ? anyone know ?
What's the distance between a single quark and a clunk of gold.
What are photons, and where are they,
one can't see them in their own light.
~
'mud
Can it be reduced to a fundamental base, invalving only quarks ?
And what in the universe is smaller than a quark ? anyone know ?
What's the distance between a single quark and a clunk of gold.
What are photons, and where are they,
one can't see them in their own light.
~
'mud
Gambit
Well-Known Member
You can't. Even if we were able to build an entire human from scratch and a conscious robot and explain exactly how consciousness worked in both cases, one can always give some kind of "ghost in the machine" argument. However, were we able to explain how consciousness works without reference to anything other than physical processes, this would make it very difficult for anybody to argue that the soul is responsible without essentially positing mechanisms that are not in the explanation as both existing and requiring a soul. It would be somewhat akin to the ways in which acupuncture is effective both in terms of what we know of human physiology and for the reasons it was/is traditionally believed (certain lines along which a kind of internal "energy" qi flows contain points that can affect this vital essence if needles or pressure are applied to them in, and at the right time and in the right configurations). One defines qi in terms of bioelectrical energy or something similar and makes vague references to ways in which the body relies on various kinds of energy and general descriptions of the ways in which stimulation can generate biochemical/electrical signals and then ignores the fact that the specific points and the supposed circulation of qi doesn't correspond to any of this explanation nor anything known about human physiology and the fact that we can explain in more than one way the mechanisms through which acupuncture can work without appealing to qi (from placebo to some more speculative mechanisms, but importantly not is any evidence for acupuncture affecting qi by proper placement of needles, "improper' placement can and has had the same affects).
Actually the closest we've come to experiments like this are parapsychology and similar studies published in "scientific" journals that have editorial boards and founders just so that shoddy "research" can be published in "peer-reviewed" journals.
functional MRI scans are produced using extremely powerful "waves" that align proton spins in hydrogen. EEG also uses "waves" to produce a quite different kind of functional imaging. Basically, all neuroimaging relies on (sometimes incredibly powerful) energy waves affecting the brain. With the exception of a few that are seldom used, these are perfectly safe even when we're talking about magnetic fields generated by MRI machines (so powerful that we are taught to use the kind of wand metal detectors used in airports correctly, because you have to go very slow in order for the wand to detect metal, and if a participant forgets to take out e.g., a piercing it can easily be ripped out before the participant even gets inside the machine). Basically, it is very difficult to affect neural function using any kind of waves, and even when this is possible all that happens is a disruption of normal activity. There is no way that radio waves or electromagnetic radiation or quantum entanglement or whatever could be the mechanism responsible for consciousness as even though we do not know the sufficient conditions involved, we do know necessary conditions. We also know what kinds of things are able to affect those necessary conditions, so if there is a human soul it would have to be operating in a way that isn't just unknown and for which we have no evidence, but also tied to particular physical processes without being "physical". It's basically a "god in the gaps" type argument.
I originally wrote something about how you can determine that your conception of a perfect circle was actually perfect, but decided that there was no point. Turns out I was wrong. A perfect circle requires uncountably infinite points arranged such that if a single point were infinitesimally shifted it wouldn't be perfect. What makes you think you can conceive of such of a thing? How do you know you aren't merely relying on the circles you've seen that are so perfect you can't visually detect the imperfections?There are no physical instantiations of a perfect circle.
Energy doesn't have shape. It's a property of a system. In particle physics and extensions of quantum mechanics energy is conserved by allowing it to become "virtual photons" and other "virtual" particles that exist through the destruction of energy. In general, the creation of photons or energy in a system that results from (or better is required by) conservation laws requires energy to be created and destroyed. This doesn't happen in either classical or quantum mechanics, but any relativistic theory of quantum physics requires it, including the standard model.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
That's the whole point. I'm perceiving a perfect form in abstraction that cannot be physically instantiated. So, I must have a nonsensory perception of some kind of immaterial realm of perfect forms or ideas.
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure. Your 'nonsensory perception of some kind of immaterial realm of perfect forms or ideas' is what we call 'the imagination' right? Or as the Bundjalung say - the dreamtime.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
The non-physical exists CONCEPTUALLY not as substance. You keep dropping the 'conceptually' part - in fact your entire position seems to rely on dropping the 'conceptually' from the claim; The non-physical exists conceptually.
Concepts exist, as concepts - they are non-physical.
Perception is sensory. Unless you are hallucinating, what you perceive is what you see (in this case; you can't hear a circle, perfect or no).
