Experience has to be something that exists (The sensation of cold, the sensation of heat, pleasure pain etc.)
Why is it that it is possible to lose sensation of for example your leg??? Experience has to be something that cannot stop existing, cause if not, then it would make a hole of nothingness in the universe, which I consider that it is impossible. Death is considered by many the elimination of sensation, but it doesn’t seem to fit with the nature of the universe which is completely heterogeneous and non void. It is possible for experience to change into something else that does not involve what we call sensation, but it doesn’t seem likely because our experience is tied with certain interactions with matter in our own body (the central nervous system activity and so forth). It actually seems more likely that experience is an extension of matter based on how it interacts, and it cannot disappear just because certain specific matter interactions change in a radical nature (severe brain trauma & death). It looks like every matter has an experience, but again, the idea seems to be in trouble considering that you can actually lose sensation of your extremities depending on how you’ve been damaged. Still, it really doesn’t seem like something logical.
When I’m saying that things cannot cease to exist, I’m saying it on a literal and substantial perspective. For example, matter cannot increase or reduce in quantity it stays with the same measurement on a global perspective, if “experience” suddenly ceases to exist, this would certainly look like experience is suddenly vanishing from the universe and screwing the physics.
Ice cubes can melt but the matter is still there, just a bit more mobile and dispersed. I also don’t think things are existing and they re-existing constantly, they just exist, for things to be a part of objective reality they must exist by definition, and these things are also not free from this objective reality. They are stuck in reality because they make an important component of it, following the law of conservation of mass.
Just FYI … mass is not conserved. The “law” of the conservation of mass was merely a theory, later proved to be wrong. Energy is actually conserved, although even that can be effectively destroyed by causing it to disburse so homogeneously that it could never be detected or willfully recovered. Energy is the only substance that is truly conserved.
An automobile doesn’t exist until it is manufactured. And it no longer exists after being disassembled. The energy and mass that was used to form the automobile in the first place existed before the automobile did. And after the automobile no longer exists, the mass and energy will still exist, but not as an automobile.
If you want to say that because the energy still exists, the automobile still exists, “merely in a different form”, then you will create a couple of mental problems. First the automobile is only an automobile because of its form, without which, it is not an automobile. But then also, the energy that was the automobile becomes the energy that forms a tree later on. So is a tree an automobile or is an automobile a tree? Of course that tree decays and the energy becomes a rabbit. So a rabbit is an automobile?
Well by George, It seems to be.
Although in the long run, everything must be everything else. And if that is the case, then there is nothing.
My bad, I did not take special relativity into consideration, its a relief you understood the point.
“An automobile doesn’t exist until it is manufactured. And it no longer exists after being disassembled. The energy and mass that was used to form the automobile in the first place existed before the automobile did. And after the automobile no longer exists, the mass and energy will still exist, but not as an automobile.”
-The automobile, behind its form is obviously a bundle of energy and matter with certain interactions. That bundle of energy changes but that doesn’t mean it stops existing, it starts doing something else, which in turn makes us perceive a different object.
“If you want to say that because the energy still exists, the automobile still exists, “merely in a different form”, then you will create a couple of mental problems. First the automobile is only an automobile because of its form, without which, it is not an automobile. But then also, the energy that was the automobile becomes the energy that forms a tree later on. So is a tree an automobile or is an automobile a tree? Of course that tree decays and the energy becomes a rabbit. So a rabbit is an automobile?”
-Yes, the car (Why don’t you call it a car??? ) is basically a bundle of energy and matter in certain conditions, those conditions change but while it changes existence is maintained, the car is an illusion of sorts to energy doing different things. Energy appealing differently to the senses because of its change in behavior does not prove inexistence of the energy. Also, a car is as much as a rabbit and a tree in terms of energy doing different activities. NOW, DOES THIS PROVE that energy’s activities can cease to exist??? If this were the case then that would mean that time is basically the constant inexistence and existence, and that existence cannot be without inexistence. Basically, the car would be existing and inextisting as time goes by.(Better said: The car would be existing then that version of the car would inexist while another version of the car exist as each time decimal unit moves.
