What is "Mind?"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 5274 - 5293 of total 22307 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

allapah

climber

May 25, 2015 - 02:11am PT

the day he died, we had dreams of him, this is proof that the whole thing is thinking....

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber

joshua tree

May 25, 2015 - 06:54am PT

^^^^Amen

my only fear is that God would stop answering my prayer

i know that He hears all prayers. He answers mine when i pray in the name fo Jesus

Bushman

Social climber

Elk Grove, California

May 25, 2015 - 07:58am PT

'OOPS'

Talkin' god smack on the super abba zabba,
It's all uppity arrogant jibba jabba,
Put yer hand out the window there's no rain comin down,
If God were a tree he'd be wearin a frown,
There the Indian with a tear sees us floatin in our beer,
With no ears to hear a sound when we're no longer around,
All the woo talk won't go down when the oceans turn to brown,
This here present human hierarchy is nothin' at all,
Not like the physics that went down like one time in the fall,
When all the forces of the universe grinded to a halt,
That time when time got froze it was definitely not my fault.

-bushman

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 25, 2015 - 10:02am PT

Moose. "No-thing" is not my idea, and the notion that I am confused about basic science is not defensible, because there is plenty of stuff out there about particles and so forth that anyone can understand.

For example, most particle are made up of quarks (six different types). But a quark is not made up of stuff, rather every equation posits quarks as "fractional energy charges." Why, because a quark is simply a point "with no physical distribution," or "no physical extent." In other words, there is no "thing" called a quark that HAS a "fractional energy charge." A quark IS a fractional energy charge and no thing else. So if particles are reducible to quarks, and quarks are not "things," but merely energy, then the notion that reality rests on a solid material base is not true.

Fact is - and this is counterintuitive - there is no context-independent description of "matter" at all. What's more, the belief that the terms energy and matter are interchangeable is also false. This article goes into it pretty well and very clearly.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

They key to understanding this, according to my science friends, it to accept as a literal truth that particles are composed of quarks and that quarks "have no physical distribution or extent." And this last phrase is just a fancy way of saying that quarks are not THINGS that have energy. Rather there is no THING there at all that is an actual quark. Quark is simply a term referring to an equation derived from measuring a "fractional energy charge."

JL

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

May 25, 2015 - 10:13am PT

Largo: . . . all stuff reduces to nothing when reductionism is pushed to rock bottom. The idea frightens people,. . .

Moose: Are you frightened, Largo?

Moose, it’s my professional experience that few people can live in a space of complete ambiguity or groundlessness. They will do just about anything to be sure of something. Every bias, premature closure, heuristic, model, abstraction, theory is a response to perceived groundlessness.

Try to imagine what your life would feel like if you were unsure that your wife and children really loved you (it's all a sham), that you had work to go to tomorrow (you get fired this very night), that you could well be completely insane (you're really only living in your mind in a bed in a hospital), that the earth would no longer spin (we're going to get hit by a big asteroid), that you’d experience yet another earthquake tomorrow (you live in Nepal), that your neighbor might steal into your home at night and murder your entire family over a whim (you live someplace else), that you could not rely upon anything continuing to work the ways that they worked yesterday. What I’m suggesting is not simple uncertainty; what I’m suggesting is No Meaning, a lack of single meaning, no ground under your feet.

Let me say that if that notion does not scare you, then I would like to know what does.

On this Memorial Day weekend, I have brief memories of combat, anarchy, chaos, what seemed like a savage randomness that lacked any meaning of or for life. In the heat of those experiences, nothing is solid . . . not even one’s own life. It is a most terrifying dream. I believe that any of us could and would die for a purpose that we can bank on. But no purpose, no meaning, no ground . . . ? Almost no one has that in them. To get there, you’d have to destroy yourself and the world you think resides all around you.

If there is nothing material that can be finally determined at the bottom of things (or if that is where experiences are leading a mind to), then a reduction to nothing solid (material) does frighten most people.

cintune

climber

The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen

May 25, 2015 - 10:43am PT

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

May 25, 2015 - 12:17pm PT

Interesting commentary on quarks, John. Most of what you say is current theory, some supported by experimental data of course. Theory changes, viz. the aether. It would be good if an actual physicist would chime in here with an opinion as you and I lack expertise, although your prodigies encourage and support your comments.

. . . it to accept as a literal truth . . . : I'm not sure this is a good scientific perspective, but the young can be very certain about things, and it may be true. Mathematical models are far from infallible. But I am pleased to see you are not suggesting the meditative experience of no-thing is in some way associated with virtual particles and other exotic entities of physics.

If there is nothing material that can be finally determined at the bottom of things (or if that is where experiences are leading a mind to), then a reduction to nothing solid (material) does frighten most people (MikeL)

I seriously doubt it, Mike. I tested your hypothesis on my wife, telling her physicists had determined there is nothing solid down there under the Planck scale. She gave me that look and went about her business. Your post seems to me to be an instance of existential paranoia. But maybe you're right and I should be trembling in fright.

