Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh sure there is. The mathematical formulas merely describe observations of nature. Matter has mass (that is, it curves space-time) and takes up volume. What you are confused by Eric is that the term (matter or mass) is often used to convey meaning in different ways (for instance "matter" generally means something different to a quantum physicist than it does to a chemist). It's a problem with your vocabulary and knowledge rather than a mystery of definition as you like to see it.

But I defined matter or mass above just as you defined it here. You just used the relativity term for it. So you have no basis for questioning my knowledge of it.

Sure. Our brains evolved for tool use. It is really the only thing that differentiates us from most monkeys. Much of the behavior otherwise is identical. I might submit that the only reason you have the time to sit and ponder spiritual matters rather than being chased by a cheetah is due solely to our particular branch of the primate tree having an affinity for creating our own tools. I tend to consider that a pretty amazing natural gift (for lack of a better term - not a "gift" per se). Now if you want to argue that human beings have squandered that particular trait, then you and I would certainly be in some agreement there however the argument is separate and distinct.

That said, if you are suggesting that the computer you type on works on "spirit-power" instead of a proven model of physical study then I would suggest you are squandering yet another of nature's gifts.

It depends on quantum theory, which I am defending! Without spirit power though, I could not even lift my fingers; and the curiosity of the people who invented this computer, would not exist, so therefore neither would the computer, that exists due to that curiosity. Remember what Steve Jobs said about what motivated and drove him. Not to mention that I'd have nothing to say (leaving aside the obvious retort). We are squandering our gift insofar as we do not use it to rein in our very use of that gift. But the gift of tool making is only one of our gifts, and goes back the furthest, and is not especially valuable compared to many of our other gifts, all of which differentiate us from monkeys. Again, your unusually-limited view of what humans beings are, and are capable of, and of what the universe is, is entirely responsible for your negative views. Widen you view, and you will be more cheerful. It's up to you my friend.

Sort of. The really neat things about the four fundamental forces (at least in this universe) is that they actually convey information in a measurable way using those so-called massless (not really massless - currently un-measurable would be more accurate) particles otherwise known as a mediator (sometimes called a quantum or quanta). Each of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetic, gravitation and strong and weak nuclear forces) has its own version of a mediator that acts as a data packet, sending information between matter(The mediator/quanta of Electromagnetism is a photon for instance). Some mediators have not been discovered yet though mathematics suggests they are there all the same.

The universe is unmeasurable, by any meaningful measure! There is no such thing as accurate measurement. There are only approximations, concocted for our use. Again, that's according to quantum theory itself, as well as philosophers going back to the Greeks. But "conveying information" is probably a fruitful line of inquiry and discovery for physicists. There is also a fine line between "conveying information" and "consciousness." Information is massless, and can be communicated without exchanging particles, according to Brian Greene when he described the experiment in teleporting, made possible to create by quantum theory.

It is interesting you bring up gravity as it is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces (significantly weaker than the other three). Of course there are theories on why gravitation is weak but they involve that whole multiple dimension/universe thing that you don't believe in so I will spare you of such nonsense.

Uh, thanks.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Moving my part over here too. I am confused about something..I always did well in math, even in calculus in hs. Never took higher math courses in college (never finished college actually), but went towards the business degree route..finished halfway.

Plainly I understand math and physics a bit better than spiritualism however..noting my 20R and 16S score..maybe either I need to retake the quiz, or just am open to both sides of the spiritual/material divide. Eric?

Added: One main reason why I suppose mathematics and physics have generally been more appealing to me (as opposed to spiritualism or participating more in these types of philisophical discussions), is the difficulty I have in expressing my thoughts in an organized , well thought out manner. It seems most of the time trying to come up with a good response ends up like a train wreck. So I take to simpler things that I can express myself..recently being my enjoyment with tax law.

Ha, different things are "simple" to different people! Tax law? ugh....

Did you tell me your score before? If not, I'll note your score on my chart (I don't have room for names, only dots for the scores).

Well, I don't see a dot there, so I'll fill you in. That's a relatively strong R score, which would indicate a liking for mathematics at least.....

