Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You would counter incorrectly. Living processes are not mechanical, and so must be conscious.

The Krebs Cycle is not a mechanical living process? Neuron action potentials are not mechanical living processes? Blood-sugar homeostasis is not a mechanical living process?

Clearly you don't know the slightest thing about "living processes".

Consciousness is just a kind of energy; it is experienced.

A kind of energy? Is it potential or kinetic? Consciousness is measured in Joules? How many Joules of consciousness is talking with my sister on the phone? How many Joules is talking to her voice mail? How do you calculate those values? Show me the proper equation for consciousness that is also dimensionally correct as a form of energy!

It is everywhere; there is nothing supernatural about it. But it can do things that materialists call supernatural.

No. That's the Force you are thinking of.

I don't remember doing that. Woo-woo can be investigated scientifically.

And isn't it always entertaining to see the results of properly controlled investigations!

The science part is the investigation of it. What is investigated is just the subjects of phenomena/experiences themselves. Astrology for example can have some scientific elements but is not really a "science" in the usual sense.

In other words you want astrology to have the respect society gives to science but you don't want it to actually be subjected to scientific verification. You already know what happens when those investigations are conducted. Astrology turns out to be nothing more than vague guesses that are so nonspecific that any result can be argued to be confirming. In other words, it's complete poppycock.

Religions can be called "sciences" but they are not really sciences as we understand the term. They can only be sciences if you broaden the definition of science to mean any kind of knowledge. There are other kinds of knowledge besides the science we know today. But that does not mean these other kinds of knowledge are the same as science. That may be your confusion. Being a dogmatist, you claim science is the only knowledge. It is not.

Science is the only method that has proven effective in learning how the natural world works.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Anyway, if consciousness is an energy then it is a phenomenon and therefore subject to science. So how does one measure consciousness? What are the instruments used in detecting consciousness? What experiments or mathematical equations prove its existence?

No instruments or experiments can detect, measure or prove anything whatsoever. They can only provide probabilities.

It is SUBJECTIVELY experienced. Subjective experience is not science and cannot mix with science. Subjective experience = oil, objective experiment (science) = water.

Subjective and objective are one. There is no separation. I mean you honestly think you can exist without breathing or eating, or that you can be conscious of anything without objects to be conscious of? YOu must really be delusional. You cannot prove that there is any boundary between yourself and the environment, or that you can exist apart from it.

Strawman. I've never claimed that consciousness was supernatural. I said it was a non-phenomenon.

According to principle that I know, consciousness is divine, and the divine is both visible and invisible; manifest and non-manifest. So it is therefore both phenomenon, and non-phenomenon. Consciousness is the divine, and you can't put the divine in a box.

If the woo-woo is proposed as a phenomena then yes it can, indeed must be investigated scientifically.

Right, but that does not make woo-woo any more of a science.

Indeed and that is where there is a problem with using science to study consciousness. Consciousness is not a phenomena. It is beyond the scope of science because when it comes to experience science is limited to objective experience. Specifically experiment and observation. Consciousness is a subjective experience and therefore cannot be observed.

There is no subjectivity and objectivity. Objectivity is a method; the scientific method. It can study consciousness in its effects. It can establish many kinds of information about it. Consciousness can be observed; just not objectively observed with the scientific method. Those are not the same things. I am observing this computer; I am not running a scientific study on it. I experience another person whether I am running an experiment on him or her or not.

Astrology is complete nonsense. It is as related to astronomy as alchemy is to chemistry.

And alchemy is as valuable as astrology is.

If you broaden the definition of science to include religion then science and religion are both corrupted.

In your opinion. But more-generally, science just means knowledge. It just depends on how you use the word. You can't dictate how other people use words; sorry.

The presence or non presence of any supernatural being is unknowable.

So then consciousness, being unknowable, is supernatural; not natural as you also said?

If you say so. We obviously disagree on the issue so its a moot point. Though I did notice you didn't bother to attack my point about you selling woo-woo stuff. So woo-woo peddling remains a business.

But not only a business. Unless you claim that you have proved that all woo-woo is a business, just because I have sold books that you call woo-woo. You are claiming this to be a logical statement? Come on, materialists. Read what this guys says. He is not good at logic.

Material reality is very real. Both objectively and subjectively. I personally think Philip K. Dick said it best:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

Belief has no effect on any reality, material or otherwise. But nothing exists except in a mind, and you can't disprove that fact.

My body is in the world and of the world. Just as the Earth is and of the universe. There is no apparent line because both are parts of the universe. My consciousness however is mine and mine alone. I can share it with no one else, no one can share theirs with me.

You and the objects of your consciousness are one. There is no boundary that you can draw, and subject and object depend on each other. And anyone who contacts or meets you personally, observes your consciousness.

As to god, show me evidence of his/her/its existence.

Look at yourself.

Utter nonsense. If anyone is addicted to a philosophy it is you Eric. Anyone who challenges what you view as truth is evil incarnate. I merely happen to be good at playing that role. Xers after all have been the “demon children” for a long time.

Don't flatter yourself. You are not good at arguing with me. Our discussions are superficial. I said you are addicted to YOUR philosophy, which you manifestly are. You cannot consider any other, or even understand any other. YOu cannot even understand your own. You just assert it. "Materialism is true because materialism is true." That is all your "philosophy" amounts to. An unexamined life is not worth living. Your life is not worth living, kinser, unless you change.

Evidence suggests that material things do in fact exist.

There are no things, and there is no matter. So how can there be material things?

Bullshit. If there is a stone in a field, but there is no human there to see the stone or ponder about the stone the stone is still there. Thinks are made from reflections of things.