“Although in the long run, everything must be everything else. And if that is the case, then there is nothing.”
-Energy has different behaviors, then there is something.
No it just means nature doesn’t go by such labels, it just sees energy patterns changing. There is no thingness to our descriptions, they are merely representations, whereas energy is real.
Why can’t sensation simply be converted to something else? There seem to be a few conservation laws in physics as far as we’re told by the scientific community, but that doesn’t mean things can’t stop existing. When you chop up your wooden chair to make fire wood, your chair ceases to exist. Why can’t mind be like this?
Or how 'bout: mind is only generated by a functioning brain. It’s not something that “exists”–not in the sense an object exists–but something that “happens” like blowing cold air happens when you run a fan.
Do you have a conclusion to draw, or are you sincerely puzzled by this?
You’ve heard of phantom limb phenomena, haven’t you?
BTW, not knowing the background you come from, I’m assuming you’re starting with a conventional understanding of mind. Are you religious? I’ve got a whole theory of mind that’s radically unconventional, and the closest thing to in modern philosophy is idealism (or would that be classic philosophy?) ← But I’m not presupposing that.
^ Did you just contradict yourself?
If it can’t be detected, it can’t exist, right? This naturally follows from existence=affectance.
Photons do exert a gravitational pull, you know.
Do you suppose that everythingness=nothingness?
SW, do you presume that because all their really is to existence, at the end of the day, is matter and energy in flux, changing form, then all the particular forms it takes–a car, a tree, a human being–are really illusory? That though it seems real, there really is no car?
No. Something can have affect without it being detected as the cause. Thus something can possibly vanish from detection and something else be affected, but void of evidence to prove the casual connection. Just because something is affected, does mean that the cause is detected (save by the paranoid).
Actually, they don’t. But that is another long story (and irrelevant to this topic).
Everything being the same thing (the conflation of identity) is nothingness.
The point is that by conflating the identity of a “car” with the identity of the energy that made up the car, everything else made of that energy is also the car as well as whatever else it is, such as a tree or rabbit. By misusing the language in that way (ignoring Aristotle), all identity becomes meaningless and moot, thus “there is nothing”.
Sensation can be converted into something else, I have no idea what it can convert into yet.
Im going to be more clear to describe the idea. When you chop something off or disarm a weapon, its like taking off your clothes, its just change that is still ocurring, the “Illusion” that things cease to exist is the nature of experience, thats how it works. It is through the interaction of the universe and some cool things and the brain that experience is created in terms of the human, thats how the image of the car appears. This doesn’t mean that the experience doesn’t exist because its there, its sensational (pun intended). It feels therefore it exists, its an object. The reason why I find it so hard to consider that experience ceases to exist because it exists just like matter and energy would. It actually looks like a third component: Matter, Energy & Experience
What I can agree on is with the possibility of experience either changing drastically, changing into something similar, or maintaining a similar property.
I am puzzled in the sense of the possibility of the inexistence of experience and of what it can transform into. I cannot imagine how experience can cease to exist when the universe doesn’t cease like that unless we go solipsism and I declare you guys a figment of my imagination while you agree.
I have heard of the phantom limb, but since it doesn’t apply to all cases I discarded it because loss of sensation to the arm would be possible in that sense. Maybe its not loss of sensation but change of sensation now that I think of it.
“SW, do you presume that because all their really is to existence, at the end of the day, is matter and energy in flux, changing form, then all the particular forms it takes–a car, a tree, a human being–are really illusory? That though it seems real, there really is no car?”
Matter, Energy & Experience
The car is an illusion to part of reality cause it literally looks like its just the car and thats it, when its actually an interaction between the energy the matter and then the experience so that the image of the car appears as a sense. Experience as a whole is real and it creates illusions that distort part of what reality actually is. I hope I was a bit more precise with the idea.
