Fundamental questions 1.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We invent society by existing in social groups. Societies manifest governments and governments manifest laws.

Society is pretty much everything that sharks, parrots, and muskrats don't have.

Agree or disagree?

[Hugo]

Disagree. Society doesn't exist, it is a metaphysical concept. You cannot point to it or identify it. That which does not exist cannot create something else.

What you mean is that individuals invent societies by living in social groups, and that thoughts of society lead the same individuals to invent governments, and the thoughts of government by the individuals in government lead them to invent laws.

In all cases, the acting agent is the individual. Therefore it is wrong to say that society or government creates or manifests anything.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Disagree. Society doesn't exist, it is a metaphysical concept. You cannot point to it or identify it. That which does not exist cannot create something else.

The same goes for God and light. Light has no measurable mass, yet can move an object. I agree with the rest, though, individuals created God.

The Terrible Sweal:

Any creature exhibiting the behaviour of 'hierarchy' has a 'society'.

[Hugo]

Light has no measurable mass

This has never been proven. The Law of Relativity states that that which has energy must have mass: relativistic mass is equivalent to energy. Therefore, a photon must have mass. The idea that photons are massless comes from the more modern measurement of mass as separate from energy and measured at rest, and this is impossible to prove since photons never are at rest, however, the experiment of Roderick Lakes looking for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance found, through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields, that photons probably have nonzero mass when at rest.

I got all that from here, and it gives me quite the brainache. But anyway...

[The Terrible Sweal]

Agreements are metaphysical concepts. Therefore they don't really exist. Therefore people never agree.

Love is a metaphysical concept. Therefore it does not really exist. Therefore no-one can be in love.

Intention is a metaphysical concept. Therefore it doesn't really exist. Therefore no-one is responsible for their choices.

Why golly! Words are all metaphysical concepts. Therefore they don't exist.

Therefore meaning is impossible.

Therefore (and only therefore) Hugo is right!

[I Miss Trudeau]

Disagree. Society doesn't exist, it is a metaphysical concept. You cannot point to it or identify it. That which does not exist cannot create something else.

The same could be said for your beloved "individual."

[Hugo]

Agreements are metaphysical concepts. Therefore they don't really exist. Therefore people never agree.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. Metaphysical things don't physically exist, as their name suggests. Metaphysical things cannot create anything, either metaphysical or physical, so it would be correct to say not that agreements don't exist or that people don't agree, but that their agreement doesn't create anything.

Therefore (and only therefore) Hugo is right!

Well, and Thelonius too. Do you have a personal gripe with him as well, now?

The same could be said for your beloved "individual."

No, it can't. You and I are individuals, we physically exist, we are made of atoms, take up exclusive space in the physical universe and cannot occupy multiple spaces at once. We exist (at least in this form) for a specific period of time and will change with the passage of that time. None of these things are true of the metaphysical.

[I Miss Trudeau]

No, it can't. You and I are individuals, we physically exist, we are made of atoms, take up exclusive space in the physical universe and cannot occupy multiple spaces at once. We exist (at least in this form) for a specific period of time and will change with the passage of that time. None of these things are true of the metaphysical.

Of course, the term "individual," as commonly used, conveys much more than being a physical entity. In order for it to be meanigful in the sense you require, you need it to include something resembling a "self." The self is a metaphysical concept.

[Hugo]

The self is a metaphysical concept.

Yes, but the self can only exist in a physical body (let's not get into talking about disembodied spirits here!), and indeed, some might say that the self is just the manifestation of physical electrical activity in the physical synapses of the physical brain.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Yes, but the self can only exist in a physical body (let's not get into talking about disembodied spirits here!), and indeed, some might say that the self is just the manifestation of physical electrical activity in the physical synapses of the physical brain.

In all cases, the acting agent is the individual. Therefore it is wrong to say that society or government creates or manifests anything

In which case, we can reduce an individual in the same manner in which you reduced society.

[Hugo]

In which case, we can reduce an individual in the same manner in which you reduced society.

Not while remaining human. In chemistry, a molecule is the smallest unit that still retains all the properties of the substance in question. In human society, the human individual is the smallest unit which retains all the properties of humanity. Go below that - to organs or cells - and the items no longer possess the properties of being human.

In the case of society and government, it is correct to say that humans create these things, but not to say that brains, livers or red blood cells create these things.

[I Miss Trudeau]

In the case of society and government, it is correct to say that humans create these things, but not to say that brains, livers or red blood cells create these things.

Perhaps you could provide an argument as to why this is the case?

[Hugo]

Perhaps you could provide an argument as to why this is the case?

I think you are being needlessly argumentative and obfuscatory. I don't believe you are seriously making the case that livers create society, but if you are I would suggest that it is you who needs to provide an argument as to why.

The argument that brains create society seems more plausible until you consider that a brain has no means for sensory input, no manipulative organs and no possible means of communication with the outside world at all, in fact, it cannot even sustain its own existence. The brain can only create the metaphysical when it is connected to a body that can do these things, at which point it is no longer correct to say that it is just a brain. It has become a part of a larger organism and, unlike individual humans within a group who are operating autonomously but in agreement, is operating in a state of complete dependence and synergy. Not even hive insects approach this state of co-operation and interdependence.

In any case this is completely irrelevant to the original point. The original question is whether the metaphysical can create anything. Now we are on to debating which particular physical things create something, which is not the same discussion at all.

[I Miss Trudeau]

In any case this is completely irrelevant to the original point. The original question is whether the metaphysical can create anything.