You can't prove the stone is there when you don't see it.

First I made no claim about lines, or boundaries—let alone straight lines. So this line is a strawman.

Not at all. You can't separate yourself or things from other things unless you draw a line and say there's the boundary.

This is just a reformat of the tree falling in the woods question. We've already been over it. Physical phenomena happen without a mind being around to experience, observe, or whatever the phenomenon in question.

You assert your point of view but you can't prove it. Unless it is observed, you can't claim anything exists. It may cease to exist while you are not observing it. If it continues to exist, it is because it observes itself, or because someone else observes it.

The fact remains that consciousness is an individual non-phenomena. It is merely a part of the universe.

The fact remains otherwise. Consciousness is the universe. There are no parts at all.

Originally Posted by Odin

This statement is proof that Eric is immune to reason.

Yeah, but even Odin is star dust, he's trace element golden, he's [x*] (*)billion old carbon.

(*) - with due exception of the carbon-14 atoms.

You know, I find it funny how Eric thinks he's a paragon of advancement when his rhetorical style is a regression to pre-rational authoritarian "I am the voice of The Divine and my pronouncements need no evidence" rants.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yeah, but even Odin is star dust, he's trace element golden, he's [x*] (*)billion old carbon.

(*) - with due exception of the carbon-14 atoms.

LMAO!

Self-evident truth. That is reason.

To summarize what I've been trying to teach you guys:


There is no matter. No-one can point anywhere and say that there is matter. There are only forms, and different densities. Mass is only a measure of inertia. Matter is as much a spook as any idea of soul or spirit.

There are no things. No-one can point out the boundary between anything. Things are thoughts, or thinks.

Motion is not measurable, because you can't hold it still to measure it.

There are no objects without subjects, and no subjects without objects. We are one with the supposedly external world. Individual persons exist, but only in relationship, not as separate beings. So, no separate consciousness can exist.

Nothing exists except in a mind perceiving it. You can't assume objects exist in "reality."

Reality is non-local. All beings are connected. That is the only basis we need for psychic ability. A human being is beyond time and space and is not located anywhere.

There is no cause of anything. Causes and forces only lead back to the one cause and the one force. The universe is free and spontaneous, and only exists here and now. There is one power in the world, and it is everywhere.

Your being is not an object, so it can't be your brain. You are consciousness, and it has no limits.

Given these truths, there's no basis for denying all "woo-woo" stuff. You just need to decide based on your experience, and the evidence you have, what might be true in each case.


You don't need me to teach you these things. You know it already. You just need to remember, beyond what you have been taught.

Okay. Since I already know that debating Eric is pointless I'll deal with his summary first. I may review whatever nonsense he responded to my previous post with and reply later.

Whatever it is I'm sure that it demonstrates that he lacks a basic understanding of science, rhetoric, logic, the English language and especially philosophy.

Originally Posted by Eric

There is no matter.

According to Eric there is no matter. That is to say there is no physical components to anything. Yet he claims that consciousness is energy up thread.

I would speculate based on my poor understanding of the theory of relativity that since e=mc^2 that consciousness must also not exist according to this paradigm.

Why is that? If Eric is to be believed that consciousness is in fact energy it can be transition from energy into matter. However, since matter does not exist in Eric's view, then energy cannot exist either. In short Eric has come to the ultimate conclusion of all idealistic philosophies. Reality does not exist.

No-one can point anywhere and say that there is matter.

Here Eric is stating that no one can point to themselves or anything else and say definitively that it is matter. This is obviously ridiculous bullshit. The chair I'm sitting in as I write this is composed of matter. I'm composed of matter. The computer I'm writing with is composed of matter.

Indeed matter is required for consciousness as an energy, which is what Eric has claimed it to be, to exist.

There are only forms, and different densities.

Here Eric is stating that something which does not exist takes a form and has a density. In the process of making this statement must be ignoring the definitions of the words “form” and “density”.

Matter can take many forms (a chair, a lake, a star, an atmosphere) though it is limited to four states (Plasma, Gas, Liquid, Solid). Regardless the state a particle of matter is, and regardless its form it does have a density.

Density is the measure of mass (the amount of matter) per unit of volume (the amount of space it takes up). The formula for calculating it is p=m/V

In order for something to take on either a form or a density let alone both matter must exist. And this is even disregarding Eric's notion that consciousness is an energy which if it were would require the existence of matter regardless.

Mass is only a measure of inertia

I'm afraid for Eric that Wikipedia* says otherwise.

“In physics, mass, more specifically inertial mass, is a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. In addition to this, gravitational mass is a measure of magnitude of the gravitational force which is

1. exerted by an object (active gravitational mass), or
2. experienced by an object (passive gravitational force)

when interacting with a second object.”

In other words matter must exist for there to be any inertia to measure.

[* Note: Yes I know know Wikipedia is a shitty source but his statements go so much against common sense that I shouldn't be expected to look up real sources.]

Matter is as much a spook as any idea of soul or spirit.

Even if I agreed with Eric, which I don't, I would still have to recognize the existence of matter because, according to him, consciousness is a form of energy.

There are no things.

If one's very premise starts out with the position that matter does not exist that matter cannot take any form.

No-one can point out the boundary between anything.

This is patently absurd. If one looks at a slice of a plant stem under a microscope they will notice small little compartment like structures. Science calls these structures cells. They are made visible by having a cell wall. The word wall is a synonym for boundary. I rest my case.

Things are thoughts, or thinks.

Again this is absurd. In order to think one needs to have a nervous structure in their body. To our understanding actual thinking is limited to more complex organisms. This nervous system is made of matter or to simplify (things) in order to create these thoughts (or thinks as Eric seems to prefer).