It does seem like I’m religious with the idea, but I’m not religious at all
Actually, in the past I thought that experience was exactly the same as neural activities, but after further pondering, I don’t think they’re equal.
I don’t mind unconventional conventional as long as it makes sense really. Sounds ironic coming from me that is very disorganized writing his ideas, but believe me Im trying.
Thought about if evolution was dumb luck, that means consciousness has non-local properties…essentially the universe sprang up inside consciousness, not consciousness inside the universe because that would mean consciousness zoomed into our galaxy…
Thought about how our bodies formed, and only through this type of structure…layers upon layers somehow the consciousness trick is reached…amplified…but also wondered if this was the ultimate mode of existence…sight sound hearing taste touch…is that the ultimate mode of existence that can be, the existence that can be and the only kind of existence…or is there sometype of other existence unlike ours, unlike sight sound hearing and taste and touch, equally valid of an existence?
Oh right, definitional logic. I thought we were speaking English. I didn’t realize you had customized definitions for your terms.
So “actual” and “truly” mean something more along the lines of what’s really going on, whereas “effectively destroyed” has more to do with affect–when something ceases to be able to affect you–and is only destroyed (i.e. not conserved) from the point of view of its affecting you. ← In this right?
Now about Einstein, I’m thinking of E=mc^2. Are you saying Einstein stole this idea?
Makes sense, but then what do you say about the photon streaming off into space never to be encountered again? If we’re saying that photons don’t even emit gravity waves, then its conceivable that the photon will have no effect on anything for the rest of its journey. Does this make it non-existent for you? And would you make a distinction between actual non-existence and effective non-existence?
Another lie from the scientific community, huh?
Which implies that for every-thing, there is a matching opposite which “negates” it when brought together.
Of course, the whole which is more than the sum of the parts is not a conflation of identities. My TV is part of the whole but not conflated with it. So this has no implications for the whole universe being equivalent to nothing.
Oh, well, if it’s a language thing, then I take back what I said above (about everything having a matching opposite).
However, I think it requires something extra besides just identifying one object with another (or two ways of conceiving the same object) to draw the conclusion you drew. I mean, one can say that the energy that makes the car is the car–that doesn’t imply the energy can’t continue on after the car has disappeared. It’s like saying Obama is the President–he’ll still be Obama after his Presidency is over. I think the “extra” you’d have to say is something like “the energy is the car regardless of the form it takes.” ← That way you would be saying that even when the energy transforms into a tree, it’s still the car.
James, are you an objectivist? You came up in a discussion with iambiguous the other day–he was asking how my focus on internal logical consistency is any different from your definitional logic. I said it wasn’t but that you look at it from an objectivist point of view whereas I look at it from a subjectivist point of view. Did I lie?
SolWarrior,
Well, as James said, energy is the only thing that’s really conserved. Matter is a form of energy. Experience might be too.
At this point, I’m just dying to bring my own view in: experience is always conserved. It’s the qualities felt in the experience that change. Matter and energy are sensory representations of more experience. I’m an idealist and panpsychic, so it is my belief that everything experiences something, some subjective qualitative “feeling”. These “feelings” are communicated to us via the senses, which is a process whereby the qualities of the experiences are transformed until they becomes the sensation of matter and energy. ← That’s what we end up seeing. Matter may not be conserved in the end, but energy is (at least that’s the going consensus in the scientific community today), and energy represents experience being had elsewhere in the universe and undergoing qualitative change.
That pretty much covers the whole gamut.
The difference between the car and the energy that makes the car is that the energy is absolute (and if it isn’t, that implies an even more fundamental “stuff”) and the car is relative. What I mean is, it is a car only relative to us (because we recognize the form the energy takes as that of a “car”), but relative to a tribesman in the congo, for example, it may be a strange “beast”. John Searl makes this point about money: he says that the dollar bill is only money relative people living in the civilized world and who recognize it as a form of currency. That’s what gives it its value. But you show a dollar bill to a monkey, and he’ll just toss it aside like a useless scrap of paper. ← That’s all it is to him. So whether something is money or not is a relative matter, but, Searle says, that doesn’t make money unreal. The dollar bill really is a dollar bill–it really does work as money. Just the same, the car really is a car but only because we identify it as such.
