Fundamental questions 1.

[Hugo]

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

I don't know, and for this argument it does not matter one way or the other.

Yet electrochemical energy possesses the properties of a self?

I'd say it creates the self.

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

Let's say I don't remember. Please demonstrate this. If what you say is true, this should be pretty easy and gives you a golden opportunity to destroy my argument and humiliate me on this forum. Go ahead.

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

Like I said - remedial Debating 101 awaits.

Then what is the self but a grouping of physical phenomena (ie. metaphysical concept)...

How can physical phenomena also be metaphysical? That makes no sense! Something is either physical or metaphysical. It can't be both.

the self is created by a collection of electrical pulses.

Yes, the physical creates the metaphysical, which was what I said from the very beginning.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

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

You mean my parents lied about the stork, then?

QUOTE 

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

Could you even establish that Love moves?

Yes, I believe I could. The 'non-zero mass' reference is implying that love has a physical mass that can be measured and weighed.

Theoretically, a wave of light cannot have mass since no object with mass can attain the speed of light. According to Einstein's theory, mass increases with velocity, and the energy recuired to accelerate that mass increases exponentially, until it reaches the point of needing an infinite amount of energy to attain light speed.

Love, on the other hand, is a chemical formula created in the brain. I have used this same argument to prove what 'God' is. If one could (providing it was legal, or never found out about) take fluid from the brains of human test subjects, and compared them, one could isolate the chemical formula that is 'god' (or love). You would then have 'liquid god' (or love) in a jar or vial, measurable and real.

[Hugo]

You mean my parents lied about the stork, then?

I didn't want to be the one to tell you this, Thelonius, but... yes. Yes, they did.

Love, on the other hand, is a chemical formula created in the brain.

Love among humans is not a chemical reaction. For better or worse, we humans are visual critters, responding far more to what we see than what we smell. Love for us is in the eyes of the beholder, not his nose.

-- Dr. George Johnson

This shows that there isn't really a scientific consensus on this. I also think you couldn't establish whether the physiological effects associated with love were love or merely the causes of the metaphysical concept of love. It's also a big leap between that, and finding out what chemicals are "society", "government", "hardship", "beauty" and so forth, which is what we are talking about here. Even if you could establish that love was a physical phenomenon, then that does not mean that other metaphysical concepts are also reducible to physical phenomena.

I have used this same argument to prove what 'God' is.

I think you should have put the word "prove" in quotation marks, not "God".

According to Einstein's theory, mass increases with velocity, and the energy recuired to accelerate that mass increases exponentially, until it reaches the point of needing an infinite amount of energy to attain light speed.

Also according to Einstein's theory, mass is energy. If light has an infinite amount of energy then it has an infinite mass.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Metaphysical things cannot create anything,

Really? How would you go about demonstrating this?

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

So let me get this straight. The phenomenon which (some say) emerges from electrical activity between brain cells (self) is not metaphysical, but the phenomenon which emerges from activity between individuals (society) is metaphysical.

Well, that's clear.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Nothing can create itself.

Perhaps it's time to re-examine some of these old chestnuts. Take the 2nd law of thermodynamics for example -- very iffy.

[Hugo]

Really? How would you go about demonstrating this?

You can't prove a negative. If you can prove the converse positive, consider the negative disproven. But I cannot think of, nor have I heard, any example of a metaphysical thing creating something that it was not much more reasonable to attribute to a physical thing.

The phenomenon which (some say) emerges from electrical activity between brain cells (self) is not metaphysical, but the phenomenon which emerges from activity between individuals (society) is metaphysical.

It's the opinion of some. I don't share it, as you might have guessed - you know me well enough by now to know that I don't put my own concrete beliefs in such ambiguous terms. I say the concept of self is a metaphysical thing produced by an active brain. The concept of self cannot exist without an active brain, but an active brain can exist without a self.

Perhaps it's time to re-examine some of these old chestnuts.

Are you positing that something can be its own creator? Or are you just being childish and annoying?

Any response to my attacks on your theorems thus far, e.g. "anything that creates nothing must be metaphysical?" Or is your silence your concession?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Really? How would you go about demonstrating this?

You can't prove a negative. If you can prove the converse positive, consider the negative disproven. But I cannot think of, nor have I heard, any example of a metaphysical thing creating something that it was not much more reasonable to attribute to a physical thing.

Quite so. I put my concern very badly.

To be as precise as possible, I meant: Assuming that things are created, how can you prove that they are created by 'physical' things rather than 'metaphysical' things.

I say the concept of self is a metaphysical thing produced by an active brain. The concept of self cannot exist without an active brain, but an active brain can exist without a self.

So why do you insist self exists but society does not?

Perhaps it's time to re-examine some of these old chestnuts.

Are you positing that something can be its own creator? Or are you just being childish and annoying?

Let's say I'm being metaphysical.

Any response to my attacks on your theorems thus far, e.g. "anything that creates nothing must be metaphysical?" Or is your silence your concession?

Oh, not MY theorem. I was restating and following through the consequences of your views.

[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.

Yes, the physical creates the metaphysical, which was what I said from the very beginning.

