Are we rational or irrational?

[Spock]

A temperature which could freeze atoms does not just stop when it has just frozen the atoms, it is free to continue descending forever if it wishes, it is just that our human instruments will no longer be able to measure it beyond a certain point.

Huh? Temperature is the Brownian motion of the molecules. Once the motion stops, that is the end of process. There is no such thing as “negative” motion.

 

[inocente]

So, what you’re saying is that the law of conservation of mass, for example, is not technically a law, because Jesus broke it with the miracle of the loaves and the fishes? If that is the case, I disagree. It is still a law, just a law that can only be broken by its Creator, as it should be. If God could not break His own natural laws, then those laws would exceed Him in power over the universe.

If physicists had access to the event or it could be reproduced, they would excitedly go off to try to explain it and build it into what we know. The law of conservation of mass would be found wanting and have to be discarded or modified. The laws don’t confine nature or God in any way, they just state what we know up to this point.

But there is a need to assume a God …

You were commenting there on someone else’s post, hopefully Spock answered it for you .

 

[inocente]

“composed of” implies that a person is a** material thing** which consists of parts. It is more accurate to state that a person is an** entity **that cannot be adequately explained as a set of atomic particles.

Look at the research fields involved here: Behavioral psychology only really took off in the 20th C. Integrated circuits allowing a real investigation of information technology have only been around for 50 years. Neuroscience has only had fMRI scanners for 30 years.

It’s a little premature to want a complete explanation, patience friend. Meanwhile it’s a little precarious to claim that just because we don’t yet fully understand how it works it can’t happen. I’ve said it before and will say it again, Catholics are the now generation, you want everything yesterday.

 

[inocente]

A temperature which could freeze atoms does not just stop when it has just frozen the atoms, it is free to continue descending forever if it wishes, it is just that our human instruments will no longer be able to measure it beyond a certain point.

Spock’s right. Heat is thermal motion, temperature is a measure of the jiggling, and once the jiggling stops there’s no more thermal energy to remove. Tis called absolute zero for a reason.

 

[GEddie]

I think this is a human constraint, moreso. After all there is no such thing in nature as boxes for temperature, pressure etc.
When these values start to jump outside of the human boxes designed for their classification then humans begin to speak about alternate universes, quantum mechanics, anomalies etc. A temperature which could freeze atoms does not just stop when it has just frozen the atoms, it is free to continue descending forever if it wishes, it is just that our human instruments will no longer be able to measure it beyond a certain point.

Conditions such as 0K, or zero pressure,are not just a matter of “boxes” for our understanding; they are intrinsic to the physical world we know.

The temperature is not free to descend forever
beyond 0K, because as was pointed out, temperature is atomic motion, which ceases at this point. Pressure is the force exerted by Atoms of matter. It can go “negative” under certain conditions (suction) but cannot decrease after the point where there is nothing to exert it. A falling object cannot continue falling through the center of the earth.
Etc.
Can GOD create a temperature of -1K? Sure HE can. But it won’t exist in the universe we know. There are limits built into realm of our being.

ICXC NIKA

 

[tonyrey]

1. Atomic particles are not rational.

It remains to be explained how atomic particles can develop the power of insight and comprehension. This hypothesis has been attributed to an increase in complexity (as if complexity alone is an explanation!) Such a magical transformation requires far more than a quantitative change - which itself remains unexplained.

The immense gulf between a particle and a person is the insurmountable stumbling block for materialists. Multiplication does precisely nothing to solve the problem because a person is an** indivisible entity **and not an assemblage of bits and pieces. No amount of scientific claptrap can obscure the fact that neither understanding nor reasoning is reducible to mechanistic computation.

 

[tonyrey]

Look at the research fields involved here: Behavioral psychology only really took off in the 20th C. Integrated circuits allowing a real investigation of information technology have only been around for 50 years. Neuroscience has only had fMRI scanners for 30 years.

Your faith in neuroscience in touching but it needs to be justified. Would you ever allow your life to be ruled by integrated circuits?

It’s a little premature to want a complete explanation, patience friend. Meanwhile it’s a little precarious to claim that just because we don’t yet fully understand how it works it can’t happen. I’ve said it before and will say it again, Catholics are the now generation, you want everything yesterday.

Your assumption that given enough time all will be explained (scientifically) is based on an act of blind faith that we are merely biological machines. You stake everything on tomorrow and ignore the present. You continue to act as if you are an independent person rather than an assemblage of particles producing electrical impulses… Have you considered the full implications of your hypothesis?

 

[inocente]

It remains to be explained how atomic particles can develop the power of insight and comprehension. This hypothesis has been attributed to an increase in complexity (as if complexity alone is an explanation!) Such a magical transformation requires far more than a quantitative change - which itself remains unexplained.

The immense gulf between a particle and a person is the insurmountable stumbling block for materialists. Multiplication does precisely nothing to solve the problem because a person is an** indivisible entity **and not an assemblage of bits and pieces. No amount of scientific claptrap can obscure the fact that neither understanding nor reasoning is reducible to mechanistic computation.

We’re not phased by your puny stumbling blocks for we are invincible .

