The Physical, Life, Consciousness, and The Human Mind—A Preface

[Walker]

Form is always necessary for life to be.
Life is not necessary for form to be.
Therefore, form is a necessary attribute of life.
Life is not a sometimes attribute of form.

Can you parse this for me? I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Begin with what you mean by "form." I suspect it's some kind of Platonic nonsense.

Your preface more or less states that life is an attribute of the body.

However, the body is an attribute of life.

Life is not an attribute of the body.

The four lines which require no parsing are the logical proof, which rests on empirical evidence, namely, no life can exist without form (body), however form (rocks and dead bodies) can exist without life.

(Is that Platonic nonsense of some kind?)

[Walker]

If this is a startling revelation, which it may well be since it might chafe your preface, then consider the implications. For one, eternal life implies eternal form. What would be the nature of that form? The eternal form must be light, because the void which precedes light is formless.

If light ain’t eternal then considering the proposed age of the universe it will do until eternal shows up.

[RCSaunders]

If this is a startling revelation, which it may well be since it might chafe your preface, then consider the implications. For one, eternal life implies eternal form. What would be the nature of that form? The eternal form must be light, because the void which precedes light is formless.

If light ain’t eternal then considering the proposed age of the universe it will do until eternal shows up.

Hi Walker,

I appreciate the comment, but there is no point in discussing it because we have totally different fundamental views. There is no common premise to begin from.

For example, the only life I know is that which is an attribute of living organisms. I have not discovered any evidence or reason to even suspect that life can exist independently of the organisms it is the life of. An organism is a physical entity that is living. An organisms ceases to exist as an organism when the life process for any reason ceases.

Since you believe that life is, "eternal," whatever you mean by that, we have a fundamental different view of what life and existence are. I'm perfectly comfortable with you having that view, it is certainly more common than mine. It is hardly, "a startling revelation," however, but the same old mysticism I've heard and studied for over seventy five years.

[Walker]

To bring belief into it strikes me as dishonest, or perhaps just projection because you believe. Perhaps you just can't resist putting words in someone's mouth to stimulate discussion. However, if you talk about belief with me, you’re off on your own wavelength talking to yourself.

Light is the oldest form, therefore logically, because life requires form to exist (and that's because form is an attribute of life), then the form that the life would require, defined as eternal because of the duration, would naturally have to be light, unless there is an older form, but until then for the sake of example light will do.

That takes care of one end of the bell curve.

The other end would be a form and thus life of the shortest duration, which is likely of a physicality more gross than light.

I have no particular beliefs about bell curves, light, or gross, just in case you do.

[RCSaunders]

To bring belief into it strikes me as dishonest, or perhaps just projection because you believe.

Good grief! I only mean by, "believe," what anyone usually means, that which you think is right or true. I'm not referring to some kind of mystic faith or superstition. When someone says, "I believe it's hotter today than yesterday," they only mean they think it is hotter today than yesterday. I assume when ever anyone tells me something it is what they believe, else they are telling me something they don't believe, which would be a lie. You weren't lying when you wrote, "For one, eternal life implies eternal form," were you? Don't you believe what you wrote is true?

Light is the oldest form, therefore logically, because life requires form to exist ... a form and thus life ...

I don't believe in any version of Hylomorphism. I hesitate to use the word believe because you seem to have some wierd misinterpretation of the word.

I have no particular beliefs about bell curves, light, or gross, just in case you do.

Since the first meaning of believe in any dictionary is, "To accept (something) as true or real" I must assume you don't accept anything is true about bell curves, light, etc. so you have been lying to me all this time. I really do not believe that is what you mean.

[Walker]

Inference is not belief. The two have different definitions.

Look up the meaning of inference. Belief is your deal, not mine.

[RCSaunders]

Inference is not belief. The two have different definitions.

They certainly do, which means nothing you say can be believed, since you do not believe what you say is true, and there is no way to know if your premises are correct.

What good is a logical inference if you don't believe it?

I think you are making a mistaken distinction. People may believe (which only means what they hold to be true) based on logical inference and evidence or for any number or wrong reasons. It is not belief that is wrong (because you have them to, whatever you call them) it is belief based on anything other than sound reason from evidence that is wrong.

