Comments

.

.

C0a: Will and Energy

Reference: alt.philosophy"What is Energy"

12/23/04 by Rubino
There were no responses. Perhaps what I said is of interest only to me.
Just out of curiosity I made two additional posts.^{P2 P3}

.

.

.

Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

1. Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.
2. Go to next Post
3. Go to Dialogue Index

.

.

.

.

.

.

C1a: Will and Energy

Reference: alt.philosophy What is energy?

12/26/04 by Publius
Because it cannot be quantified and correlated with changing states of matter with the precision that, say, gravitation and electromagnetism can be, the "Force of Will" is only a metaphor. ^{R1a (responses)}

From the point of view of physics, human actions are best regarded as spontaneous state changes in a system, not unlike the decay of an atom or the appearance of a virtual particle. ^R1b

.

.

.

Do you agree or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C1b: Ontology

Reference: alt.philosophy What is energy?

12/26/04 by Publius

Ah, but in some murder mysteries there is no body, and uncertainty about whether there is a perp. There is only a set of circumstances that suggest those possibilities. ^R1c

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C2a: Will and Energy

Reference: alt.philosophy What is energy?

12/28/04 by Publius

I didn't say that will is a metaphor for electromagnetism or gravitation. I said that describing will as a force is a metaphorical description. Although will (or desire) can be a cause of action,^R2a as is electromagnetism, it cannot be quantified and measured as the latter can, or correlated with state changes in a system with near the precision. Furthermore, will seems to be a cause only of human actions. The only system humans can change via will is the state of their own bodies. The changes in the states of their bodies may then effect changes to other bodies -- but at that point the forces of physics come into play, and will vanishes from the picture.

.

.

. Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

C2b: Will and Energy

12/29/04 by Publius

Unless you are adopting a Humean skepticism regarding causation here, then you are mistaken. A is a cause of B IFF 1) A precedes B, 2) B always occurs subsequent to the occurence of A, and 3) we have identified a mechanism, we can describe and quantify relating A to B. With that understanding of causation we can describe and predict the behavior of many natural systems with reasonable accuracy.

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C2c: Will and Energy

12/28/04 by Publius

Are you offering the above as an empirical generalization, or as some sort of metaphysical posit? If the former, it is surely false. The only cases of will and its exercise we can observe is the exercise of human will. Yet changes occur constantly in the universe independently of human (as far as we can establish). If I see you throw a baseball through a window, I can correlate that change (the breaking of the window) with the exercise of will. If a meteorite crashes through the same window, I have no grounds for postulating the involvement of any will, since no person seems to have been involved in setting the orbit of the meteor.

But no doubt you are offering a metaphysical posit. That is you are assuming a priori that all changes in a system must be the result of will. But this is an unwarranted generalization given the absence of evidence of willful agent being involved in most of those changes. That is, it seems to be a rather bad argument for the existence of God.

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail>

Hit the 'back button to return to where to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C2d: Will and Energy

12/28/04 by Publius

The laws in question belong to entirely different animals. As the logician Quine once pointed out, there are two kind of rules: rules that fit, and rule that guide. They are distinct things. Natural Laws are rules that "fit" -- they are only statements of observed regularities. Thus we may say, "As a rule, when the temperature is below X and the humidity is above Y, it will snow." That is a rule that fits our observations, but it has no role in determining the weather.

A statute, or a royal edict, is offered as a rule to guide. "Every person who erects a structure intended for human occupancy in this county shall obtain a building permit." Rules that guide presuppose a rule giver. Rules that merely fit do not. (And rules meant to guide rarely fit very well).

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C2e: Will and Energy

12/28/04 by Publius

You are correct there. We should regard human actions as spontaneous (from the point of view of physics) because we know of no rules that accurately explain or predict their behavior, except (sometimes) statistically. We can predict the decay of a radioactive element statistically also. But we cannot predict which atom will fission next, or when it will fission.