Motion is not measurable, because you can't hold it still to measure it.

I'll be sure to tell this to the cop next time I get pulled over for speeding.

“Well officer you know post-modern idealism postulates that because all things are subjective and since I was moving with the car, the speedometer cannot actually measure the velocity at which I was traveling. So no I do not know how fast I was going or if I was going anywhere at all.”

Hopefully by the time he gets done with beating my ass, arresting me, booking me and charging me with resisting arrest I'll have called my boyfriend for bail money.

All jokes aside though, while it is technically true, all atoms and particles of matter vibrate (for lack of a better term) regardless their form we can make an accurate enough measurement to account for the velocity (or speed) of an object.

There are no objects without subjects, and no subjects without objects.

Here Eric is simply contradicting himself. If we remember that he earlier said that there was no matter, and we take into account that since there apparently (because he says so) is no matter there cannot be energy, and we take into account that consciousness is a form of energy (again because he said so); it is therefore reasonable there can be neither objects nor subjects.

Objects are made of matter. Subjects I assume would be the subjective experiences (or consciousness) of an object would have to arise from the presence of that matter.

Ultimately with Eric's views we are left with a universe (again due to a lack of a better term) which is nothing more than a giant empty set.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

We are one with the supposedly external world.

Here Eric is not contradicting himself; however he is contradicting the logical extrapolation of his world view as he has expressed it to the forum.

See my above statements.

Individual persons exist, but only in relationship, not as separate beings.

Here Eric contradicts the definition of the word “Individual”.

Originally Posted by Dictionary

Individual, Noun.

1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2. a person: a strange individual.
3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.
4. a group considered as a unit.
5. Biology .
a. a single organism capable of independent existence.
b. a member of a compound organism or colony.

I'll use the biological definition because it is the most susinct. If a person is an organism capable of independent existence then then they are, in fact, an individual. Even if one were to argue that humans cannot live without a society (the specific name for human specific compound organisms) then they are, in fact, an individual.

Nothing exists except in a mind perceiving it.

Here Eric is back to contradicting himself. If matter does not exist then the brain also does not exist, and likewise consciousness cannot exist. Quite frankly because nothing exists. Therefore, the extrapolation from the world view Eric has expounded to the forum precludes the ability for a mind to precieve anything since it does not—in fact cannot—exist.

You can't assume objects exist in "reality."

I will appeal to common sense here. It is evident through subjective experience that reality exists. It is also evident through objective processes of science that reality exists. Even if one merely assuming that reality exists, there is enough evidence to back up that assumption.

Reality is non-local. All beings are connected. That is the only basis we need for psychic ability. A human being is beyond time and space and is not located anywhere.

I don't even know what he means in this paragraph. I think he is claiming that he is beyond the properties of physics. I'm no psychologist but this sounds like a mental condition to me.

There is no cause of anything. Causes and forces only lead back to the one cause and the one force. The universe is free and spontaneous, and only exists here and now. There is one power in the world, and it is everywhere.

Of course there is no cause for anything in the view that Eric has exposed to us here. The reason there is no cause is because there is nothing for a cause to act upon.

Without matter and without energy there is not a force, there is not a power, there is not even a universe. Much less one that is “free” and “spontaneous”.

Your being is not an object, so it can't be your brain. You are consciousness, and it has no limits.

In the first clause of this first sentence Eric is unusually right (for his world view). Since objects cannot possibly exist because matter and energy do not exist. One's being also cannot exist.

In the second clause of the first sentence, he is only correct (according to his world view) in that it cannot be your brain because that likewise does not exist because matter and therefore energy do not exist.

In the second sentence he contradicts himself yet again. Since matter and energy do not and cannot exist neither can a “you”. Since there is not a “you” to be conscious (that is to have subjective experiences) that doesn't exist and I suppose one could say it is limitless because how does one measure things that do not, indeed cannot exist.

So since I've laid out the case that he has made lets do some dialectical thinking.

Thesis:
If the first premise is that matter does not exist, then given what we know from physics energy cannot exist. If the second premise is that consciousness is energy then it is either dependent on matter for existing or if matter does not exist consciousness does not exist.

Anti-thesis:

The only premise that Eric has proposed for an anti-thesis is that consciousness is everything. Consciousness is matter, is energy, is literally everything.

Synthesis:

Since according to Eric matter does not exist, and since Eric also claims that consciousness is a form of energy. Physics tells us that consciousness cannot exist. The weight of the thesis is greater than and completely obliterates the anti-thesis.

Therefore the ultimate synthesis of Eric's philosophy, as he has expounded to us on the forum is as follows:

Nothing Exists.

And to think he calls me a nihilist.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Okay. Since I already know that debating Eric is pointless I'll deal with his summary first. I may review whatever nonsense he responded to my previous post with and reply later.

The proper response to my post is simply to contemplate and understand the truth of what I said. It is self-evident. All your arguments kinser are therefore a bunch of baloney.

According to Eric there is no matter. That is to say there is no physical components to anything. Yet he claims that consciousness is energy up thread.

Matter is energy, not vice versa. If matter can be transformed into energy, what you have proven is that matter is a false concept. Energy does not occupy space or have weight or mass. The mass has evaporated.

If matter is energy, then it can't be understood in material terms. It is spiritual. Energy is spiritual by nature. It has to come from a spiritual source, or it could not exist at all. Where else does it get its power? You are just ignoring the self-evident truth. There is no cause except a first cause.

If Eric is to be believed that consciousness is in fact energy, it can be transition from energy into matter. However, since matter does not exist in Eric's view, then energy cannot exist either. In short Eric has come to the ultimate conclusion of all idealistic philosophies. Reality does not exist.

