Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
I simply used the movement of ocean waves as an example of
movement without agenda. I could have said the wind, or fire, etc.
Had you given the example of the wind and fire, then again there would have been some factual issues.
The movement of the wind has important functions in nature.
Wind And Its Importance
Definition:
The air that moves parallel to any part of the earth surface is called wind or The air moving horizontally on the surface of the earth is known as wind.
Air Current:
Vertically or nearly vertical movements of air resulting from convection ,turbulence or any other cause is known as air current.
Importance or Role or Effects Of Wind In Agriculture:
1. Wind increases the transpiration and intake of CO2
2. The turbulence created by wind increase CO2 supply and the increase in photosynthesis.
3. When wind is hot, desiccation of the plants takes place, because humid air in the inter cellular places is replaced by dry air.
4. The hot and dry wind makes the cells expanding and early maturity, it results in the dwarfing of plants.
5. Under the influence of strong wind the shoots are pressurized and get deformed.
6. Strong winds produces loading of crops.
7. The coastal area affected by strong wind bring salt and make the soil unsuitable for growing plants.
8. Strong winds affect the plants life both mechanically and physiologically.
Site: http://www.agriinfo.in/default.aspx?pag ... opicid=404
The movement in fire is caused by the wind and a process known as convection.
The common distribution of a flame under normal gravity conditions depends on convection, as soot tends to rise to the top of a general flame, as in a candle in normal gravity conditions, making it yellow. Site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire#Flame
Convection is a method of heat transfer and has very important uses in nature. You can read the following short article which outlines the importance of convection currents in nature:
http://www.preservearticles.com/2010122 ... heat.html
The closest you could have come to illustrating your concept could have been what we call in science "Brownian motion" which was a process explained by Einstein in 1905.
Brownian motion or pedesis (from Ancient Greek: πήδησις /pέːdεːsis/ "leaping") is the random motion of particles suspended in a fluid (a liquid or a gas) resulting from their collision with the fast-moving molecules in the fluid
This motion is named after the botanist Robert Brown, who was the most eminent microscopist of his time. In 1827, while looking through a microscope at pollen of the plant Clarkia Pulchella immersed in water, the triangular shaped pollen burst at the corners, emitting particles which he noted jiggled around in the water in random fashion. He was not able to determine the mechanisms that caused this motion. Atoms and molecules had long been theorized as the constituents of matter, and Albert Einstein published a paper in 1905 that explained in precise detail how the motion that Brown had observed was a result of the pollen being moved by individual water molecules, making one of his first big contributions to science. This explanation of Brownian motion served as convincing evidence that atoms and molecules exist, and was further verified experimentally by Jean Perrin in 1908. Perrin was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1926 "for his work on the discontinuous structure of matter". The direction of the force of atomic bombardment is constantly changing, and at different times the particle is hit more on one side than another, leading to the seemingly random nature of the motion. Site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
But even Brownian motion has a purpose in that it is the mechanism by which diffusion works, and diffusion is a very important process in nature for example in our bodies itself diffusion is a fundamental process. So Brownian motion too has a purpose!
As I said, from my perspective, everything in nature has a purpose, even the movement of the wind and the movement in fire.
_______________________________
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
It is a way of communicating a broader concept/question:
Are you able to conceive of movement without agenda?
I take note that you have used the word “conceive” in the question addressed to me.
My answer: I do have a CONCEPT of movement without purpose, like I have the concept of a unicorn or the concept of a flying turtle or a pink elephant or whatnot. But to infer from my mere concept of something to the existence of that thing in nature is a leap/step that I have great difficulty with! In my conceptual framework, even though I have the concept of something, it does not mean that that thing is to be found in nature. But again, I will respect the choice of anyone who thinks otherwise.
______________________________
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
Do you believe such a thing is possible?
There are many different concepts of possibility. You can read about some of the different concepts of possibility here:
https://everything2.com/title/Types+of+possibility
The broadest concept of possibility is logical possibility.
Wikipedia wrote:Logical possibility is usually considered the broadest sort of possibility; a proposition is said to be logically possible if there is no logical contradiction involved in its being true. "Dick Cheney is a bachelor" is logically possible, though in fact false; most philosophers have thought that statements like "If I flap my arms very hard, I will fly" are logically possible, although they are nomologically impossible. "Dick Cheney is a married bachelor," on the other hand, is logically impossible; anyone who is a bachelor is therefore not married, so this proposition is logically self-contradictory (though the sentence isn't, because it is logically possible for "bachelor" to mean "married man").Site:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_possibility
So since the concept of a movement without purpose contains no contradiction, therefore it is a logical possibility. A pink elephant and a unicorn are also logical possibilities. In nature though, you will not find examples of such concepts. Therefore, even though conceptually these are logical possibilities, in nature those concepts have no actuality. Note that inferring physical actuality from logical possibility is a logical fallacy.
______________________________
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
If you are going to presume there is a "who" behind it, you should be able to communicate why you think the human model is superimposed onto what is beyond our world/reality. Rather than simply saying "why not?".