Comment on a you tube video of a smart crow:

all animals are smarter than people think.

People, that is, who have a neo-Cartesian view of Nature.

Boy those animal videos get a lot of views!

Am I naive again, or what? I even wonder how trees know exactly when to drop their leaves in the Fall. How do they know that? If a tree is dead, it does not drop it's leaves, ever.

"One has to be careful," Rutz added, "but just because something looks smart to the human observer doesn't mean it is smart."
For example, he said, "We wouldn't call a spider clever because it builds a web as a tool. ... It could be that these crows are very good at what they are doing, which is using tools."
He said the scientists are looking for environmental factors that might have selected for this behavior in the evolutionary past.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...#ixzz1eVC8zULt

Scientists have such an amazing gift for ignoring the implications of their observations, in order to maintain their current materialist paradigms. Case in point here.

Inquiry.

In looking at this graph
http://philosopherswheel.com/enneagramwheelwithmbti.jpg

it seems my 20R16S score doesn't fit with the strong ISTJ score I've had (several times). Curious why.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ha, different things are "simple" to different people! Tax law? ugh....

Did you tell me your score before? If not, I'll note your score on my chart (I don't have room for names, only dots for the scores).

Well, I don't see a dot there, so I'll fill you in. That's a relatively strong R score, which would indicate a liking for mathematics at least.....

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Ha, I stand corrected.

I recall watching a video a few years ago about ravens in particular. There was an anecdote about a group of ice fishermen fishing a particular frozen lake. The fishermen would set their traps and head off to do the usual drinking and carousing. When they returned they found several of the flags by the fishing holes tripped which signify a fish on the end of the line however when the lines were pulled up, no fish. This went on for some time until they discovered the culprit. A local raven had not only figured out that a flag near a hole meant a fish but also how to retrieve the fish out of the water. This is actually a complex task for a bird to perform but it knew that it could pull up several inches of line, and then stand on the line to hold it in place while pulling up a few more inches. In other words this bird displays a particular knowledge of leverage and mechanics.

Pretty interesting stuff.

Ravens and crows are REALLY smart, so that does not surprise me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Comment on a you tube video of a smart crow:


People, that is, who have a neo-Cartesian view of Nature.

Boy those animal videos get a lot of views!

Am I naive again, or what? I even wonder how trees know exactly when to drop their leaves in the Fall. How do they know that? If a tree is dead, it does not drop it's leaves, ever.

Hormones. cool weather or shortening days trigger the release of hormones that trigger dormancy.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Inquiry.

In looking at this graph
http://philosopherswheel.com/enneagramwheelwithmbti.jpg

it seems my 20R16S score doesn't fit with the strong ISTJ score I've had (several times). Curious why.

Hutch,

I'm a strong ISTJ, and on Eric's wheel I usually end up in the R/S quadrant. I think it's because I have tried to stretch my boundaries over the years. I am not a natural philosopher, but I have done a lot of reading and thinking about this stuff. Still, it doesn't come easy.

Actually, I think that any ISTJ who would be at all interested in the S&H theory is a rather unusual specimen among our "kind."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Scientists have such an amazing gift for ignoring the implications of their observations, in order to maintain their current materialist paradigms. Case in point here.

Actually, a materialistic paradigm would suggest that the crow is exhibiting intelligence. The only possible ambiguity comes from the insistence that intelligence and problem solving are unique attributes of human beings, and that is a product of classic dualism and the idea that only humans have souls. Obviously the crow has a brain, as does a human being, and although it is smaller and seems likely to be less intelligent than a human brain, it should still be capable of thinking and problem solving -- IF the brain, rather than a hypothetical soul, is the organ of thought.

A spider, on the other hand, does not have a brain that should be capable of learning, and its ability to spin a web must therefore be an inborn, instinctive, gene-carried ability rather than what we normally call an intelligent response. This on the other hand brings up another consideration which is seldom recognized: that "intelligence" can take more than one form in nature, and is a broad phenomenon found throughout living organisms and even the nonliving world, with our own (and the crow's) type of intelligence as a brain function being a special case of that broader category.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Hutch,

I'm a strong ISTJ, and on Eric's wheel I usually end up in the R/S quadrant. I think it's because I have tried to stretch my boundaries over the years. I am not a natural philosopher, but I have done a lot of reading and thinking about this stuff. Still, it doesn't come easy.