To which you have answered both yes and no. Which is it?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear I Miss Trudeau,

The argument that brains create society seems more plausible until you consider that a brain has no means for sensory input, no manipulative organs and no possible means of communication with the outside world at all, in fact, it cannot even sustain its own existence. The brain can only create the metaphysical when it is connected to a body that can do these things, at which point it is no longer correct to say that it is just a brain.

I believe what Hugo is trying to explain is what almost everyone calls 'the soul'. He has also taken the position of an 'absolute no' with regard to the question 'can something come from nothing?', though this may label him an atheist to some.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I believe what Hugo is trying to explain is what almost everyone calls  'the soul'. He has also taken the position of an 'absolute no' with regard to the question 'can something come from nothing?', though this may label him an atheist to some.

Choosing selves can create societies, even though they are metaphysical concepts.

Societies can't create governments, because they are metaphysical concepts.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear I miss Trudeau,

Choosing selves can create societies

What???

With the rest of the statement, I think you are getting Hugo's argument. Individuals decide upon or invent societies, and individuals decided upon or invented gov't, to control the other individuals.

[Hugo]

To which you have answered both yes and no. Which is it?

I have only answered no. The metaphysical does not create anything.

He has also taken the position of an 'absolute no' with regard to the question 'can something come from nothing?', though this may label him an atheist to some.

Not that I want to get into this in any depth, but I think it logical that if God created the physical universe then it is not part of that physical universe. Nothing can create itself. As to what God is, I don't know, and most probably nobody ever will. To paraphrase a line from the Mothman Prophecies, for us to comprehend God is like cockroaches trying to understand the activities of humans.

Choosing selves can create societies, even though they are metaphysical concepts.

I think he means that the self is metaphysical, even though I have offered an argument to show that it is not, and he has offered no proof that it is. This argument is therefore invalid, at least until you establish the premises.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The metaphysical does not create anything.

Therefore anything which does not create anything is metaphysical. Therefore property owners are metaphysical. Therefore property owners don't exist. Therefore property is meaningless.

[Hugo]

The metaphysical does not create anything... Therefore anything which does not create anything is metaphysical.

Non sequitur.

Analogy: ants don't create honey, therefore anything which doesn't create honey is an ant.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I think he means that the self is metaphysical, even though I have offered an argument to show that it is not, and he has offered no proof that it is. This argument is therefore invalid, at least until you establish the premises.

You most certainly have not provided an argument as to why a "self" is not a metaphysical concept. All you've done is offer a (weak) argument as to why your concept of the self is the correct one.

[Hugo]

You most certainly have not provided an argument as to why a "self" is not a metaphysical concept.

Yes, I did. I offered the argument that the "self" was physical electrical pulses running through the physical synapses of the physical brain. Where's your counter-argument?

All you've done is offer a (weak) argument as to why your concept of the self is the correct one.

If it is indeed weak then I expect you would have no trouble refuting it. But you have offered no counter-argument. For instance:

Choosing selves can create societies, even though they are metaphysical concepts.

This is not an argument. It is just an unjustified opinion because there is nothing more to it.

In my case, I say that the self could be physical or of physical origin because (see the argument coming?) it is generated by electrical impulses, which physically exist. That's an argument. You need remedial Debating 101, I think.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I have only answered no. The metaphysical does not create anything.

What about love and babies? While 'love' is metaphysical, an intangible abstract, it can lead two individuals to create something that did not exist before, (and wouldn't have existed) which is another human individual. Now, if love unrequited, or discarded, can change to hate, and lead an individual to another, different or counter-action, does 'love' not share the same qualities of existence as, say, a photon? Can Love theoretically have a 'non-zero mass when at rest'? After all, it can cause a change in direction of another entity, yet can't be weighed or measured.

[Hugo]

What about love and babies? While 'love' is metaphysical, an intangible abstract, it can lead two individuals to create something that did not exist before

Love does not create babies. Sperm and ova create babies.

Now, if love unrequited, or discarded, can change to hate, and lead an individual to another, different or counter-action, does 'love' not share the same qualities of existence as, say, a photon?

No! Because an emotion can change does not grant it physical existence.

Can Love theoretically have a 'non-zero mass when at rest'?

Could you even establish that Love moves?

After all, it can cause a change in direction of another entity, yet can't be weighed or measured.

It can't cause a change in direction of another entity. It is a metaphysical concept which can influence a physical object to do something - rather like the thoughts of society influencing human individuals to make a government. The physical is immutable, the metaphysical is not. A thought can be ignored. A bullet in the head cannot.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Yes, I did. I offered the argument that the "self" was physical electrical pulses running through the physical synapses of the physical brain. Where's your counter-argument?

So the self is the collection of such pulses running through your physical synapses, or just one of them?

Go below that - to organs or cells - and the items no longer possess the properties of being human.

Yet electrochemical energy possesses the properties of a self?

If it is indeed weak then I expect you would have no trouble refuting it. But you have offered no counter-argument.

Why would I? You refuted your own point, if you care to look back.

In my case, I say that the self could be physical or of physical origin because (see the argument coming?) it is generated by electrical impulses, which physically exist.

No, I don't see anything resembling an argument.

The self is generated by electrical impulses, but it is not those impulses? Then what is the self but a grouping of physical phenomena (ie. metaphysical concept) into a whole?

A society is a metaphysical concept, according to you, because it doesn't exist physically. It is created by a collection of individuals, in the same manbner in which the self is created by a collection of electrical pulses.