We know that an eagle can swoop on a rabbit and also know its wings and beak are made of atoms but we don’t say:

1. Atomic particles can’t catch rabbits.

You’re forgetting emergence dude - the whole is more than the sum of its parts (Aristotle )

 

[tonyrey]

We’re not phased by your puny stumbling blocks for we are invincible .

What are “we”?

We know that an eagle can swoop on a rabbit and also know its wings and beak are made of atoms but we don’t say:

1. Atomic particles can’t catch rabbits.

You are presuming eagles are composed solely of atomic particles…
Your materialism seems to be all-embracing. I wonder why… What is it about inanimate matter that makes it exercise such a hypnotic effect on people?

You’re forgetting emergence dude - the whole is more than the sum of its parts (Aristotle

Emergence is an imposing term, pal, but it is not an explanation.

Why is** the whole** is more than the sum of its parts? Any ideas?

(You’re on the right track - having relinquished the atomistic approach.

 

[inocente]

Your faith in neuroscience in touching but it needs to be justified. Would you ever allow your life to be ruled by integrated circuits?

I think that happens every time we fly an Airbus.

Your assumption that given enough time all will be explained (scientifically) is based on an act of blind faith that we are merely biological machines. You stake everything on tomorrow and ignore the present. You continue to act as if you are an independent person rather than an assemblage of particles producing electrical impulses… Have you considered the full implications of your hypothesis?

I’d say 25 years and it will all be done and dusted. That’s not blind faith, that comes from my professional experience in IT and from the rapid rate of progress in various fields. I’m both a person and electrical impulses, we kind of rely on each other. The full implications are that ignorance is bliss but knowledge is way cool npatrol:.

 

[inocente]

What are “we”?

Invincible pixels or a royal priesthood according to taste. Long answer short, children of God .

You are presuming eagles are composed solely of atomic particles…
Your materialism seems to be all-embracing. I wonder why… What is it about inanimate matter that makes it exercise such a hypnotic effect on people?

If you’re presuming eagles are not composed solely of atomic particles then the same hypnotic effect would also apply.

Emergence is an imposing term, pal, but it is not an explanation.

Why is** the whole** is more than the sum of its parts? Any ideas?

(You’re on the right track - having relinquished the atomistic approach.

I think Aristotle overstates his case here, it’s not always more, but I invincibly retain my approach.

If you’ve got video, watch this for a quick intro to emergence:
youtube.com/watch?v=gdQgoNitl1g
youtube.com/watch?v=S5NRNG1r_jI

 

[You]

Huh? Temperature is the Brownian motion of the molecules. Once the motion stops, that is the end of process. There is no such thing as “negative” motion.

Temperature is a human way of quantifying the amount of energy in a system; it just happens to use the measurement of the degree of excitation of atoms. But when you have frozen the movement of the atoms in a system you have still not extracted all of the energy in the system. The energy of the system could continue to fall until the atom itself was robbed of its own energy and it ceased to be an atom. Then the energy of the system could decrease even further until the components of the nucleus were robbed of all of their energy and they ceased being a nucleus. And so on until even things we don’t know about yet are too robbed of their energy as the energy of the system diminishes. Temperature Kelvin is just one human way of quantifying and measuring some of the energy within a system.

 

[You]

Spock’s right. Heat is thermal motion, temperature is a measure of the jiggling, and once the jiggling stops there’s no more thermal energy to remove. Tis called absolute zero for a reason.

Temperature, light, etc. are all forms of “energy”. And humans have created scales for measuring energy; scales for measuring light frequency energy, scales for measuring heat frequency energy, etc. But it is all the same ‘energy’.
What is being measured is the energy of the system at a certain point in the whole system. But there is no actual creature called ‘temperature’ in nature; it is just one of many human scales invented to measure energy at differing levels in a system.
And as this scale is just a human invention it is not terribly honest to try and create a contradiction using it. It is akin to one saying; there is Kelvin and there is Celsius but God cannot combine the two without losing the meaning of both therefore there is no God.
Both scales are human things and one cannot use an imaginary contradiction to disprove a real fact.

 

[larkin31]

It remains to be explained how atomic particles can develop the power of insight and comprehension. This hypothesis has been attributed to an increase in complexity (as if complexity alone is an explanation!) Such a magical transformation requires far more than a quantitative change - which itself remains unexplained.

The immense gulf between a particle and a person is the insurmountable stumbling block for materialists. Multiplication does precisely nothing to solve the problem because a person is an** indivisible entity **and not an assemblage of bits and pieces. No amount of scientific claptrap can obscure the fact that neither understanding nor reasoning is reducible to mechanistic computation.

What’s your point now? Are you arguing that a human individual must have a divine soul (something supernatural)? Are you arguing that our assemblage of tissues and organs and neural system could not possibly result in a thinking, conscious organism without supernatural assistance?

Would you please be more direct in your claims?

 

[tonyrey]

Your faith in neuroscience in touching but it needs to be justified. Would you ever allow your life to be ruled by integrated circuits?

A flight <> your life

…unless you are flying from reality.

