What creates matter?

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Trifeck wrote:

H'm.

Alright, I take your point about these being phenomena that can be represented as purely physical in nature. Would you agree, though, if I was to say that since energy and matter are inter-convertible, that it's equally possible to represent these phenomena as purely energetic in nature?

No because energy without matter has no organisation. What makes a brain different is that unlike a rock or a ray of sun, it is organised. The only examples of consciousness, any anything resembling it comes from such examples of organised matter we call, like and ultimately the nervous tissue.

Say the 'soul' or even 'consciousness' (quotes cause these are bloody loaded, poorly defined terms that are tossed around too lightly, IMO), is nothing more than the electromagnetic representation of the entire physical construct, brain included - or any sub selection that you prefer. Fairly basic electromagnetic theory says that fluxing magnetic fields create currents, and vice versa. I'm not a fan of the 'we're reborn cos bearded men have said so' logic, but given that my consciousness can be represented as a type of electromagnetic field, which basic science says can be, and often is, captured, messed with, replicated, and tossed around... well. My certainty dwindles.

But that brings us back to the suggestion that "mind', "soul" or the like is different (qualitatively) from the matter by which it is generated. It seem to make more sense and avoids attributions of mystic of supernatural phenomena to simply say that "mind" is what the brain does. It is not distinct or separable from the brain - as it is easy to show; is is what the activity of the brain.

I agree with you completely when you say that there's no sense in seeing a single act as utterly meaningful; and so a chain of BBs going back and suddenly appearing ahead are okay in my book. I personally find the explanation of the Big Bang itself kinda surreal, though - I mean, "there was nothing, and then it exploded" is a bit too Douglas Adams, no?

I know what you mean. But the BB is a rationalisation to explain the phenomena, we can never really know what happened back then.
What we can be more sure of is that consciousness appears very late in the history of the universe and all examples of it so far are in the presence of specialised organised matter we call nervous tissue. To try to suggest that it somehow precedes; to explains matter simply does not hold with the historical facts.
The only reason we even consider that is that religions have said so - said so without the science and knowledge we now have.

Trifeck · **Joined:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:33 pm **Posts:** 30

"No because energy without matter has no organisation. What makes a brain different is that unlike a rock or a ray of sun, it is organised. The only examples of consciousness, any anything resembling it comes from such examples of organised matter we call, like and ultimately the nervous tissue."

Chaz, I think you're missing the point. I'm not making a distinction of primacy. All I'm saying is that the theoretical representation can be based either in mass units, or energy units. A rock can be described as "a" kilos, "b type" atomic lattice, "c*d*e" dimensions, and so on. It can also be described as "x" kCal, "y" number of covalent bonds, "z" spectra of emission, and so on.

Similarly, a consciousness can be described, crudely, as "the activity of this particular mass of neural tissue at this particular time" - the materialist description (and yours, I believe), or as "the pattern of energy flowing at this particular time" - the energetic description. If the first is valid and the second is not, then I don't think we have much more to say to each other. It's about perspective, which is what healthy science - such as relativity - is based on.

Also, there's no such thing as energy without matter - or indeed the opposite. That's what the search for the Higg's Boson at the LHC is about - finding the link between energy and matter via the smallest particle of matter. Everything we've observed in the universe, barring dark matter/ energy, is a combination of both matter and energy.

You're right when you say that consciousness is very recent, and that nothing in history even vaguely suggests that it is otherwise. Keep in mind, though, that you're basing a certainty about something that emerged from a 14 billion year long process - the universe - on about 5000 years of observation - human history.

I admire the belief, man. But those are some heavy sunglasses you have on.

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Trifeck wrote:

"No because energy without matter has no organisation. What makes a brain different is that unlike a rock or a ray of sun, it is organised. The only examples of consciousness, any anything resembling it comes from such examples of organised matter we call, like and ultimately the nervous tissue."

Chaz, I think you're missing the point. I'm not making a distinction of primacy. All I'm saying is that the theoretical representation can be based either in mass units, or energy units. A rock can be described as "a" kilos, "b type" atomic lattice, "c*d*e" dimensions, and so on. It can also be described as "x" kCal, "y" number of covalent bonds, "z" spectra of emission, and so on.

