Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do we affect the" physical " indepentent of the laws of physics
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 121 of 148 (309654)
05-06-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by DominionSeraph
05-03-2006 9:02 PM


Re: Not in very good taste
Opiates have been studied in-depth. Can you think of a better example with which to invalidate his claim that his mind's functions aren't physical?
Chemical manipualtion of the physical brain indicates nothing concerning the idea of the abstract and unphysical idea of the mind. A mind does not "function" to me...a brain does. An abstract idea in itself is evidence to me of things that exist that are not physical.
However if you choose to "believe"(abstract idea) that all things existing have underlying "physical" causes which "explain" them, that is your religious choice. Sounds like another topic. lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by DominionSeraph, posted 05-03-2006 9:02 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 122 of 148 (309655)
05-06-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-06-2006 11:52 AM


Definition of Force
All physics will ever do, until there is a shift in thinking, is show the mechanical relationships between a property of matter we have defined as mass interacting with other matter through a process or vehicle we have called force. All we know about mechanical force it that we can measure it. This is a very narrow use of the word force. One that many of you have followed without question. We on the other hand use the word in life to describe interactions in a much more meaningful way. Measurement is only verification of measurement and defines nothing accept in terms of measurement.
All you have done is confused one definition of force found in the dictionary with another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-06-2006 11:52 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-06-2006 3:11 PM anglagard has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 123 of 148 (309730)
05-06-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by anglagard
05-06-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Definition of Force
All you have done is confused one definition of force found in the dictionary with another.
I am very aware of thier definitions. I also understand what they have in common. One is a measurement of a phenomenon.A measurement is not a meaningful definition of a phenomenon.It is simply a property of that phenomenon. I can measure you as a function of various quantitative criteria. The observations will be empirically correct. However they will be meaningless in describing you to in any human sense.
The other involves meaningful descriptions of what that phenomenon can be in various aspects of life experience. The latter is inclusive of the concept that the former measures in only one aspect of life experience. I am currently exerting a force upon you and others here that is evident by the effect the force is having. The formula, if there could be one, to arive at any quantitative derivation would likely make anything quantum mechanics has dreamed up seem simple and mundane. However it would simply be a measurement or property of you, the phenomenon. However I am sure this hypothetical measurement might be useful in some way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by anglagard, posted 05-06-2006 12:12 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 05-06-2006 3:55 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
 Message 128 by sidelined, posted 05-07-2006 6:08 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 124 of 148 (309745)
05-06-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-06-2006 3:11 PM


Re: Definition of Force
It feels to me like you're confounding phychological force, as in "force of his personality", with physical force. Psychology is the branch of science for the type of force you're talking about, not physics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-06-2006 3:11 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-07-2006 1:42 PM Percy has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 125 of 148 (309990)
05-07-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
05-06-2006 3:55 PM


Re: Definition of Force
It feels to me like you're confounding phychological force, as in "force of his personality", with physical force.
This is the entire point.
Psychology is the branch of science for the type of force you're talking about, not physics.
Are you saying the the nature of the animal psychology deals with is not physical?
We do have a nasty habit of compartmentalizing our thinking. We often learn much about something when looking at it from another point of view. It allows us to see things that we were previously blind to.
As I have asked before. I am curious why the resistance. Most of you are bright enough to see the correlation. I know you understand it is worth looking into. Therefore, motivations I have observed are as I guessed long ago when first coming here. No matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 05-06-2006 3:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by AdminNosy, posted 05-07-2006 1:49 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 05-07-2006 4:37 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 126 of 148 (309992)
05-07-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-07-2006 1:42 PM


Organizing
Are you saying the the nature of the animal psychology deals with is not physical? We do have a nasty habit of compartmentalizing our thinking.
We like to organize the discussions here. That requires some compartmentalizing.
Your other points of view have been very unproductive so far. If you continue to try to drag this too far off topic you will not be allowed to post for a period of time.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-07-2006 01:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-07-2006 1:42 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 127 of 148 (310035)
05-07-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-07-2006 1:42 PM


Re: Definition of Force
2ice_baked_taters writes:
Psychology is the branch of science for the type of force you're talking about, not physics.
Are you saying that the nature of the animal that psychology deals with is not physical?
No. I'm saying that psychology and physics are two completely different fields.
Most of you are bright enough to see the correlation.
It is a fallacy to conclude that two different concepts are related simply because they share the same word.
Therefore, motivations I have observed are as I guessed long ago when first coming here.
The possibility of bias exists as much for you as for anyone else. Sure, you can just declare us mindless automotons blindly following methodological naturalism and go on your way, but wouldn't you find it more satisfying to persuade people of your point of view?
An alternative worth considering is that it is your own reasoning that is faulty. Another possibility is that you haven't developed strong enough arguments for your ideas. Yet another possibility is that your evidence is insufficient. If you really believe in your ideas then I encourage you to give some thought as to how to muster better arguments and evidence for them.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-07-2006 1:42 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 128 of 148 (310067)
05-07-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-06-2006 3:11 PM


Re: Definition of Force
2ice_baked_taters
I am currently exerting a force upon you and others here that is evident by the effect the force is having.
You are not exerting a force rather, you are having an influence as a result of the choice of a human being reading your passages.
Unlike the result of a force the response of people to the influence of your statements is a choice that they have. All that read these lines are not required by a "law of nature" to answer back. You are confusing the science term of "force" which is defined as a mass acceleration with a colloquial term concerning influence or persuasion in a conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-06-2006 3:11 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-08-2006 12:09 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 135 by cavediver, posted 05-13-2006 5:41 AM sidelined has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 129 of 148 (310286)
05-08-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by sidelined
05-07-2006 6:08 PM