Hold on my friend (so to speak)! Who is talking
exclusively about humans here? For one thing, I did not even use the word “human” in my exposition of this issue! I talked about “The Author of the Universe”, the “authors of posts”, “individual”, and “being”. I did not mention humans specifically! Read that passage again and you will not find reference to humans in it! It is true that humans are beings and individuals AS WELL, but my comment was not restricted merely to human beings! For one thing I am certain that I am a human being, but I do not know about you for certain or any other member on this forum. Well, I can trust someone if he/she say that he/she is human, but I have no knowledge of that as I have never seen any of you! So, from a purely objective perspective, I cannot rule out the possibility that there might also be non-human posters on Philosophy Now forum of a kind I do not know. So, my concepts of “individuals” and “beings” and “authors” were not restricted only to the human species. If you think that only humans write or should write posts on Philosophy Now, you should communicate to me why you think that? What is your evidence that only humans have ever posted on Philosophy Now?
______________________________
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
Averroes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:11 amIt is clear that wondering about the Who as the cause of this tremendous order in the universe is a legitimate pursuit for the philosopher.
I understand. But before you can
wonder about a "who", you must first assume there
is one... and I was asking why that assumption is being made in the first place?
This is a great question. Thank you for asking that. So, why assume that each post on Philosophy Now has an author? It can be that all these posts just happened to be formed without any author behind it. Each of us might just be conversing with our identical self, and there is no one I am replying to. Why assume that I am replying to another human being with the username ‘Lacewing’ on PN? I have seen no one writing the posts and I have seen no physical person. All I am aware of are Latin characters in a particular order on my screen. Why should I assume that there is an independent cause who arranged these characters in such an orderly fashion? That is a very good question!! Let us investigate it together.
Please let me ask you: do you think that the posts that you have been replying to on this thread were actually purposefully written by a being whose username is “Averroes” or do you think these posts to which you have been replying just occurred without any author, i.e. they just manifested like that?
Please let me make it easy. Choose any one of the options below that you believe is the case:
A: Purposeful author behind each post.
B: Posts just manifested without any author.
_____________________________
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
What is the logic for that? Is it because
you think there must be an agenda? And an agenda requires a "who"? This is why I'm asking if
you can imagine
no agenda?
These are very good questions again and I propose that we investigate them further together.
You say “you” in the above question, which I underlined and bolded. My question to you now: what/whom are you referring to by this “you”?
Is it
1. someone or something whom you think authored the post you were replying to or
2. nothing at all and you are just talking to yourself?
_______________________________
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
Averroes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:11 amWhy would there be a problem in wondering about the Author of the universe and not about the author of
Philosophy Now forum posts? If there is a problem, may I, respectfully, ask what is the problem from a philosophical perspective?
Because it is based on an assumption that favors humans above all else, and ignores all else in the Universe.
How logical is that? To think that the human template (more than anything else in nature) must be representative of some ultimate source of the Universe.
Human thinking, human understanding, human limitations -- all of it -- are a very specific model among countless models in the Universe. Why would such a specific model make any sense as the source for something so vast?
Respectfully, here you should consider that I did not restrict my explanation to humans exclusively. The law that I mentioned apply to different other beings in the universe and not just humans! It is only you who read “only humans” into what I wrote. And that is called in logic a strawman argument!
______________________________
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
Averroes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:11 amWhy should we not to be authentic and honest? Why should it be a problem to let go of preconceived ideas and express anything other than what is clear and legitimate in the moment? I thought letting go of preconceived ideas and expressing clarity in the moment were dear to you.
How does imagining there to be a "who" have anything to do with being authentic and honest and letting go of preconceived ideas and expressing clearly?
Very good question. Try to answer the following question and you will get the answer: Is there a “who” to whom you are addressing the above quoted question?
______________________________
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
Averroes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:11 am
you previously said that there is nothing for “people to realize in particular” and also that there is “no particular outcome to be achieved,” and now, respectfully, you are saying that I skipped over something you were pointing to!
(...) Here again you misuse and distort what I've said. This tells me that either you are manipulative and dishonest... or we speak languages that are too different to communicate with each other.
Not at all. There is nothing of that sort on my part, I just pay very careful attention to what you say.
For example, I recalled that you had made the following statement:
Lacewing wrote: Nor do I think that people have to realize anything in particular.
I previously took that statement to be a universal statement which admitted of no exception and now I understand that this is not the case. So, now I understand that in your understanding there are particular things that people need to realize. For example, you wanted me to realize the empty concept of “movement without agenda.” Alright, I understood your point of view now. Thank you for the clarification.
If there is any thing that you need to clarify with me, please do not hesitate. Besides, this is the purpose of our discussion. I try to speak the language of logic and science and I take consistency as my guiding principle.
_______________________________
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
Our communication may be coming to a close.
That’s up to you. I am already very grateful to God, the Almighty for having given me this great opportunity to have this wonderful exchange with you.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:38 pm
Averroes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:11 amamong gentlemen...
I am female.
Oops! My mistake. All along I was thinking that you were a man with a pronounced artistic disposition while you are simply a “female” (as you say)! That makes a lot of sense to me now! I am still very pleased to be having this discussion with you. So, correction: it is a civilized discussion between a lady (possibly!) and a gentleman.
______________________________