Message 212 of 213 (558087)
04-29-2010 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by MrQ
04-29-2010 6:02 PM
Re: Clear those muddy waters
|My proof is based on inductive reasoning. I am saying whatever we know from matter till now, doesn't give this capability. |
What capability is required? The capability to produce abstraction? I certainly don't require for matter to be able to abstract (except of course in the processes occurring within our brains) But how do you know it is required?
|I am asking give me single constant thing that matter produces solely on its own which doesn't need abstraction process.|
Proton to electron mass does not need abstraction.
|Proton to electron mass needs abstraction. Because you have to define mass and its ratio. |
It doesn't require abstraction to be what it is. Obviously in order to discover that, we utilize abstraction. But in order for the proton mass to have ratio it does with electron mass - you have not demonstrated this fact in itself needs abstraction.
|Listen my friend, there is absolutely no logical reason for any random mass to suddenly keep its ratios constant.|
It has never 'suddenly' kept its ratios constant. As long as there have been protons and electrons this ratio has been this way. It is as if they can be no other way. As if it was a necessary truth about protons and electrons.
|It is like saying apple to pear weight ratio should be constant! Of course apples and pears can't keep this constant because they are not aware of each other and also they don't know what abstraction is.|
No - they don't keep consistent mass between them because they evolved seperately towards different optimum weights/sizes/colour etc and there is variance inherent in the system.
But I've never claimed apples and pear mass ratio should be constant, because we both know it is false. I talked about the ratio between two masses of electrons and protons, which is constant.
Wait a minute, are you telling me that electrons and protons do know what abstraction is?
|But if proton and electron can do that, it is because something that can give at least this overall supervision that can see these relations together and keep them true all the times.|
Or maybe it is just a logical conclusion based on the necessary truths that they could be no other way! Why must they be supervised? Now I've given you an counterexample, you seem to be claiming that all counterexamples would actually be evidence for your position since that shows a supervisionary force!
Which is clearly madness.
|You are saying this is intrinsic property of it.|
Nothing so bold. I'm asking you how you have ruled that out.
|I accept, but I say this is not normal for any random system.|
And I ask how do you know this?
|This shows a sign of abstraction and as per to my definition, there should exist a mind.|
I am still unclear how anything can show a sign of abstraction. Please explain the general principle behind signs of abstraction and how you have come to conclude that this sign can only come from abstraction.
|Any software like MS Word.|
But the abstraction doesn't do anything. The abstraction is just in our heads.
|Even your example keeping ratios and relations are all abstraction. There are real and they are there. |
Abstraction occurs within minds. Unless you have evidence that protons and electrons and basically everything that exists, is just in the imagination of some mind...I fail to see how you can support this claim.
So can you demonstrate that any of the things you claim are abstractions...are abstractions?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 211 by MrQ, posted 04-29-2010 6:02 PM|| ||MrQ has not yet responded|