Actually, I think that any ISTJ who would be at all interested in the S&H theory is a rather unusual specimen among our "kind."

Heck, I'm an INFJ and I'm in the R/M quadrant.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Hutch,

I'm a strong ISTJ, and on Eric's wheel I usually end up in the R/S quadrant. I think it's because I have tried to stretch my boundaries over the years. I am not a natural philosopher, but I have done a lot of reading and thinking about this stuff. Still, it doesn't come easy.

Actually, I think that any ISTJ who would be at all interested in the S&H theory is a rather unusual specimen among our "kind."

Well, you're right that it doesn't come easy. As I said earlier, tax law is much more fun and simpler for me than discussion philosophy. Still, philosophy is an interesting topic.

But I like stretching the boundaries. The desire to learn more about the world around me has always been part of my life, even considering the 'mythical'. Learning about people, yes. Dealing with people though I've found has been much more problematic.

How long have you been into S&H? I first took an interest somewhere in mid 1990s. However even in HS I was conscience of the fact that history was not the linear type most people believed in. Didn't consider circular, but did believe a generation grew up and added its own flavor which changed the flow of history, and wondered what my age group (then in teens) would contribute to the world.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Well, you're right that it doesn't come easy. As I said earlier, tax law is much more fun and simpler for me than discussion philosophy. Still, philosophy is an interesting topic.

But I like stretching the boundaries. The desire to learn more about the world around me has always been part of my life, even considering the 'mythical'. Learning about people, yes. Dealing with people though I've found has been much more problematic.

How long have you been into S&H? I first took an interest somewhere in mid 1990s. However even in HS I was conscience of the fact that history was not the linear type most people believed in. Didn't consider circular, but did believe a generation grew up and added its own flavor which changed the flow of history, and wondered what my age group (then in teens) would contribute to the world.

I first read Millennials Rising in November of 2000, and then read the other S&H books over the next six months or so. S&H sparked my interest in the works of Douglas Coupland (Generation X). Devoured his books, too. Then 9/11 happened, and I started posting here.

But my interest in generations probably began with Landon Y. Jones (Great Expectations, which I read sometime in the early 80's).

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Inquiry.

In looking at this graph
http://philosopherswheel.com/enneagramwheelwithmbti.jpg

it seems my 20R16S score doesn't fit with the strong ISTJ score I've had (several times). Curious why.

Temperament is not always the same as philosophic opinions. You've said your S score is too high, and you like math and physics, so that may explain it. ISTJ is R and somewhat on the M side, corresponding to moderate rationalist. But if you think some some spiritual statements on the questionnaire are true (or materialist ones false), then that raises your S/M score.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But I defined matter or mass above just as you defined it here. You just used the relativity term for it. So you have no basis for questioning my knowledge of it.

I wasn't. I was questioning your knowledge of the term "massless."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It depends on quantum theory, which I am defending! Without spirit power though, I could not even lift my fingers; and the curiosity of the people who invented this computer, would not exist, so therefore neither would the computer, that exists due to that curiosity.

Well technically that is electromagnetic force you are speaking of, but it's all the same to the superstitious.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The universe is unmeasurable, by any meaningful measure! There is no such thing as accurate measurement. There are only approximations, concocted for our use. Again, that's according to quantum theory itself, as well as philosophers going back to the Greeks. But "conveying information" is probably a fruitful line of inquiry and discovery for physicists. There is also a fine line between "conveying information" and "consciousness." Information is massless, and can be communicated without exchanging particles, according to Brian Greene when he described the experiment in teleporting, made possible to create by quantum theory.

See? We will make a nihilist out of you yet!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

But you have made some daring predictions, none of which is yet demonstrably false.