Well, it seems you think of experience as a distinct “stuff” from matter and energy, so it lead me to suspect you believed in the soul. But if you’re just groping in the dark, well, have fun putting ideas together. It’s like putting together tinker toys, isn’t it? Trying to come up with a thought structure that works. Sharing the construction of ideas with others can be fun as you’re often shown ways of linking ideas together you never thought of. So it can help.
Trixie,
Now we’re talkin’.
Well, first of all, what are the modes of existence we know of? If we’re assuming consciousness arose out of dead unconscious matter, then there are at least two: 3rd person existence (dead unconscious matter) and 1st person existence (living conscious mind). ← We seemed to have skipped 2nd person existence, so maybe there’s your answer. What would that be? 2nd person implies “you”–like it’s a form of existence with which you can engage socially. It’s still a “not me” but it’s in a mode of “being addressed” by a 1st person. ← But that just seems like a failed attempt to merge 3rd person with 1st person and ended up being a freaky mess that just wants to die.
No, an actual alternative to the two modes of existence we know of has yet to be conceptualized. Good luck, Trix, and let us know if you think of anything.
It does seem like it, that is what I was starting to think.
I think experience is sensory representations of matter and energy. I think its the other way around This representation is part of the existing experience like you well said.
Additionally, in order for experience to be, it needs that interaction mechanism between the fun things outside and the creator of experience.
Everything does look like it can experience something, it is through interaction that experience exists
Yeah the term car is based on how we use it, but the car is not only a car even if we just use it as a car. The best way to describe this is experience in a general sense, since experience changes, the construct of car becomes singular for citizens and the concept of “beast” becomes singular for tribesmen. But it doesn’t have to become singular either, it can be both. Things don’t exist and unexist inside experience. Its more like experience is changing and that creates what we consider that the car ‘starts’ to “exist”. The potential for experience to change might be a direct function of some external factors here. We cannot take concepts in experience and separate them like they are suddenly existing and unexisting, thats just experience doing the work of change. In other words: car, beast, shit, fuck exist because they are experience that is affected by the outside composition of energy matter etc.
Yes, you hit on the nail exactly what my intentions are with posting the work in progress. People might be interested in the same idea and they contribute into building something that I alone would not be able to construct in shorter time. I found that this idea was extremely exciting for me so I wanted to share it to the great minds of the community so that they either contribute to it, or destroy it because the building blocks were not properly formed. Its all about finding the truth here.
And yes, experience seems to be something rather unique and different, it cannot simply be a set of neurons like I previously thought it was, call it soul or whatever. But it also wouldn’t make sense that it is not consuming space in the universe, something doesn’t fit here. I am pretty sure scientists are missing something.
No. That in not right. It had nothing to do with “definitional logic”. The term “effectively destroyed” merely means the same as “for all practical purposes destroyed” or “might as well be considered destroyed”, or "even though it is not actually, really, truly destroyed, it can safely be considered destroyed for all the possible use that remains of it". Consider it to be a euphemism.
Certainly not. The idea that mass was a form of energy was not Einstein’s invention. It was commonly withnessed by that crew that mass vanished into the form of radiant energy. Einstein merely put a couple of linearized equations together from other events and deduced that mc2 must then be the amount of energy that is represented in the missing mass.
No no. The photon speeding away has affect by CAUSING minor amounts of “dark-matter/energy” mass/gravitation by interacting with other photons. It never, ever “emits gravity waves” (that is kind of silly in everyone’s book). That dark-matter has backward (in direction, not time) affect by the effects of gravitational migration of the entire galaxy and by extension, the entire universe.