I think you misunderstand. I am making a distinction of primacy.
Describing a thing energetically has got nothing to do with consciousness.

Similarly, a consciousness can be described, crudely, as "the activity of this particular mass of neural tissue at this particular time" - the materialist description (and yours, I believe), or as "the pattern of energy flowing at this particular time" - the energetic description. If the first is valid and the second is not, then I don't think we have much more to say to each other. It's about perspective, which is what healthy science - such as relativity - is based on.

If we have nothing more to say to each other is because so far you have said very little.

Also, there's no such thing as energy without matter - or indeed the opposite. That's what the search for the Higg's Boson at the LHC is about - finding the link between energy and matter via the smallest particle of matter. Everything we've observed in the universe, barring dark matter/ energy, is a combination of both matter and energy.

Indeed, but none of this relates to the question, nor consciousness. So what is your point?

You're right when you say that consciousness is very recent, and that nothing in history even vaguely suggests that it is otherwise. Keep in mind, though, that you're basing a certainty about something that emerged from a 14 billion year long process - the universe - on about 5000 years of observation - human history.

Meaning what? If this investigation is not based on evidence then you are in the realms of fantasy.

I admire the belief, man. But those are some heavy sunglasses you have on.

I think it is you wearing the specs - rose tinted specs man! That let you see what you want to see.
THere is no belief here, man.
I left my prejudice, fantasy and Faith at the door.

Trifeck · **Joined:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:33 pm **Posts:** 30

Okay.

1. It doesn't matter whether you're making a distinction of primacy or not. Describing a thing based on a particular frame of reference is pretty damn relevant to what conclusions can be drawn from it. The frame of reference limits the kinds of questions that can be asked or answered about an object.

The energetic description of consciousness is based on it's description as a fluxing electromagnetic field. I don't see where the confusion in this is. Are you saying that a consciousness is not describable by an electromagnetic map of the brain? Yes, yes, it exists because of the physical structure of the brain, but does that mean that an electromagnetic map is in someway irrelevant or incorrect? (Please don't just say yes in an effort to prop up your 'opinion'. It would be interesting if you actually went out on a limb and said what you actually believe, rather than dumping on all and sundry when they try to present another facet of the phenomena).

2. Actually, I've said a lot. You haven't, for example, said a word about energy and matter being fundamentally inseparable, which you didn't seem to know before - "energy without matter has no organization".

3. Merely saying "Indeed, but none of this relates to the question, nor consciousness. So what is your point?" after you've willfully ignored (not disproved, whatever the strength of your belief in assertion) everything that's been said does not make you sound intelligent, nor worthy of debate. It just makes you sound like an adolescent - and more to the point, an adolescent who thinks he already knows everything there is to know. It's quite grating and childish, to be honest. Please stick to logical refutations and not ideological ones, if you can.

The matter-energy relationship relates directly to the question, since your description of the consciousness is based entirely in the material dimension, and claims that any electromagnetic characteristics of consciousness are in some way 'after the fact, and therefore irrelevant'. Even a basic appreciation of nuclear physics or even Einstein's laws would have been enough for you to know how limited your perspective really is - and seemingly based in a desire to have the last word, rather than any serious desire for knowledge.

4. "Meaning what? If this investigation is not based on evidence then you are in the realms of fantasy."
Your refusal to accept another representation of what you want to see as a purely, wholly, and unalterably "material" phenomena is the sticking point here, not any lack of evidence, or realm of fantasy.

It's been a long held understanding - since Einstein's E=MC2 - that energy and matter are two separate representations of the same phenomena. If THIS is where you disagree, then I'd suggest you go through a couple of science textbooks, preferably written by someone you admire. That might make it easier for you to come to grips with a field of science you're clearly suspicious and dogmatic about.

My point, if there's even any point to re-posting, since you're clearly going to ignore everything in this post after the first line, and then come back a few hours later with a bunch of snide non-sequiturs, is very, very simple.