I've made many shorter-term predictions here, some of which were about how events already in motion would unfold. I don't recall a prediction here that has yet been wrong.

On a slightly-smaller scale is the gestational cycle (I was tempted to see if it fit a year of Venus, but it misses badly); on a twelfth of that scale (roughly) the menstrual cycle, and within a year roughly 365 diurnal cycles. We know those. On the other side of the scale are predictable markers of time -- roughly four years for completing the usual BA on a full-time basis (if one joins the educated elite), twelve years (in an amazing coincidence that corresponds roughly to one Jupiter year - 12 earth years) of grade school, roughly one Saturn-year (29 earth years) for the completion of a professional program, and roughly one Uranus-year (84 earth years) for the duration of childhood memories of events -- if one is lucky and has good personal habits.

You're on the right track here; our lives go in cycles and periods. What astrology says is that these can be marked with planets, because of the principle that the larger is reflected in the smaller, and that we are part of a cosmic whole.

The only heavenly bodies that have an obvious influence upon the Earth are the Sun (without which the Earth would be a cold, dead ball of rock floating in space), the moon (tidal forces), and Jupiter (into whose magnetic field the Earth drifts with much radio static).

Astrology does not depend on gravity, but quantum theory is getting closer, in recognizing "spooky connection at a distance." And demonstrably-significant ideas like holograms and fractiles demonstrate exactly the same principle that astrology is based on. The world is not composed of separate particles and things that act on each other mechanically. That was merely an idea that enabled us to build machines-- upon which we humans are now hooked and see the world in terms of. Actually, the world is alive and conscious, in different degrees in different places, and individuals are holons that are whole beings and parts of greater wholes at the same time. Astrology fits much better in that approach than the outdated approach of old Western science.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

I wasn't. I was questioning your knowledge of the term "massless."

Same thing. Yes you were (questioning my knowledge of the term "mass")

Well technically that is electromagnetic force you are speaking of, but it's all the same to the superstitious.

I'm no expert, but Brian Greene on PBS said that without quantum theory, computers and similar electronic devices of today could never have been developed. Electromagnetism goes back to Faraday, generators and such.

See? We will make a nihilist out of you yet!

In some sense of the term, I guess I am.

A little more on Pluto, that magnificent and now maligned and belittled dwarf planet; and probably more to come.

Pluto is indeed the symbol of the philosophy of holism, which dates at least from Jan Smuts and Teilhard de Chardin in the early 20th century, close to its time of discovery in 1930; although the Greeks and even Orientals until today had a basically organic view of the world, which was somewhat holistic at least. It has been developed more clearly by today's holistic philosophers. One of them is Ken Wilber, whom I don't always agree with, but on some points he is dead-on. His concept of the holon is something I have been working out since about the same time he presented his version, unbeknownst to me. Basically it says the world is composed of whole beings who are themselves parts of greater wholes. These whole beings are of many different kinds, but they are not isolated particles whose only characteristics are things like weight that you can measure. They have inner coherency and oneness, and at the same time are interconnected in greater wholes too. That is how the universe is made, rather than being just a clockwork mechanism as Western science had thought for 2 hundred years, and many still do.

Pluto is the perfect symbol for this. It is the only planet of any size so far known that is gravitationally-locked with its moon, AND vice versa. If you stand on Pluto, and can see its moon Charon in the sky, you will see it in the same place day and night, virtually forever. So Pluto is one whole being, and yet at the same time, part of a larger being, consisting of Pluto and Charon, tightly interconnected to each other.

It is significant that Wilber's first book came out in 1977, one year before Charon's discovery, and the year the first small planet was discovered since Pluto, Chiron. Little was known about Pluto after its discovery, but as our view of it became clearer, it got smaller and smaller, until it was clear that what we had been seeing was a blurred vision of Pluto and Charon together.