Which was decidedly not what you said from the very beginning.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Are you positing that something can be its own creator? Or are you just being childish and annoying?

Are metaphysical dogmas beyond the realm of criticsm and discussion now?

[Hugo]

Yes, the physical creates the metaphysical, which was what I said from the very beginning.

Which was decidedly not what you said from the very beginning.

Isn't it? Let's go back to my very first post in this thread:

That which does not exist cannot create something else.

Which I clarified two posts later with:

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. Metaphysical things don't physically exist.. Metaphysical things cannot create anything

Now, unless you have a point to make, get lost and stop wasting my time. If you want my viewpoints explored and clarified in depth, commission me to write a book. But this is a forum for debate, and you're not coming up with anything.

Assuming that things are created, how can you prove that they are created by 'physical' things rather than 'metaphysical' things.

Because anything that has a metaphysical prerequisite for existence also necessarily has a physical prerequisite, which is always demonstrably more important to its existence. Things can have purely physical prerequisites, but never only purely metaphysical prerequisites. Therefore, the physical creates both the physical and the metaphysical, and the metaphysical creates nothing.

We have dealt with the notions of society and government, and I have offered the argument that rather than government being created by society, that both society and government are metaphysical concepts which are created by and dependent upon physical, thinking minds. Possibly one should think of society before thinking of government, but that does not mean that society creates government, any more than the advisability of understanding mathematics to design a table means that mathematics designs the table.

So why do you insist self exists but society does not?

They both exist - metaphysically.

Oh, not MY theorem. I was restating and following through the consequences of your views.

No, you weren't, because I already demonstrated that what you said did not follow from my theorem at all. Once again, until you refute this point it stands. Silence is not a rebuttal.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

QUOTE 

I have used this same argument to prove what 'God' is.

I think you should have put the word "prove" in quotation marks, not "God".

I mean this in an a priori way, following logic, but if I had the means (and some human guinea pigs) I could give you empirical proof as well.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Now, unless you have a point to make, get lost and stop wasting my time. If you want my viewpoints explored and clarified in depth, commission me to write a book. But this is a forum for debate, and you're not coming up with anything.

I've made my point several times. You have agreed to it, but are seemingly unwilling to admit to it explicitly. You have conceded that:

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

Assuming that things are created, how can you prove that they are created by 'physical' things rather than 'metaphysical' things.

Because anything that has a metaphysical prerequisite for existence also necessarily has a physical prerequisite, which is always demonstrably more important to its existence. Things can have purely physical prerequisites, but never only purely metaphysical prerequisites. Therefore, the physical creates both the physical and the metaphysical, and the metaphysical creates nothing.

I suppose you think that restating the conclusion constitutes an argument now?

[Hugo]

You have agreed to it, but are seemingly unwilling to admit to it explicitly. You have conceded that: The same could be said for your beloved "individual."

The individual and the self are not the same thing, and without that obfuscation you have no argument. The individual is a physical organism, the self is the concept of the unique identity of that organism. The individual is physical, the self is metaphysical. Termites are individuals, but they have no concept of self. They are individuals, though they don't know it. They certainly create things, though.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The individual is a physical organism

[emphasis is my own]

You're still trying to sneak in metaphysical baggage to the individual.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Wow..somehow managed to post to the wrong thread. disregard

[The Terrible Sweal]

Assuming that things are created, how can you prove that they are created by 'physical' things rather than 'metaphysical' things.

Because anything that has a metaphysical prerequisite for existence also necessarily has a physical prerequisite, which is always demonstrably more important to its existence. Things can have purely physical prerequisites, but never only purely metaphysical prerequisites. Therefore, the physical creates both the physical and the metaphysical, and the metaphysical creates nothing.

That simply restates your contention as if it were a conclusion. But, of course it is the very matter in question. Demonstrate that creation is 'physical' rather than 'metaphysical', if you please.

I have offered the argument that rather than government being created by society, that both society and government are metaphysical concepts which are created by and dependent upon physical, thinking minds.

Yes, I should acknowledge your quible with my question ...

I wrote:

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

Hugo suggested:

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.

To be precise then, I should say:

Individuals create and propagate societies by interacting in social groups. Governments are a manifestations of societies by which societal purposes are conducted, often through the establishment and enforcement of laws.

Oh, not MY theorem. I was restating and following through the consequences of your views.

No, you weren't, because I already demonstrated that what you said did not follow from my theorem at all. Once again, until you refute this point it stands. Silence is not a rebuttal.

I still have no need to rebut anything because I was restating YOUR views, albeit, in your view, incorrectly.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The individual is physical, the self is metaphysical.

Do you have a Great Big Book of Bald Assertions that you refer to for these things?

[Hugo]

Do you have a Great Big Book of Bald Assertions that you refer to for these things?

No, biology and psychology textbooks will do fine. Individuals are biological organisms. Self-awareness is a mental phenomenon.

Or is that incorrect? Still waiting for a cogent argument from you on these things.

Demonstrate that creation is 'physical' rather than 'metaphysical', if you please.