"...given that consciousness can be represented as a type of electromagnetic field, which basic science says can be, and often is, captured, messed with, replicated, and tossed around... well. My certainty dwindles."

Hell, I'm not even making an assertion that's new to science - despite your insistence that I am.

Do you always react this badly when you come across an argument you don't understand? Or have you never had to progress beyond ridiculing everything you've chosen not to think about, and sounding pompous about the few fragments that you have?

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Trifeck wrote:

Okay.

1. It doesn't matter whether you're making a distinction of primacy or not. Describing a thing based on a particular frame of reference is pretty damn relevant to what conclusions can be drawn from it. The frame of reference limits the kinds of questions that can be asked or answered about an object.

The energetic description of consciousness is based on it's description as a fluxing electromagnetic field. I don't see where the confusion in this is. Are you saying that a consciousness is not describable by an electromagnetic map of the brain? Yes, yes, it exists because of the physical structure of the brain, but does that mean that an electromagnetic map is in someway irrelevant or incorrect? (Please don't just say yes in an effort to prop up your 'opinion'. It would be interesting if you actually went out on a limb and said what you actually believe, rather than dumping on all and sundry when they try to present another facet of the phenomena).

2. Actually, I've said a lot. You haven't, for example, said a word about energy and matter being fundamentally inseparable, which you didn't seem to know before - "energy without matter has no organization".

3. Merely saying "Indeed, but none of this relates to the question, nor consciousness. So what is your point?" after you've willfully ignored (not disproved, whatever the strength of your belief in assertion) everything that's been said does not make you sound intelligent, nor worthy of debate. It just makes you sound like an adolescent - and more to the point, an adolescent who thinks he already knows everything there is to know. It's quite grating and childish, to be honest. Please stick to logical refutations and not ideological ones, if you can.

The matter-energy relationship relates directly to the question, since your description of the consciousness is based entirely in the material dimension, and claims that any electromagnetic characteristics of consciousness are in some way 'after the fact, and therefore irrelevant'. Even a basic appreciation of nuclear physics or even Einstein's laws would have been enough for you to know how limited your perspective really is - and seemingly based in a desire to have the last word, rather than any serious desire for knowledge.

4. "Meaning what? If this investigation is not based on evidence then you are in the realms of fantasy."
Your refusal to accept another representation of what you want to see as a purely, wholly, and unalterably "material" phenomena is the sticking point here, not any lack of evidence, or realm of fantasy.

It's been a long held understanding - since Einstein's E=MC2 - that energy and matter are two separate representations of the same phenomena. If THIS is where you disagree, then I'd suggest you go through a couple of science textbooks, preferably written by someone you admire. That might make it easier for you to come to grips with a field of science you're clearly suspicious and dogmatic about.

My point, if there's even any point to re-posting, since you're clearly going to ignore everything in this post after the first line, and then come back a few hours later with a bunch of snide non-sequiturs, is very, very simple.

"...given that consciousness can be represented as a type of electromagnetic field, which basic science says can be, and often is, captured, messed with, replicated, and tossed around... well. My certainty dwindles."

Hell, I'm not even making an assertion that's new to science - despite your insistence that I am.

Do you always react this badly when you come across an argument you don't understand? Or have you never had to progress beyond ridiculing everything you've chosen not to think about, and sounding pompous about the few fragments that you have?

You have not presented an argument.
All you are doing is rambling, and when I point out a few inconsistencies you thrash out and tell me I'm stupid.
I do not think you are a worth the time if you are going to behave in this childish way.

Trifeck · **Joined:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:33 pm **Posts:** 30

Hahahahahahaha!

If you can't see the argument presented in that great wodge of text that was my last post, I don't suppose rewriting it is going to help.

Okay, kid. I'll leave you to your sandbox.
Good luck with the reductio ad ridiculum style of debate.

- and by the way, there were no inconsistencies, or rambling, for that matter. Just statements that you categorically denied for no apparent reason - which, yes, makes me believe that you're either stupid, or that you have an immense stake in not being proved wrong - which is also the reason behind this 'you're being rude, and so I won't talk to you, and will flounce out of here in an apparent huff' reply of yours. Never argued metaphysics with someone who's actually studied science, or is as capable as you at being politely obnoxious?