Non of the scientific community that I am aware of has ever claimed that, certainly not Einstein. His theory was that the space is warped and that is why light appears to bend around masses and why gravitational migration takes place. Einstein had his own ontology involving the bending of space rather than forces acting on objects. His equations worked out to be more accurate than Newton’s despite them both being incoherent ontologies.
When you take away the form of the car, it is no longer a car. The energy that makes up the car, is not by itself the car. When that energy is in a different form/shape, it does not comprise a car, yet is the same energy.
A car is energy in the form of a car. Take away the form, and you no longer have a car, regardless of having all of the same energy. Thus avoid conflating the identity, “car”, with the identity, “energy”.
I wouldn’t call that a lie, merely that you don’t know what it is that you are saying.
That is what its like though, you swing a ball on a rope and you get centrifugal/petal energy types etc ~ it does all just pop out of nowhere. This simply means that the emptiness [nowhere] contains everything in its innate form. Ergo consciousness will occur where you got the structure for that e.g. the brain.
Do the existentialists believe in experiences outside their sphere of consciousness?
Of course not! I don’t think you’ll ever say “Yes gib, you’re right.”
That doesn’t sound all that different from what I said, except I brought affectance into it (“from the point of view of its affecting you,” I said).
I see. But it gets attributed to Einstein nonetheless. Then again, you seem to be saying Einstein was part of “that crew” (your words)–the group of scientists who were studying the phenomenon. Or was it known even earlier than that? If it is indeed that crew who discovered that mass=energy, then Einstein at least gets partial credit.
I’m not conflating the ideas car and energy together–I clearly conceptualize those ideas distinctly–it’s the actual object we call “the car” that I’m concerned with. You can separate the identity of “car” from the identity of “energy” as abstractions but at the end of the day, there’s still one object and it is both the car and the energy.
…a bunch of philosophical numbnuts on a physics forum. And I am not talking about in comparison to my own theories. I am talking about them not even understanding the commonplace science involved. Online (as you should know) people get carried away with their speculations even concerning well established theories such as to spread false connotations. There is seldom anyone to stop nonsense misconceptions from becoming the well established rumor.
Concerning photons and gravity, photons CANNOT ever emit gravity waves, regardless of any association with mass. For one thing, merely the loss of energy would still the photon very quickly. It takes actual “rest mass” to form a gravity field from which gravity waves might be produced if any part of it is moving sufficiently. Photons have NO rest-mass at all, as in truly zero. But as they encounter other photons, the combination of interactions produce a minor degree of “rest-mass” that is not directly associated with any particle-mass (matter). That is what causes the “dark-matter” effect out in open space. It isn’t likely that gravity waves ever originate from dark-matter other than merely random coincidences.
No it isn’t. That is the gravity FIELD, not any “waves”. Waves travel through open space as waves (like light, water, or even sound waves traveling through their medium), not as a steady field (such as the air or the water that sound or water waves travel through).
Gib: existentialisml does not profess in experiences outside of their consciousness, situations are not intra conscious ,no ones experience is quite the same
The other definitiom: ‘esse est percipii’ -to be is to perceive-describes existence generally for no particular being. Existentialism therefore proclams a full phenomenological plenum with consciousness of the other assumed without as within individual consciousness. Existentialism is a realist position of no transcendent conscious differentiation.
) is basically a bundle of energy and matter in certain conditions, those conditions change but while it changes existence is maintained, the car is an illusion of sorts to energy doing different things. Energy appealing differently to the senses because of its change in behavior does not prove inexistence of the energy. Also, a car is as much as a rabbit and a tree in terms of energy doing different activities. NOW, DOES THIS PROVE that energy’s activities can cease to exist??? If this were the case then that would mean that time is basically the constant inexistence and existence, and that existence cannot be without inexistence. Basically, the car would be existing and inextisting as time goes by.(Better said: The car would be existing then that version of the car would inexist while another version of the car exist as each time decimal unit moves.