Inference may be the means by which you determine what is so, but what do you call your agreement that the inference is correct. Other people (everyone but you, as far as I know) calls it what they believe, and mean nothing else by it. For example, you infer, "life requires form to exist." If you mean what you say, how would you say that it is really what you think is so?

If you tell someone, "life requires form to exist," and they ask, "do you really believe that?" do you tell them no, you don't believe it. If you do, they will rightly infer you lied to them.

[Walker]

Inference is not belief. The two have different definitions.

They certainly do, which means nothing you say can be believed, since you do not believe what you say is true, and there is no way to know if your premises are correct.

What good is a logical inference if you don't believe it?

I think you are making a mistaken distinction. People may believe (which only means what they hold to be true) based on logical inference and evidence or for any number or wrong reasons. It is not belief that is wrong (because you have them to, whatever you call them) it is belief based on anything other than sound reason from evidence that is wrong.

Inference may be the means by which you determine what is so, but what do you call your agreement that the inference is correct. Other people (everyone but you, as far as I know) calls it what they believe, and mean nothing else by it. For example, you infer, "life requires form to exist." If you mean what you say, how would you say that it is really what you think is so?

If you tell someone, "life requires form to exist," and they ask, "do you really believe that?" do you tell them no, you don't believe it. If you do, they will rightly infer you lied to them.

A rational assessment of high probability does not require belief.

[RCSaunders]

A rational assessment of high probability does not require belief.

The difference is semantic, not substantive. What you call, "A rational assessment of high probability, " everyone else calls, "belief," but I have no objection to what you call anything. Just don't be surprised when no one understands what you are talking about.

[Walker]

A rational assessment of high probability does not require belief.

The difference is semantic, not substantive. What you call, "A rational assessment of high probability, " everyone else calls, "belief," but I have no objection to what you call anything. Just don't be surprised when no one understands what you are talking about.

Oh come on, you don't really think that, do you? I've heard some pretty wild, unsupported beliefs that are quite irrational. It's a daily occurance, in fact. Bet the same happens to you.

[RCSaunders]

Oh come on, you don't really think that, do you?

Of course I do. You aren't accusing me of lying, are you?

[Walker]

Oh come on, you don't really think that, do you?

Of course I do. You aren't accusing me of lying, are you?

Actually, you sound like a feisty old man. The thought of calling you a delusional liar never even occurred to me, however, there’s a good possibility that like any true believer, you need the comfort of your beliefs, 'specally with the void looming and all.

Here’s some more tough guys, believing.

Jerry And The Mendelbaums
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoJ-hM2gF9U

[RCSaunders]

... like any true believer, you need the comfort of your beliefs ...

I certainly don't need any kind of superstitious beliefs like, "eternal life implies eternal form. ... The eternal form must be light, because the void which precedes light is formless." Call it what like, that is flat-out mystic nonsense. But if it gives you comfort, so be it.

[Walker]

... like any true believer, you need the comfort of your beliefs ...

I certainly don't need any kind of superstitious beliefs like, "eternal life implies eternal form. ... The eternal form must be light, because the void which precedes light is formless." Call it what like, that is flat-out mystic nonsense. But if it gives you comfort, so be it.

No, that's logic. Life requires form. Rationally speaking, eternal life implies eternal form.

You're so hung up on belief, you can't see it.

Rationally speaking, the void is where nothing is, including light.

This is not a belief, and I take no comfort in it.

As a believer, what do you think the comfort would be in that?

Besides, my linked example of old men believing they are physically strong is a humorous example of belief, not rationality based on probability ... which obviously must be explained, for the babes in arms who understand nothing of life.

[RCSaunders]

No, that's logic. Life requires form. Rationally speaking, eternal life implies eternal form.

I already made it clear I reject all versions of Hylomorphism. I do not care that you accept the idea, but it is silly to keep arguing from a premise you know is not acceptable to the one you are arguing with.

There is no, "mystical ineffable formless matter," and there are no "transforming" forms. There are only material entities and their qualities.