Reality is consciousness. Energy is just its outward manifestation and result. Nihilism is materialism. It has no life.

Here Eric is stating that no one can point to themselves or anything else and say definitively that it is matter. This is obviously ridiculous bullshit. The chair I'm sitting in as I write this is composed of matter. I'm composed of matter. The computer I'm writing with is composed of matter.

You haven't shown me any "matter." You are not composed of matter. Look within yourself and examine yourself. You will see no matter. By your own admission, you see nothing. But that just means that you see that there are no things.

Anything you point to is some kind of form. You accept theories that what exists is "composed" of something. But you can't experience any such thing. No matter how small material stuff might be supposed to be, it can only be broken down further. There is no ultimate small.

Indeed matter is required for consciousness as an energy, which is what Eric has claimed it to be, to exist.

Here Eric is stating that something which does not exist takes a form and has a density. In the process of making this statement must be ignoring the definitions of the words “form” and “density”.

Form and density exist. There does not need to be a substratum for it. No-one has ever experienced such a substratum. No-one could EVER experience it. YOu just assume it is there. But there is no "matter" (event/energy) that has not already assumed a form. According to quantum physics, all that exists is the form. When it is not in a form, it can't be measured; it is only potential form. Any argument you make that says "Eric says matter does not exist, so this or that cannot exist either" just assumes your premise that existence is material. But it isn't so.

Matter can take many forms (a chair, a lake, a star, an atmosphere) though it is limited to four states (Plasma, Gas, Liquid, Solid). Regardless the state a particle of matter is, and regardless its form it does have a density.

Density is the measure of mass (the amount of matter) per unit of volume (the amount of space it takes up). The formula for calculating it is p=m/V

In order for something to take on either a form or a density let alone both matter must exist. And this is even disregarding Eric's notion that consciousness is an energy which if it were would require the existence of matter regardless.

Density is only relative to your own body.

I'm afraid for Eric that Wikipedia* says otherwise.

“In physics, mass, more specifically inertial mass, is a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. In addition to this, gravitational mass is a measure of magnitude of the gravitational force which is

1. exerted by an object (active gravitational mass), or
2. experienced by an object (passive gravitational force)

when interacting with a second object.”

In other words matter must exist for there to be any inertia to measure.

[* Note: Yes I know know Wikipedia is a shitty source but his statements go so much against common sense that I shouldn't be expected to look up real sources.]

It'll do for now I guess You are hung up on the word "object." That leads you into your usual infinite regress and self-proving philosophy. What is a material thing? Mass. What is mass? A material thing that must exist for any mass to be measured.

This is patently absurd. If one looks at a slice of a plant stem under a microscope they will notice small little compartment like structures. Science calls these structures cells. They are made visible by having a cell wall. The word wall is a synonym for boundary. I rest my case.

You can't rest. Rest is just blindness. That wall boundary itself has a distance across it. Where in that wall is the line? No matter how small you look, you will never find a line that itself does not have a width, and a further line inside it.

Again this is absurd. In order to think one needs to have a nervous structure in their body. To our understanding actual thinking is limited to more complex organisms. This nervous system is made of matter or to simplify (things) in order to create these thoughts (or thinks as Eric seems to prefer).

You miss the point. You can attribute thinking to a material nervous system if you want. The point is, things are an illusion of your thinking. If you look at the world correctly, you will see no things.

All jokes aside though, while it is technically true, all atoms and particles of matter vibrate (for lack of a better term) regardless their form we can make an accurate enough measurement to account for the velocity (or speed) of an object.

Not with certainty.

Ultimately with Eric's views we are left with a universe (again due to a lack of a better term) which is nothing more than a giant empty set.

It is no-thing. All your material measurements are nothing more than illusions of your thinking. The world exists anyway despite the way you distort it.

Here Eric contradicts the definition of the word “Individual”.

Individual means undivided. So as an individual, you are one with yourself. But you are also one with all else. So individuals and the universe both exist. I think it was you that put down the analogy of the hologram, or maybe it was your ideological soulmate vandaltroll. But it works. We are holograms of the whole. The larger is replicated in the smaller. I'm sorry that this is not something you can handle. Materialism just cannot go there. But you can't say holograms or fractiles are unscientific. Your individuality is just your experience of these things.

You can't assume objects exist in "reality." I'm just restating that if a tree falls in a forest and no-one hears it, it does not make a sound, yadda yadda. You just can't assume that it does, although you cannot know.

I don't even know what he means in this paragraph. I think he is claiming that he is beyond the properties of physics. I'm no psychologist but this sounds like a mental condition to me.

It means you have no location in space or time. Those are arbitrary relative measurements, and you can't be pinned down to them. You are eternal and infinite. Same point as before: there are no lines and no boundaries, and no ultimate points. If you ever get that, which is quite easy to get, you'll be a long way toward woo-woo land. Remember that quantum physics says that everything is non-local.

Of course there is no cause for anything in the view that Eric has exposed to us here. The reason there is no cause is because there is nothing for a cause to act upon.

Without matter and without energy there is not a force, there is not a power, there is not even a universe. Much less one that is “free” and “spontaneous”.

The reason there is no cause, is because any such specified cause leads again back to the same infinite regress. What is the cause of that cause in turn? There is only one cause, and it is free and spontaneous, here and now. All other forces and causes are just expressions of it, derived from it. You are making the wake drive the ship.

I already dealt with your next statements. If matter does not exist, energy can still exist. Matter is energy. Energy carries the force; it is the higher form of "matter." Energy exists and is derived from the only cause that can ever derive anything; the first cause: the divine. Consciousness.