You missed my point. You assume that you are seeing in your "mind's eye" this perfect circle, but you have no way of indicating you are any more capable of conceiving a perfect circle than you are distances between points in 1000th dimensional space or rotations of a matrix in infinite-dimensional space. More importantly, all concepts cannot be physically instantiated externally as they are the means by which we categorized the instances and you can conceive of unicorns and dragons without these existing. All this shows is that you have the capacity to conceive, as it is quite literally impossible to conceive of something that can be physically instantiated (for example, were you to picture in your mind a tree, even a specific tree, it is not possible to conceive of it so perfectly that there exists a direct correspondence between every part of the tree and every property of every part). This is why so much work is required and so much research dedicated to getting computers or computer-based systems to classify/categorize stimuli (faces, characters in CAPTCHAs, obstacles that must be navigated, linguistic constructions, etc.). Computers cannot abstract. If I yell "food" or "treat" two dogs will come running and will be able to determine whether or not what I am holding actually fits into their conceptual representation, even if it is something they've never seen or smelt. CAPTCHAs are so incredibly effective because even very sophisticated classification algorithms are easily defeated by superimposing characters of different "fonts" over a picture (and sophisticated ones are defeated merely by somewhat warping the characters). Computers deal with specifics, and so to get them to simulate the ability to abstract we have to make the abstract specific (which is a non-trivial task).
The fact that you can imagine a tree that you've never seen or mythical animals that have no physical instances doesn't entail this:
First (and I really don't see how this one is hard to understand), perception is the use of sensory faculties. You cannot perceive anything you don't sense (even if it is a hallucination, phantom pain, a mirage, etc.).
Second, that "realm" of forms is your brains capacity to represent concepts through patterns of neural activity. Plato's theory of "truth" (i.e., his model of categorization in which different things could be classified together because they are instances, or possess something of the quality/property of, a single perfect instance) is not the way that our minds work. There is a very readable, classic book Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things which refers to a word in Dyirbal (balan) which is a category that includes women, fire and dangerous things. Lakoff (the author) uses it to illustrate that the influence of Plato and other factors has mislead us: we don't necessarily classify things together because of like properties. How we do is so involved (and involves so many unanswered and debated issues) that it is not worth getting into other than to note that we tend to think more in terms of graded membership, multiple prototypes, etc., not single ideals.
Third, the capacity to form "mental pictures" (aside from not being perception) of non-existent or even perfect ideals doesn't entail any non-physical realm. Just basic imagination.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
some information
Souls do not Exist
Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
Souls do not Exist: Evidence from Science & Philosophy Against Mind-Body Dualism
Emotions Without Souls
How Biochemistry and Neurology Account for Feelings
Emotions Without Souls: How Biochemistry and Neurology Account for Feelings
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Perception is not limited to the senses. Merriam-Webster defines "perception" as follows:
I am not assuming that, you are. I cannot make a mental image of a perfect circle because it's pure abstraction. But I can perceive it.
Agreed. Computers are not conscious.
The bottom line is that abstractions are clearly nonphysical.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
On that point I agree, you can conceive of a perfect circle. The term 'perfect circle' is the name of that conception.
Yes. And what other kinds of non-physical things are there? Isn't that it?
More like "the senses" are defined as those things which enable us to perceive. At least for neuroscientists, linguists, cognitive psychologists, medical doctors, philosophers of mind (actually much of philosophy really), computer scientists, and other fields that form a surprisingly diverse group of people who equate "perceive" with the senses. Of course, in general discourse things are always different. And as I argued in one of these threads perception and conceptualization are very much tied together. However, even in general discourse we rely on context, and when you say you "perceive a perfect circle" it lacks any indication of the metaphorical extensions of perception to include "perceive with the mind" (apprehend, understand, discern, etc.). This is especially true as conceive has come to mean the opposite of, or the contrasting term to, perceive.
If asked what the meaning of life is, would you go to Merriam-Webster or Wikipedia?
There is no sense in which you can perceive anything that isn't either via the senses or in you more common (but still altered) personal definition of perceive such that the above could be true. Either you see the perfect circle, or imagine you do, and in either case there is no way that you could possibly know that this is what you are "perceiving" because if there were actually a perfect circle in reality you would be incapable of discerning that it was.
Also, it's irrelevant. Dragons don't exist in reality, yet you can imagine them.
Sure. Like language is, dreams, books, trees, earth, sky, matter, reality, etc. Words/constructions are expressions of concepts that even when they have referents in the physical world are still abstract. Saying "math isn't physical" really isn't that meaningful, still less thought-provoking.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
The concepts themselves exist as thoughts in our brains (thus as matter and energy). What is being conceived of doesn't exist beyond those thoughts. For example, I can conceive of a dragon flying over the city out of my window. The thought exists in my head but the dragon itself doesn't.
You mean you can cite dictionaries and call them arguments? I'm sorry, I missed this pathetic response to your utter inability to demonstrate (once again) that the entirety of your knowledge of physics amounts to dictionaries and WIki pages (oh, and misleadingly quoting a popular science book).
I grow tired of being challenged by someone who refuses to answer challenges and whose challenges consist of misinterpretations of online dictionaries and the like.You're smarter than this.