Metaphysical things are ideas, thoughts, concepts, arguably even emotions. To create these you need a mind. As Descartes said, I know I am something because I am thinking, and nothing cannot think. Metaphysical things do not have minds. Therefore, metaphysical things cannot create other metaphysical things.

In the physical world, it is a fact that something cannot be created from nothing. The metaphysical is "nothing" in the physical world since it has neither mass nor energy. If it does not exist in the physical world it cannot create anything physical, since that would be the creation of something from nothing, which is impossible.

Therefore, the metaphysical can create neither the metaphysical nor the physical.

Individuals create and propagate societies by interacting in social groups. Governments are a manifestations of societies by which societal purposes are conducted, often through the establishment and enforcement of laws.

By a "manifestation of society" do you mean a form of society or something created by society?

I still have no need to rebut anything because I was restating YOUR views, albeit, in your view, incorrectly.

Well, I have demonstrated that you were not restating my views with the illustration of the fallacy you were committing (the fallacy of non sequitur, literally, "it does not follow") with an analogy. Once again for the cheap seats, you assumed if A does not equal B, anything not equalling B must therefore be A. You forget that C might also not equal B. You often take a mathematical approach to things so hopefully this will get through to you.

You're still trying to sneak in metaphysical baggage to the individual.

An organism is not metaphysical. There's nothing metaphysical about a microbe, is there?

[I Miss Trudeau]

In the physical world, it is a fact that something cannot be created from nothing. The metaphysical is "nothing" in the physical world since it has neither mass nor energy. If it does not exist in the physical world it cannot create anything physical, since that would be the creation of something from nothing, which is impossible.

You have yet to provide an argument to support this.

An organism is not metaphysical.

The categorization of a set of physical attributes in to a whole (ie. organism) is a product of the metaphysical system that you subscribe to. Similarly, so is your contention that nothing is unable to create something.

[PocketRocket]

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

I disagree.

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

Tell that to my friends Jack Russel, who seems to be passionately in love with my leg, or rather legs. He doesn't discriminate. Left leg, right leg, to him it's all good. Perhaps he not a monogamist. But then monogamy is just a metaphysical concept.

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

I choose to disagree with this. But since choice doesn't exist, I cannot be held responsible. Responsibility would also fall under the metaphysical umbrella, would it not???

Please do not agree, for that would make the statement suddenly cease to exist.

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

AHA. You can see a word. You can read it. You can touch it, especially when it's in 20-foot high letters that say HOLLYWOOD.

HOLLYWOOD itself may be nothing more than a concept, but please don't tell Keanu Reeves.

Therefore meaning is impossible.

What do you mean by that???

Therefore (and only therefore) Hugo is right! 

This conclusion infers that you agree with HUGO. Therefore, by your own words, this statement, being agreement, is a metaphysical concept, and so does not exist.

Damn. I've been typing non-existant replies to a non-existant post.

That was fun

[Hugo]

You have yet to provide an argument to support this.

You have yet to provide an argument to disprove it.

The categorization of a set of physical attributes in to a whole (ie. organism) is a product of the metaphysical system that you subscribe to.

Now you're confusing terminology with reality, i.e. you are having trouble telling the difference between things and the way in which we describe those things.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Do you have a Great Big Book of Bald Assertions that you refer to for these things?

No, biology and psychology textbooks will do fine. Individuals are biological organisms. Self-awareness is a mental phenomenon.

Even if you have them correct, transposing isolated technical definitions and usages from particular disciplines avails nothing in terms of advancing an argument for your philosophic position.

Demonstrate that creation is 'physical' rather than 'metaphysical', if you please.

Metaphysical things are ideas, thoughts, concepts, arguably even emotions. To create these you need a mind.

I think that's open to question. If there was a time before any mind existed, and if there are, now ideas, thoughts, and concepts, arguably they were 'created' by something other than a mind.

As Descartes said, I know I am something because I am thinking, and nothing cannot think.

This recruits descartes through a faulty somewhat incorrect interpretation of Cogito Ergo Sum.

Metaphysical things do not have minds.

More bald assertion. Isn't mind itself metaphysical?

In the physical world, it is a fact that something cannot be created from nothing.

A fact according to who?

The metaphysical is "nothing" in the physical world since it has neither mass nor energy.

Obviously, mass and energy are not the only relevant criteria.

Individuals create and propagate societies by interacting in social groups. Governments are a manifestations of societies by which societal purposes are conducted, often through the establishment and enforcement of laws.

By a "manifestation of society" do you mean a form of society or something created by society?

More like the latter, but again, I should try for more precision: a manifestation of in a sort of phenomenological sense, like heat is a phenomenon which is manifest in the phenomenon of light striking matter. So, when individuals form a society, a governmental function of some sort becomes manifest.

There's nothing metaphysical about a microbe, is there?

Well of course there is!

[The Terrible Sweal]

AHA. You can see a word. You can read it. You can touch it, especially when it's in 20-foot high letters that say HOLLYWOOD.

The lines on the page are real, the word-ness of it is metaphysical.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... trouble telling the difference between things and the way in which we describe those things.

There's a lot of that going around!