So since I've laid out the case that he has made let's do some dialectical thinking.
....
Therefore the ultimate synthesis of Eric's philosophy, as he has expounded to us on the forum is as follows:

Nothing Exists.[/B]

And to think he calls me a nihilist.

No-things exist; correct. Things are just a figment of your thinking. You mentioned Taoism I think; that is what Taoism teaches above all. Thinking cuts up reality into pieces in order to manipulate things. Materialists are idolatry worshipers. You think the world is what you have made it into. You are overawed by human technical abilities. You think the world is composed of the things you have cut out of the world and made into things. Get up, get outside your room, and go visit Nature occasionally. Allow it to be itself, rather than focus on what you can use it for to meet your own needs. You may learn to see the world differently. You may see it as the poets do, instead of as materialist scientists and engineers do. "Nature is all in all"-- Wordsworth. There is more wisdom in Nature than anywhere else. You murder to dissect.

Awakening to the truth is like the Zen saying. First I thought there were mountains. Then I realized there were no mountains. But now mountains are mountains again. To see the world correctly, you have to cleanse yourself of the illusion of thingness. But that does not leave the world as nothing. It just leaves you without your illusions about it.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

According to Eric there is no matter. That is to say there is no physical components to anything. Yet he claims that consciousness is energy up thread.

I'm going to comment only on this, because there is a way in which some mystics and occultists use the word "energy" with which you may not be familiar, which is quite different from the way that word is used in science. This use of "energy" is common among that subset of the occult community which is scientifically ignorant. I am reasonably certain that Eric is using it in that sense here, and he may not be aware of the fact that he is using it incorrectly.

Among scientifically-ignorant occultists, "energy" is something mysterious, intangible, and, well, woo-woo. To say that something is "pure energy" is equivalent to saying that it is mysterious and inexplicable, immaterial and nebulous, and indeed supernatural. It is used -- sometimes even by the non-scientifically-ignorant, although IMO this use is intellectually lazy on their part -- to refer to the variable power of magic that I call "mana," so that we may speak of "raising energy" in a magic circle.

One can understand that reference by analogy, of course, but it is an analogy; mana is not literally energy. Energy is not mysterious and inexplicable, or immaterial and nebulous. It has well-defined, well-understood, quantifiable properties. Energy is conserved; it cannot be created or destroyed. Energy propagates in space-time and is limited in terms of that frame of reference. Energy cannot travel faster than the speed of light. The different forms of energy have their own laws and strict descriptions; heat is transmitted by conduction, convection, or radiation; electrical energy according to laws of polarity and electrical conductivity and resistance; kinetic energy follows the laws of motion and inertia; radiant energy follows the inverse square law, and so on.

None of these laws has any bearing or relevance to the power of magic, which is, therefore, not a form of energy. As for consciousness, to say that it is energy is simply a statement without any meaning, unless, of course, one means by this that it is nebulous, inexplicable, mysterious, etc. As you say, that which is energy is also matter, since matter and energy are different forms of the same universal stuff. (One could even argue that space and time are also forms of the same stuff, since neither can be measured without reference to matter/energy.)

Most of Eric's mistakes take the form of a confusion of frames of reference, tangled with scientific ignorance and intellectual nihilism. What I mean by confusing frames of reference is that Eric makes statements that have philosophical meaning but no scientific significance, and then improperly attributes to them consequences for science and for the subject matter of science. A good example is the idea that everything is dependent on consciousness. This is a true statement but makes absolutely no difference in our descriptions of how natural processes behave, and the latter is the domain of science from which it never properly departs. He confuses it with idealism (the belief that everything begins with mind), which does not follow from it, and further supposes science to be based on its contrary, which it isn't. In fact, idealism and materialism are purely metaphysical positions, neither of them demonstrable by reference to observable phenomena, and science may be done equally well from either metaphysical premise. Most of science goes better with materialism in a feeling sense, while some aspects of quantum mechanics may go better with idealism, again in a feeling sense, but in terms of logical compatibility and reasoning neither of these metaphysical positions makes any difference to science whatsoever. What we observe is what we observe, regardless of its ultimate nature.

Consciousness is everything, and that which is everything is nothing in particular. Consciousness is energy, but no more so than it is matter, space, and time. But all of these statements from Eric are rationalizations for what he really wants to believe, which is in a separate order of reality exempt from the laws of nature as discovered by science, which includes our own minds and feelings. And of course there is a word for that: supernaturalism. And that is what Eric is -- a supernaturalist. He will deny this, but his only reason for denying it is that he dislikes the label. It's a feeling reaction. He has no problem with the ideas that define the word "supernatural," even though he dislikes the word itself.

Okay I've tried to post this three times now. The forum is acting weird on me for some reason.

Brian. I think we are mostly in agreement about what Eric is doing. It is pretty obvious, to me, what he is doing; which is perhaps why I'm having a good time arguing with him. I know what he's doing even if he does not.

I also agree about those who use energy as a term for what you call “mana”. If anything using that term increases confusion. I would also argue that it is also why many new age type mystics are not taken seriously by many people.

Now as to my statements about “Materialism gives rise to science”. What I mean is this. Science is a process by which humans attempt to explain phenomena. Originally in order to do this it was necessary to agree that reality was both material and understandable.

Since we no longer have to fight medieval superstition (though there is plenty of modern superstition running around)in order to work the scientific process it is irrelevant if individual scientists have a materialist or idealist metaphysical viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Eric

The proper response to my post is simply to contemplate and understand the truth of what I said.

Translation: The proper response to my posts is to agree with me because I'm right.

Matter is energy, not vice versa. If matter can be transformed into energy, what you have proven is that matter is a false concept. Energy does not occupy space or have weight or mass. The mass has evaporated.