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question, via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C2f: Will and Energy

12/28/04 by Publius

But not all rules require a rule-giver. See above.^C2e

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C3a: Moral Absolutes

01/05/05 by tooly

I don't disagree here, but I'd add that there is raised conscious existence by which 'law' is no longer a matter of decrea, but of personal responsibility. It is at that time one becomes not a law abider, but a law giver; understanding not the measure of 'behavior', but the advent of BEing. The rightness and wrongness of our existence becomes much more clear...and at that point, we simply are guided by personal conscience, not the 'written word' [law]. BTW, high levels of conscience gives way to far stricter codes of behavior than any written law can provide.^R3a:

.

.

.

Do you agree or disagree?

Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C4a: Will

01/13/05 by Terry

Tony,
Thanks for the thoughts. However, based on the above, are you saying it would be a *blessing* if your wife was raped and murdered? This would certainly be a problem, must it be considered a problem in your opinion?R4a

.

.

.

Do you agree or disagree?

Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C4b: Will

01/14/05 by Terry

Tony,
Obviously I touched a sensitive point with you. Upon beginning to read your post, I quickly saw you were ruffled. Please forgive me. I will take the blame for any misunderstanding. No offense or sarcastic challenge was intended, just simple inquiry to find your foundational base. However, do know, I do not have the time or the desire to engage in dialogue surrounded by immature accusations and personal attacks. Therefore, no further response is forthcoming. Again I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.....^R4b

.

.

.

Do you agree or disagree?

Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

.

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

C5a: Subjective/Objective

01/26/05 by John Jones

Subjective and objective have nothing in common, so our world is not one or the other.^R5a

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the back button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C5b: Subjective/Objective

01/26/05 by Bernard Curry

What? You think your time is limited to this life?^R5b

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C5c: Subjective/Objective

01/26/05 by John Jones

We can't say our world is 'either' subjective 'or' objective because subjective and objective cannot be included in a model that regards them both.^C5e Regarding them both is necessary - first to make a comparison of them, and second, to use the comparison to help establish the outcome of either/or.^{R5c C5f}

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C5d: Subjective/Objective

01/26/05 by John Jones

Self-identity .. isn't this a different way of saying subjective and objective?

But maybe you mean that every object has an identity, whether conscious or not. This means that any arbitrary physical boundary has an identity associated with it. Even so, this 'association' is not the association that arises when two things are compared in the same model.^R5c

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C5e: Subjective/Objective

01/28/05 by Bernard Curry

That statement contains an anthropomorphy (my word) which is one of the most misleading of illogical faults. It consists of attributing a non-sentient thing (such as a model) the ability to act purposively. "Regarding" is a verb that signifies purposive proaction. A "model" can neither regard anything nor proact.^C5g

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C5f: Subjective/Objective

)1/28/05 by Bernard Curry

Same as above.^C5e Having introduced your illogical anthropomorphy you attempt to expand it by having your model "compare", and "help establish",purposive proactions that a model, as a non-sentient thing, cannot make.

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

C5g: Subjective/Objective

01/28/05 by John Jones

Good luck with your anthropomurphy's.
That's an unusual name for a draught stout beer.

We let the model work for us, as an individual might work for us who held the ideas in the model. The 'model regards' is meant to be taken in the manner it is familiarly taken. Can I go now? JJ

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?
Make a comment, or ask a question via e-mail

Hit the 'back' button to return to where you were.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

C5h: Subjective/Objective

01/28/05 by John Jones

Self-identity, subjectivity, and objectivity are all interlinked. Like freedom, choice, and free-will. I can recognize groups such as these and still say that they make little sense, or that the sense claimed for them is a pretence.

As I remember it, the use of the term 'association' was used in respect of objective and subjective. You said that what objective and subjective have in common is the self-identity of every living thing. But no 'association' or what 'they have in common' 'between them' is up for consideration. I can't see one anyway. There is no association between subjective and objective except the spurious one that comes from the idle claim that one or the other, or indeed both, is, or are, 'real'.

Just to hammer another nail in, to announce that objective and subjective are united by the concept self-identity seems to make self-identity an oxymoron because there is no association between subjective and objective. But 'self-identity' is worse than an oxymoron, because the concepts it attempts to unite are neither opposed nor related.

So you see it was not so disastrous for me after all. I know my stuff alright, make no messing.

.

.

.

Do you agree, or disagree?

.

.

.

C5i: Topic

00/00/05 by Home page

.

.