Your assumption that given enough time all will be explained (scientifically) is based on an act of blind faith that we are merely biological machines. You stake everything on tomorrow and ignore the present. You continue to act as if you are an independent person rather than an assemblage of particles producing electrical impulses… Have you considered the full implications of your hypothesis?

I’d say 25 years and it will all be done and dusted. That’s not blind faith, that comes from my professional experience in IT and from the rapid rate of progress in various fields.

Rapid progress in explaining truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love? In justifying your claim to be a Baptist?

I’m both a person and electrical impulses, we kind of rely on each other. The full implications are that ignorance is bliss but knowledge is way cool

It’s an occupational hazard of programmers to regard AI as the answer to all questions about reasoning. You substitute information for insight, intuition and inspiration.

Your duality of person and particles remains obscure. How do you explain it?

.

 

[inocente]

Temperature, light, etc. are all forms of “energy”. And humans have created scales for measuring energy; scales for measuring light frequency energy, scales for measuring heat frequency energy, etc. But it is all the same ‘energy’.
What is being measured is the energy of the system at a certain point in the whole system. But there is no actual creature called ‘temperature’ in nature; it is just one of many human scales invented to measure energy at differing levels in a system.
And as this scale is just a human invention it is not terribly honest to try and create a contradiction using it. It is akin to one saying; there is Kelvin and there is Celsius but God cannot combine the two without losing the meaning of both therefore there is no God.
Both scales are human things and one cannot use an imaginary contradiction to disprove a real fact.

Temperature isn’t energy. Each molecule in a system has a kinetic energy we call heat. Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the system. When kinetic energy is lost (the molecules jiggle less) we say the system is colder. At some point all the molecules stop moving (no more jiggling, no more kinetic energy). The system can’t be any colder than when no molecule has any kinetic energy - it isn’t possible for stationary molecules to become any more stationary.

You don’t need any temperature scales here, this is just physics. No one is trying to make any debating points on this, look it up .

 

[tonyrey]

It remains to be explained how

You persist in asking questions without making any attempt to refute my points!

Would you please be more direct in your claims?

What could be more direct than the following statements?

1. No one has explained how atomic particles can develop the power of insight and comprehension
2. No one has explainedthe increase in complexity
3. There is an immense gulf between a particle and a person
4. A person is an** indivisible entity **
5. Neither understanding nor reasoning is reducible to mechanistic computation.

Are you arguing that a human individual must have a divine soul (something supernatural)? Are you arguing that our assemblage of tissues and organs and neural system could not possibly result in a thinking, conscious organism without supernatural assistance?

That is irrelevant to the topic:

1. Therefore materialism must be false

 

[inocente]

Rapid progress in explaining truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love? In justifying your claim to be a Baptist?

Whatcha talking about? :whacky: Explaining consciousness will explain freedom and justice? In justifying your claim to be a Catholic? I’ve one word for you - hah!

*It’s an occupational hazard of programmers to regard AI as the answer to all questions about reasoning. You substitute information for insight, intuition and inspiration.

Your duality of person and particles remains obscure. How do you explain it?*

Twas behavioral psychology, neuroscience and information technology, not programmers or AI.

Did you look at the videos? Hopefully they gave you an insight, intuition and inspiration about the hymnbook. We can build from there but it’s dog walking time before the sun goes down. Foresight is an occupational hazard of being rational.

 

[larkin31]

You persist in asking questions without making any attempt to refute my points!

I tire of your sloppy syllogisms, so I prefer it if you’d just make your thesis plain.

What could be more direct than the following statements?

1. No one has explained how atomic particles can develop the power of insight and comprehension

no kidding. No one asserts it but you.

1. No one has explainedthe increase in complexity

which complexity? Tony, you are just blowing vague philosophical smoke with this stuff.

1. There is an immense gulf between a particle and a person

no kidding. no one assterts otherwise but you, for a strawman to tilt against.

1. A person is an** indivisible entity **

This is a definitional claim from you. I disagree that a “person” is “indivisible.” A “person” can easily be dismembered of parts, even of parts of one’s personality. That has been done thousands of times.

1. Neither understanding nor reasoning is reducible to mechanistic computation

. Not entirely true. You are claiming a broad conclusion without any qualifying terms. SOME aspects of “understanding” and “reasoning” have had MUCH of their neural activities quantified, but not down to every atom (of course–no one claims this but you, as a strawman to tilt against).

1. Therefore materialism must be false

no. You don’t even define the term that you are refuting, and your definition of “materialism” is nowhere in this pseudo-syllogism (which actually is a requirement of the logic). This is terrible syllogistic thinking.

I actually think that you are just tooling around, trolling for entertainment. No serious thinker writes what you just wrote.

 

[larkin31]

Whatcha talking about? :whacky: Explaining consciousness will explain freedom and justice? In justifying your claim to be a Catholic? I’ve one word for you - hah!

Twas behavioral psychology, neuroscience and information technology, not programmers or AI.

Did you look at the videos? Hopefully they gave you an insight, intuition and inspiration about the hymnbook. We can build from there but it’s dog walking time before the sun goes down. Foresight is an occupational hazard of being rational.

Tony has become virtually incomprehensible. Either his spring has sprung, or he is just jerking around.