Relativity dictates that matter and energy can be transformed into each other.


Solar radiation for example is from the reaction of hydrogen atoms fusing together to make helium. In the process of fusing they give off massive amounts of energy.


Conversely, theoretically energy can be used to make mater. Matter is energy and energy is matter.


Weight is the measurement of the force of gravity on an object. I've already defined mass so I see no need to repeat myself.


Also mass cannot “evaporate”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass


Evaporation is the conversion of a liquid into a gas.

If matter is energy, then it can't be understood in material terms.

In a nuclear detonation the mass of the warhead is converted into energy. It is the release of that energy that makes the nuclear weapon destructive. In its mass form the weapon itself is relatively harmless.

Energy is spiritual by nature.

Physics dictates otherwise.

Reality is consciousness.

No consciousness is the subjective experience of reality. Reality would exist even if there was no one to experience it.

Energy is just its outward manifestation and result.

In its simplest terms, IE the terms one gets by reading a third grade science textbook Energy is the indirectly observed quantity that is often understood as the ability of a physical system to do work on other physical systems.

Nihilism is materialism.

Actually nihilism is neither materialist nor idealist. Nihilism is the philosophical doctrine suggesting negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life.


In your case, your nihilism is of the metaphysical variety. By denying the existence of matter you deny the existence of not only energy but also consciousness because so far as we can subjectively understand consciousness is dependent on having the material capacity for it.

You haven't shown me any "matter."

Of course I haven't. One cannot show a blind man anything because he lacks the ability to see.


The rest of the paragraph and the one following it is utter nonsense.

According to quantum physics ...

Which Eric does not understand and has repeatedly not understood despite the attempts of many to explain it.

Density is only relative to your own body.

No. Density is the measure of mass per unit of volume. It has a formula p=m/V. My body has no relationship with density other than having its own density.


Lets do the equation to demonstrate. Let us suppose that I have a measure of Compound Z with the mass of 1 kilogram (1000 grams) and it takes up 5 cubic meter (m3) of space. The density is 200 g/m3. In other words the density of Compound Z is 200 grams of mass per 1 cubic meter of space.


My body played no part in this computation, unless of course you mean that I physically typed in the inputs in various fields on a calculation app.

You can't rest.

I believe I did rest my case on the absence of boundaries in nature. You can either accept you are wrong and rectify your errors in understanding or you can choose to not rectify your errors in understanding and remain in darkness. Makes no difference to me.

If you look at the world correctly, you will see no things.

Metaphysical Nihilism distilled to a single sentence.

Not with certainty.

Hence why I said “accurate enough”. Certainty is not the issue, the usefulness of the the measurement is the issue.

It is no-thing.

There are no things in the empty set. Hence why it is called the empty set. Because it is empty.

I think it was you that put down the analogy of the hologram,

I have never used that analogy. Quite frankly I don't understand how holograms work well enough to even use them as an analogy. Also I'm under no compunction to defend the analogies of others.

You can't assume objects exist in "reality." I'm just restating that if a tree falls in a forest and no-one hears it, it does not make a sound, yadda yadda. You just can't assume that it does, although you cannot know.

Actually I do know if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it it does make a sound. The question is how do I know this. I know it because I have a rudimentary understanding of the mechanics of sound which would operate in the absence of humans or anything else to detect the sound created by the tree falling.

If you ever get that, which is quite easy to get, you'll be a long way toward woo-woo land.

I've seen people who live in woo-woo land. I have no desire to ever go there.


Also Eric, you don't understand quantum mechanics so quit pretending you do.

No-things exist; correct

Back to metaphysical nihilism.

You mentioned Taoism I think

I mentioned that I modified a Taoist meditative technique.

Materialists are idolatry worshipers.

Materialism as a metaphysical construct requires no worship. You are confusing philosophy with religion...again.

You think the world is what you have made it into.

Incorrect. Materialism postulates that the world is and makes men into what they are. The complete opposite of this statement.


I feel no need to respond to the rest of this post, mostly because it is just confused drivel with no connection to anything, let alone Zen Buddhism.

"Energy is spiritual by nature."

Exactly what I was saying above. This is either saying that everything is spiritual by nature, in which case it isn't claiming anything about energy in particular, or else it's claiming a falsehood based on scientific ignorance which regards energy as something mysterious, immaterial, and woo-woo. Which, of course, energy is not.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Translation: The proper response to my posts is to agree with me because I'm right.

Truth is self-evident, no matter who says it.

How many prophets does it take to enlighten a materialist? One, but the materialist has to want to see the light.

Can one prophet enlighten 10 nomad materialists? Well, he can try.

Relativity dictates that matter and energy can be transformed into each other.

Solar radiation for example is from the reaction of hydrogen atoms fusing together to make helium. In the process of fusing they give off massive amounts of energy.

Conversely, theoretically energy can be used to make mater. Matter is energy and energy is matter.

Matter, energy, space, time are all relative terms. That means they have no absolute existence; they are just forms of the one substance, being.

Also mass cannot “evaporate”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

And yet it does. Energy does not behave like mass.

In a nuclear detonation the mass of the warhead is converted into energy. It is the release of that energy that makes the nuclear weapon destructive. In its mass form the weapon itself is relatively harmless.

Matter/mass is just condensed energy.

Physics dictates otherwise.

Energy is spiritual. Physics can only view it in terms of physics.

Self-evident truth to add to the collection: whatever science knows, it knows in terms of its method only.

In its simplest terms, IE the terms one gets by reading a third grade science textbook Energy is the indirectly observed quantity that is often understood as the ability of a physical system to do work on other physical systems.