Re: Definition of Force
You are not exerting a force rather, you are having an influence as a result of the choice of a human being reading your passages.
Unlike the result of a force the response of people to the influence of your statements is a choice that they have. All that read these lines are not required by a "law of nature" to answer back. You are confusing the science term of "force" which is defined as a mass acceleration with a colloquial term concerning influence or persuasion in a conversation.
This is purely a matter of perspective. You are quite mistaken if you think I am confused. I understand the perspective you and others share quite well. I understand exactly what f=ma represents. It is no more a definition of the phenomenon we call force than your height is of you.
F=ma results in a measurement that is the property of a phenomenon we cannot define. We are aware of the result of force but we have no clue what it is. One does not discover a means to determine the mass of a substance and then declair that is the definition of the substance. This is absurd. It is no more absurd to think of force in the same narrow way. It is an artificial limitation placed upon a thing we know little about.
Science has found a predictable quantitative property of a phenomenon they cannot explain. This property can be exploited. It has proven very useful. We can be very predictable as a whole from a statistical point of view.
All that read these lines are not required by a "law of nature" to answer back.
Statistically as a whole this is an incorrect statement. People will respond. This response is a part of nature. We evolved this way. This is a property of us.
The difference between your narrow view of force and mine is that you can measure a property of the subject. The mistake is that you define the subject by a property. I cannot currently measure my idea in the same fashion. We understand a number of properties of ourselves in a very real way but not measurable in the f=ma way at this time. We are a different animal so to speak but the fundamental idea is what I am driving at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by sidelined, posted 05-07-2006 6:08 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by ramoss, posted 05-08-2006 1:14 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 131 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2006 1:36 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 132 by nwr, posted 05-08-2006 1:37 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 130 of 148 (310298)
05-08-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-08-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Definition of Force
Hum. It seems that f=ma IS defining it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-08-2006 12:09 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 148 (310308)
05-08-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-08-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Definition of Force
Science has found a predictable quantitative property of a phenomenon they cannot explain.
This is a contradiction. Finding a predictable quantitative property of a phenomenon IS a scientific explanation.
This is purely a matter of perspective.
IMHO, you have the wrong perspective.
It is no more absurd to think of force in the same narrow way. It is an artificial limitation placed upon a thing we know little about.
But we know a helluva lot about forces. How do you think we've build all the stuff we have? It wasn't by using a philosophical definition for what a force might poissibly be. It was from having a narrow well defined definition of force.
The difference between your narrow view of force and mine is that you can measure a property of the subject. The mistake is that you define the subject by a property. I cannot currently measure my idea in the same fashion. We understand a number of properties of ourselves in a very real way but not measurable in the f=ma way at this time. We are a different animal so to speak but the fundamental idea is what I am driving at.
And this is why your idea is worthless. It is not productive. Perhaps it could be in the future but, IMHO, it won't.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-08-2006 12:09 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 132 of 148 (310309)
05-08-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-08-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Definition of Force
The difference between your narrow view of force and mine is that you can measure a property of the subject.
And by being able to measure it, we demonstrate our understanding.
I cannot currently measure my idea in the same fashion.
And that has a lot to do with why you are having difficulty explaining what you are talking about.
We understand a number of properties of ourselves in a very real way but not measurable in the f=ma way at this time.
What we do not understand well enough to be able to measure, we do not understand very well at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-08-2006 12:09 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-12-2006 4:22 AM nwr has replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 133 of 148 (311543)
05-12-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by 2ice_baked_taters
02-23-2006 2:21 AM


I think it's time for me to start from the beginning.
2ice_baked_taters writes:
The laws of physics do not recognize the force of me.
The laws of physics don't have the capacity to recognize anything.
Anthropomorphizing the laws of physics ain't exactly a good start.
2ice_baked_taters writes:
I affect the world around me on a daily basis in some very unique and unpredictable ways.
My boredom is pretty predictable.
2ice_baked_taters writes:
I am a force that does things at will and in many ways not according to any known physical laws.
The latter can be said for any piece of software.
2ice_baked_taters writes:
In fact it can be said that the force that is “us” generates it’s own set of changing laws called beliefs.
...generates them based on many factors.
And I don't know why you'd call a belief a law.
"I believe that I own a Suzuki Bandit 1200S."
That doesn't meet any definition of "law."
2ice_baked_taters writes:
The force that is us succumbs to these laws both by coercion of other similar forces and our choice.
Ok, so who's doing the believing, and who's doing the succumbing?
2ice_baked_taters writes:
By obeying these laws we in turn can have a profound and unpredictable effect on the physical world.
Try generating that effect now.
2ice_baked_taters writes:
In effect, our changing Laws can become a force and in turn, affect the physical world in unpredictable ways according to the laws of physics. In addition to this we as individual forces can choose to act against the very laws we generate.
"Clean-up on aisle 4!"
2ice_baked_taters writes:
Perhaps thinking of us in terms of an energy force will allow science to have a better glimpse at that which is “us”.
Thinking of you as software works just fine.
2ice_baked_taters writes:
I find this perspective interesting
You wouldn't have posted it if you found it boring.
Completely unsurprising.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 05-12-2006 06:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 02-23-2006 2:21 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 134 of 148 (311550)
05-12-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by 2ice_baked_taters
05-06-2006 11:52 AM


2ice_baked_taters writes:
I am have and been applying a force in a very real sense.
Your responses are stimuli to us, which we in turn respond to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 05-06-2006 11:52 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 135 of 148 (311697)
05-13-2006 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by sidelined
05-07-2006 6:08 PM


Cavediver calling Sidelined
Just wanted to bump your attention to Message 159

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by sidelined, posted 05-07-2006 6:08 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024