Anyway. After a few edits of this last post, I'm forced to agree with you on one thing. I could have been politer. My apologies. It's aggravating to find someone using a brain as an means of forcing an opinion, rather than a means of inquiry into the facts.

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Trifeck wrote:

Hahahahahahaha!

If you can't see the argument presented in that great wodge of text that was my last post, I don't suppose rewriting it is going to help.

Okay, kid. I'll leave you to your sandbox.
Good luck with the reductio ad ridiculum style of debate.

- and by the way, there were no inconsistencies, or rambling, for that matter. Just statements that you categorically denied for no apparent reason - which, yes, makes me believe that you're either stupid, or that you have an immense stake in not being proved wrong - which is also the reason behind this 'you're being rude, and so I won't talk to you, and will flounce out of here in an apparent huff' reply of yours. Never argued metaphysics with someone who's actually studied science, or is as capable as you at being politely obnoxious?

Anyway. After a few edits of this last post, I'm forced to agree with you on one thing. I could have been politer. My apologies. It's aggravating to find someone using a brain as an means of forcing an opinion, rather than a means of inquiry into the facts.

I suggest you read more carefully.

You are looking silly.

Trifeck · **Joined:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:33 pm **Posts:** 30

Possibly, but you're looking like a whiny child. I'm still ahead. :mrgreen:

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Trifeck wrote:

Possibly, but you're looking like a whiny child. I'm still ahead. :mrgreen:

Spoken like a child. I'm surprised you did not say "ner nicky ner ner".

Trifeck · **Joined:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:33 pm **Posts:** 30

ner nicky ner ner.

There ya go. Would you like a lollipop also?

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Trifeck wrote:

ner nicky ner ner.

There ya go. Would you like a lollipop also?

No cos my dad is a policeman and he will beat-up your dad.

Trifeck · **Joined:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:33 pm **Posts:** 30

Oh lord.

Alright, kid. I'm sorry I made you look like an idiot. I really did come here to have a semi-serious discussion of the philosophy of the mind. I shouldn't have gotten into a "who's the bigger pompous ass" battle with you. You're clearly superior to me.

Now will you stop this mindless chatter?

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Trifeck wrote:

Oh lord.

Alright, kid. I'm sorry I made you look like an idiot. I really did come here to have a semi-serious discussion of the philosophy of the mind. I shouldn't have gotten into a "who's the bigger pompous ass" battle with you. You're clearly superior to me.

Now will you stop this mindless chatter?

Look I'm sorry but I did actually read through your well thought out passage of text.
I realise that you might have spent a little time on it. But there really was no substance to it.
If you want me to I'll will look again and tell you why I think that was no subsistence to it, but I think you might be more upset, than you seem to be now.
But If you prefer to pretend that you have made me look a fool, then that is fine too. It is what can be called 'par for the course' on these sorts of Forums. I know my abilities and limitations, so I know what is actually going on. And so I have no need to take a thing personally when I know you have no basis upon which to say it.
No one's kidding anyone.
But if you look back then you might see that you are a bigger pompous ass than I.

You have your opinion and seem inflexible in that. I'm under no obligation to read anything you write, but that does not give you the right to go into attack mode.

Trifeck · **Joined:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:33 pm **Posts:** 30

"But there really was no substance to it.
If you want me to I'll will look again and tell you why I think that was no subsistence to it."

Please. Enlighten me.

(And slow down with your typing. Your grammar and spellings are pretty crap at the best of times, this anxiety to get the next snide comment in before I do is doing you no good. Take a deep breath also, you're making less sense as you go on...)

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Trifeck wrote:

"But there really was no substance to it.
If you want me to I'll will look again and tell you why I think that was no subsistence to it."

Please. Enlighten me.

(And slow down with your typing. Your grammar and spellings are pretty crap at the best of times, this anxiety to get the next snide comment in before I do is doing you no good. Take a deep breath also, you're making less sense as you go on...)

If you are not going to play nicely then we are not going to play at all.

Philosophy Now Forum

What creates matter?

Who is online