Energy does work on energy.

Actually nihilism is neither materialist nor idealist. Nihilism is the philosophical doctrine suggesting negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life.

It doesn't matter to me what you say nihilism is. You brought it up; it is not an issue I would discuss. There is no meaning in materialism at all. Your philosophy is nihilist by your own definition stated here.

One cannot show a blind man anything because he lacks the ability to see.

You can't show me matter, because there is no such thing. There is only energy, and energy is spiritual, as experienced.

No. Density is the measure of mass per unit of volume. It has a formula p=m/V. My body has no relationship with density other than having its own density.

I don't read formulas very well because I don't always know the symbols. I don't know what p refers to.
But this is just a measurement. Measurements are abstract, and do not pertain to the world. They only exist in the mind.
Your mistake is you keep thinking there are lines in Nature. You think a cell wall is a line. It is only a living process. There are no lines in Nature; it is thoroughly wiggly. There are no boundaries, no divisions, no lines between anything. That fact invalidates all of your materialist concepts.

Metaphysical Nihilism distilled to a single sentence.

You can choose to ignore reality. You have to want to be enlightened. I can't make you.

Just because the real world does not conform to your illusions, does not make reality "nihilist."

Hence why I said “accurate enough”. Certainty is not the issue, the usefulness of the the measurement is the issue.

No, certainty and reality are the issues. If usefulness is the issue, then I rest my case. You have conceded the idealists' point that matter is nothing but what is useful to us. It is looking at the world as something useful to you. That's all that matter is.

There are no things in the empty set. Hence why it is called the empty set. Because it is empty.

There are no things. That why the Buddhists call it emptiness.

Actually I do know if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it it does make a sound. The question is how do I know this. I know it because I have a rudimentary understanding of the mechanics of sound which would operate in the absence of humans or anything else to detect the sound created by the tree falling.

You can know mechanics, but unless you or some other mind hears a sound, it is not a sound.

I've seen people who live in woo-woo land. I have no desire to ever go there.

In other words, you have no desire to get to reality. All you care about is what is useful to you. I have no desire to go to your materialist socialist utopia either. Talk about a spirit dead world; I can hardly imagine how bad it would be.

The only values are intrinsic values. "Useful" to what? For what? For whom?

Also Eric, you don't understand quantum mechanics so quit pretending you do.

If that's the best you've got, you are not very convincing. Quantum physics says certain things. You can't ignore what it says by saying that I don't understand it. Pretty pathetic reply to my point, kinser.

Back to metaphysical nihilism.

Back to reality. There are no things, and you can't show me any.

I mentioned that I modified a Taoist meditative technique.

Why do you use a nihilist philosophy as the basis of your meditation, then? Taoism clearly says "there are no things."

Materialism as a metaphysical construct requires no worship. You are confusing philosophy with religion...again.

YOu refuse to face the issue by haggling over words. You are an idolater. You think that the things humans have created, are the real things.

Incorrect. Materialism postulates that the world is and makes men into what they are. The complete opposite of this statement.

Materialism reduces the world to abstract concepts called "things," and inserts "lines" into Nature where there are none. Things are just the world viewed as objects that we can grasp and manipulate. Materialism is entirely created by humans to justify their own desire to rape and murder the world so that it can be useful to humans only. We are destroying the world with your philosophy of materialism and usefulness. It will not be of any value, once destroyed.

Your ideal of society is bland, lonely, ugly and alienated, and the Nature in it is destroyed. That is not "useful" to me. What is "useful" to me is to respect and cherish the intrinsic value of people and other beings, and to create beauty. Usefulness as an ultimate value is utter nonsense; it serves no purpose. If you can't see that, you are indeed entirely useless.

When you see that the world contains no things, then you can see the world as it is again, post-brainwashing, and post-Marxist propaganda you have swallowed.

The belief that truth is self-evident leads to authoritarianism and fanaticism.

There are no things. That why the Buddhists call it emptiness.

This proves you, like most New Agers, actually don't know much about Buddhism.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

<snip>Long winded rubbish</snip>

You know...I'm starting to see why Brian has Eric on ignore. Arguing with him gets boring quickly. Same old arguments none of them remotely true. Yawn.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Matter is energy, not vice versa. If matter can be transformed into energy, what you have proven is that matter is a false concept. Energy does not occupy space or have weight or mass. The mass has evaporated.

What a maroon.

Mass is a property of energy and energy is a property of mass.

Matter and mass are not the same thing.

Matter can be transformed into energy. Matter-antimatter annihilation transforms matter into energy, but the mass is still conserved.

Energy (kinetic and light) can be transformed into particles with rest mass. That's what particle colliders do, for crying out loud.

Mass can not "evaporate". Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy

Nevermind the fact that you don't seem to really know what the term evaporate really means. Evaporation is the phase shift of surface liquid particles to a gas state.

Why do you continue to think that you can teach anybody anything about science?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

You know...I'm starting to see why Brian has Eric on ignore. Arguing with him gets boring quickly. Same old arguments none of them remotely true. Yawn.

If you're going to pick a fight and insult someone who is poles apart from you, and just as passionate as you, and then repeat the same things over and over that are anathema to that person, then you should not expect anything different.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"Energy is spiritual by nature."

Exactly what I was saying above. This is either saying that everything is spiritual by nature, in which case it isn't claiming anything about energy in particular, or else it's claiming a falsehood based on scientific ignorance which regards energy as something mysterious, immaterial, and woo-woo. Which, of course, energy is not.

"Only words and conventions can isolate us from the entirely undefinable something which is everything."