Astrologically, then, the meaning of Pluto got clearer and clearer, until it emerged fully in the 1960s, and clearer still in the 1970s. Clearly it also relates to ecology, because of its accent on interdependence. Before the 60s, some astrologers would only say that wherever Pluto was found in someone's chart, a profound change could be expected. The mythology of the name gave astrologers some cues, that it had to do with underworld affairs and such. It also is a symbol of the amassing of great wealth and the power it gives, which was also attributed to the Greco-Roman God. The word plutocracy has the same root. Astrologers before my time had noticed that Pluto's cycle correlated with the rise and fall of civilizations.

The time of a planet's discovery indicates something about its meaning too, as had been the case so clearly with Uranus (revolution, electricity, 1781) and Neptune (humanitarianism, communism, 1846). Human consciousness is changed, in synchronicity with discoveries about our greater being. Pluto, also known as Hades, seemed to bring "hell on earth" as Hitler took power shortly afterward, and atomic energy and weapons were a direct result not only of Hitler, but of the advances being made in physics at the time of its discovery. The great breakthroughs in quantum theory were made at about this time. But also, the existentialism of Heidegger, Reich's bioenergetics, and Jung's collective unconscious, were developed at this same time. Evidently, Pluto had to do with exploring the depths of matter and human consciousness, and the results of the quest could release great powers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Same thing. Yes you were (questioning my knowledge of the term "mass")

Actually they are very different things. That you believe they are the "same thing" is part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm no expert, but Brian Greene on PBS said that without quantum theory, computers and similar electronic devices of today could never have been developed. Electromagnetism goes back to Faraday, generators and such.

Well "computers" can be made out of simple gears but if you mean computers made using modern architectures then sure, quantum mechanics (electrons jumping gaps) are a big help but not necessarily quantum theory itself. That electrons jump a gap in a transistor is a proven fact (very un-theoretical). Quantum theory simply helps us to understand why they jump. Since your body also runs on this same principal I think we can safely say that these kinds of things just happen with or without understanding.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Actually they are very different things. That you believe they are the "same thing" is part of the problem.

How is having no mass and massless "different"?

The "problem" may be that I don't parse words excessively. Words are just means of communication. To get lost in details is to misunderstand. And to get lost in details, is also perhaps your "problem" in regards to your pessimism.

Quantum theory, quantum mechanics; same thing. Without understanding them, today's computers could not have been built. Again you used words to not get the point.

Some more on Pluto.

As Pluto got clearer in our sights, its archetypal meaning got clearer too, and its reflection in our affairs got better, from my point of view anyway; meaning, the 1960s and 70s! (aka the second turning, the consciousness revolution)

The angles Pluto periodically forms with Saturn and Mars (as in August-Sept. 2001), and the fact that wars begin more often than not under these angles, confirmed the idea that Pluto can be a very warlike "influence" or "indicator." Having been discovered just before the greatest war in human history, seemed to confirm it too. Saturn and Pluto together correspond to wars fought by huge organizations and intensified authority. But then, as Uranus joined it and Saturn opposed it (and joined by Mars stationary early in 1965), the USA-Vietnam War happened. That war became the greatest teacher humanity has yet experienced of the uselessness and stupidity of war. The first peace movement in history to stop a war happened. Peace and ecology became the cornerstone of a new revolutionary movement emerging from the sixties. By the time Charon was discovered, the movement became organized as the Green Party, especially in Europe. So clearly Pluto is a symbol of peace as well as war. And the fact that nuclear weapons, whose beginnings lie in the years just after Pluto's discovery, demonstrated the ultimate futility of war as nothing else could.

PLuto-Charon as a symbol of hidden and taboo powers of the underworld, and its vivid representation of relationship, naturally links it to sex and the sexual revolution. Its mythology also connects it to the processes of death and rebirth, and this has remained a core meaning of Pluto. Its eccentric orbit in which it returns from the depths to pass inside Neptune's orbit every 250 years, is a fascinating symbol of how Pluto represents the periodic rebirth of the new out of the remains of the old in human history and psychology. Pluto connects easily to ecology, not only as interrelationship, but as recycling and composting through bringing new life out of what has died or been thrown away. PLuto is the power to drill down to the roots to break obstructions and release pent-up energy. It is the cosmic plummer and plumber. Breaking through needless inhibitions, and also going to excess in the process, was reflected in the countercultures of the sixties and seventies. Combining and intensifying itself by aligning with Uranus "the awakener" in the mid-1960s, it broke open the normal awareness of our society through the psychedelic revolution.