Alan Watts (1915 - 1973)

If science now claims that everything boils down to 4 forces, that is claiming that "everything is energy." So science already makes these kinds of statements. I just say that energy is spiritual, as it is experienced.

"Both "stories" can be seen as equally fanciful.... it's a better gamble to say that this is a living being, but not so much of a living thing that actually wanders along and wiggles......."
http://youtu.be/yJwMeU3ct2M

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If you're going to pick a fight and insult someone who is poles apart from you, and just as passionate as you, and then repeat the same things over and over that are anathema to that person, then you should not expect anything different.

I suppose for you Eric having any viewpoint other than yours is insulting. And yes you are poles apart from me. I'm rational, you are clearly irrational. And you don't lack on the passion either. You can scream the same old tired platatudes better than anyone else. I'll give you that.

One thing though. I did not pick the fight. You did. Had you not claimed whatever woo-woo nonsense you want to espouse today was science I would have seen no reason to even post. I really don't care if you want to believe nonsense, but when you are equating that nonsense with science that is a different story.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I suppose for you Eric having any viewpoint other than yours is insulting. And yes you are poles apart from me. I'm rational, you are clearly irrational. And you don't lack on the passion either. You can scream the same old tired platitudes better than anyone else. I'll give you that.

Back atcha dude, on all points.

One thing though. I did not pick the fight. You did. Had you not claimed whatever woo-woo nonsense you want to espouse today was science I would have seen no reason to even post. I really don't care if you want to believe nonsense, but when you are equating that nonsense with science that is a different story.

I never said that woo-woo is science. I clearly said the opposite. Perhaps if you could get that straight, you could stop arguing with me then? Fat chance. I think you are the one picking the fight. Science is just a method of investigation, and those studies I posted were just woo-woo being investigated by scientists. Astrology can be approached using scientific methods, as well as in other ways (as art, mythology, a method of opening psychic abilities, divination), but that does not mean I claim that astrology is a physical science. Why would I? The whole point is that non-science can also be a source of knowledge and wisdom. And I mean more than mathematics and stuff like that. THAT is what you disagree with. You just don't want me inserting the wisdom and knowledge I get from those non-science sources into the conversation. Well, tough teddy bears. I'm not gonna stop.

Actually Eric you have throughout my time of "debating" you consistently claimed that woo-woo either is science or that science can explain woo-woo without actually providing any real science. Seriously, if you could provide some real science that supports any woo-woo claim I'd love to see it.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Actually Eric you have throughout my time of "debating" you consistently claimed that woo-woo either is science or that science can explain woo-woo without actually providing any real science. Seriously, if you could provide some real science that supports any woo-woo claim I'd love to see it.

YOu don't read what I say, and you dismiss any evidence I might post.

I say again. Science cannot "explain" woo-woo, and it is not science. Can I make it any plainer?

Again, what you are really complaining about is that I insert woo-woo into conversations about subjects that YOU claim can only be dealt with by "science." Which is just about any conversation here.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

YOu don't read what I say, and you dismiss any evidence I might post.

I say again. Science cannot "explain" woo-woo, and it is not science. Can I make it any plainer?

Again, what you are really complaining about is that I insert woo-woo into conversations about subjects that YOU claim can only be dealt with by "science." Which is just about any conversation here.

Dishonesty in the extreme.

You are always trying to imply that quantum mechanics (science) somehow provides support for the existence of telepathy (woo).

I've been reading Jonathan Haight's new book The Righteous Mind: Why We are Divided By Politics And Religion, and Haight has an interesting hypothesis about "mystical experiences". In the chapter "90% Chimp, 10% Bee" He claims that such experiences are not things in themselves, but are part of what he calls the "Hive Switch", a behavioral mechanism that creates a feeling of oneness with the group in order to facilitate collective action. This idea is part of an increasingly popular idea among biologists that humans are "eusocial" animals, we are to other primates what ants and bees are to their solitary wasp ancestors. Our "hive" behavior is just not as total as that of the social insects because Human eusociality has only been around for 600,000 years, while the social insects have been around for a lot longer.

Originally Posted by Odin

I've been reading Jonathan Haight's new book The Righteous Mind: Why We are Divided By Politics And Religion, and Haight has an interesting hypothesis about "mystical experiences". In the chapter "90% Chimp, 10% Bee" He claims that such experiences are not things in themselves, but are part of what he calls the "Hive Switch", a behavioral mechanism that creates a feeling of oneness with the group in order to facilitate collective action. This idea is part of an increasingly popular idea among biologists that humans are "eusocial" animals, we are to other primates what ants and bees are to their solitary wasp ancestors. Our "hive" behavior is just not as total as that of the social insects because Human eusociality has only been around for 600,000 years, while the social insects have been around for a lot longer.

Going to need to see your sources of these "biologists". There is a very fundamental difference between humans and eusocial insects . . . genetics. Look into how ant and wasp colonies are genetically related and you'll see why they are not an appropriate model for understanding social behavior of primates.

Originally Posted by Odin

He claims that such experiences are not things in themselves, but are part of what he calls the "Hive Switch", a behavioral mechanism that creates a feeling of oneness with the group in order to facilitate collective action. This idea is part of an increasingly popular idea among biologists that humans are "eusocial" animals, we are to other primates what ants and bees are to their solitary wasp ancestors. Our "hive" behavior is just not as total as that of the social insects because Human eusociality has only been around for 600,000 years, while the social insects have been around for a lot longer.

What a ridiculous claim! How the hell does he claim to have come by his baseline understanding of "the ant experience" or "the bee experience"?

Or is he just (and this in all likelihood) bullshitting about the ways and bees seem, to us outsiders to experience their social environments? Because that's not even remotely the same thing at all...