The human quest to uncover lost realms of consciousness matured and expanded at the same time, in the 1960s and 70s, in forms such as the human potential movement, gestalt therapy, est, and the new age movement. So Pluto is also a symbol of all those things. Where Neptune expands consciousness to limitless boundaries, and seems to represent that mystic urge to merge with All and lose or surrender the self, Pluto seems to represent the methods of concentration, or focusing your awareness on a small point, and in that focus, to discover your interdependence at your very core. Neptune could represent expanding your ego into the All, while Pluto might symbolize making your ego smaller until nothing is left but your real soul. The constant position of Charon represents the abilities within us to concentrate and focus, and thus gain inner as well as worldly power; or when unconscious, the danger of becoming obsessed and addicted. This can also mean extremism and polarization, something well in evidence today. These tendencies were noticed by astrologers and attributed to Pluto through experience with their clients, even before Charon was known. My astrology teacher circa 1970 looked at the conjunction of Mars to Pluto in my chart, and told me it means that I "act on principle." That means I can stay focused and dedicated to what I hold as true.

Neptune's discovery in 1846 had seen the beginning of the socialist movement, starting with utopian theories and Marx's manifesto in 1848, and humanitarian advances spearheaded by such folk as Clara Barton, Florence Nightengale and Dorothea Dix. By the turn of the 20th century, socialism and labor were advancing everywhere. But in 1929, capitalism suffered its worst reversal, while socialism itself was unleashed in its worst forms (Stalin's forced communes and terrors, Nazism, totalitarianism). The New Deal followed, and now we are seeing the consequences from dismantling it over the last 30 years. Clearly after 1929, the government got more powerful than before, and so Pluto represents various kinds of powerful organizations (organized crime syndicates too). What seems to have emerged as Pluto got clearer, though, was the need for a synthesis between the first revolution (liberty, Uranus 1781) and the second (equality, Neptune 1846). The Green Party is that synthesis, being based on local community and economics as well as the need for social justice.

Teddy had written earlier, (in protesters occupy wall street thread)

The turnings theory is based upon observable human behavior over many hundreds of years. At best, it gives clues as to what the climate or mood of an era might be. Astrology, on the other hand, makes specific (although just vague enough to be able to claim success) predictions about the future.

And I had written:

Astrology cannot give predictions that are too specific, because it only uses general symbols.

Teddy seems to give turnings theory a pass on making vague predictions, but not astrology.

The facts are: astrology is also based on observable behavior, as well as on archetypes and principles; as is turning theory.
Astrology makes rather generalized predictions; so does turning theory.

Why should one be required to make specific predictions in total detail, and the other not, in order to be judged valuable?

Eric,

If you measure the weight of something - it will be less on the moon than it is on the earth due to the difference in gravitational attraction. Mass on the other hand, for the same thing, will be the same on the moon as it is on the earth. Mass is independent of the gravitational force.

You know that, don't you? I've been confused some as I read your comments whether or not you do.

Originally Posted by TnT

Eric,

If you measure the weight of something - it will be less on the moon than it is on the earth due to the difference in gravitational attraction. Mass on the other hand, for the same thing, will be the same on the moon as it is on the earth. Mass is independent of the gravitational force.

You know that, don't you? I've been confused some as I read your comments whether or not you do.

Literally, of course I know that things weigh differently in different places. That of course depends on how much gravity is there.

So how could it be different? The definition of mass is how much it weighs, and how much "volume" it occupies. Neither one of these definitions have any real content. There was no other "high school physics" definition other than the one I gave.

You guys should give it up. There is no matter or mass; it's an outdated concept (in fact it always was, as of about 500 BC). It is merely an illusion of the senses.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The definition of mass is how much it weighs, and how much "volume" it occupies.

Um, no. Go take high school physics again, Eric. Weight is simply one aspect of mass, they are NOT the same thing. And volume is irrelevant.