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

May 25, 2015 - 05:24pm PT

But a quark is not made up of stuff, rather every equation posits quarks as "fractional energy charges." Why, because a quark is simply a point "with no physical distribution," or "no physical extent." In other words, there is no "thing" called a quark that HAS a "fractional energy charge." A quark IS a fractional energy charge and no thing else. So if particles are reducible to quarks, and quarks are not "things," but merely energy, then the notion that reality rests on a solid material base is not true.

JL is to physics as the National Enquirer is to journalism.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 25, 2015 - 07:58pm PT

MH2, which part of that info do you disagree with? Are you saying that quarks DO have physical extent? Where did you ever hear as much. Have you also heard that quarks have no structure? What do these facts mean to you?

JL

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

May 25, 2015 - 09:21pm PT

MH2, which part of that info do you disagree with?

The part where I should accept that you understand what you are talking about.

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

May 25, 2015 - 09:31pm PT

JL is to physics as the National Enquirer is to journalism

IMO this does an injustice to the National Enquirer, which is more accurate than other such publications.

John's infatuation with things reducing to "no physical extent" results from his ongoing attempt to elicit fundamental theory relating meditator's no-thing to virtual phenomena at the quantum level. His carpool of prodigies seem receptive to this as well. I think this is folly and reminiscent of attempts years ago to scientifically validate ectoplasm, but stranger things have happened, and if he and his cohorts can actually perform this feat I will be the first to offer congratulations.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 25, 2015 - 10:03pm PT

MH2, which part of that info do you disagree with?

The part where I should accept that you understand what you are talking about.
-

That's a dodge, MH2, and you know it, because you did not answer the questions, you simply attacked the messenger once again.

So let me put it this way: It has been stated clearly and concisely that most particles are composed of quarks and that quarks "have no physical extent or distribution." Can we argue this point? No.

What's more, quarks have no structure. They are indivisible because they are dimensionless. Can we argue this point. Not with any evidence.

And what, pray tell, is it that MH2 believe I - or anyone else, can simply not understand about this. If MH2 has a specific about where the above is wrong, kindly state it and the source.

One friend quoted this: Quarks, leptons (e.g. electrons, neutrinos) and the fundamental bosons (e.g. photons, W and Z bosons) have no known substructure, and they are (today) considered to be point-size (zero size). For the electron there are no signs of any substructure down to about 10-18 m.

Do you disagree with this, MH2? Are you sayng that quarks DO have a known substructure, and if so, what is it and on what empirical data are you saying as much?

And this: "My quick answer to the question "What are quarks made of?" is "nothing we know of" (and the case is the same for the electron).

Do you disagree with this, MH2. What part do you think I misunderstand? ("All of it" is a non-answer, of course).

And this: A photon is just as much of a particle as an Electron is EXCEPT that it has no invariant mass. (Commonly known as "rest mass") Both photons and electrons have particle-like and wave-like properties. There is nothing that says a particle MUST be matter.

Do you disagree with this, MH2? My sense is that you and a few others feel that a particle MUST be matter? What empirical evidence is this actually based on?

Lastly if quarks "have no physical extent or distribution," no substructure, are dimensionless, are (today) considered to be point-size (zero size), and have no rest mass, what, dear MH2, is the "stuff" of quarks? What aspect of a quark are you calling material? And if there is no mass or material involved, how does the word "thing" apply?

JL

MH2

Boulder climber

Andy Cairns

May 26, 2015 - 07:05am PT

I respect your experience with meditation JL. Keep working on the physics.

WBraun

climber

May 26, 2015 - 08:09am PT

You've never seen a Quark so what do you even know .....

No thing ..... muahahaha ....

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

May 26, 2015 - 08:23am PT

^^^^^^^

Heh.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 26, 2015 - 09:12am PT

So let me put it this way: It has been stated clearly and concisely that most particles are composed of quarks and that quarks "have no physical extent or distribution." Can we argue this point?

No.

You're wrong.

Where, Dingus, and show your work. But seriously, are you saying that quarks DO have physical extent and physical distrubution? Dimensionality? Substructure? If so, what, and where are you reading such wu?

And so far as quarks having rest mass, "mass" in this context is NOT material or stuff, but electricity.

Say the experts: According to their results, the up quark weighs approximately 2 mega electron volts (MeV), which is a unit of energy, the down quark weighs approximately 4.8 MeV, and the strange quark weighs in at about 92 MeV.

When you hold that "a unit of energy" is a thing, is stuff, you are merely fooling your own self. Remember, a quark has no dimensionality, no substructure, no physical extent. In short, there is no such "thing" as a quark that HAS 2 mega electron volts, say. That's the part where people are getting lost and still hanging onto the promise that a quark has stuff that has electrical properties.

But verily, there are only the properties.

There's nothing below us but energy.

In short, causal reductionism and materialism simply dissolves into MeV's.

In experiential language, there is no separte, objective-independent "mind." Mind is no-thing, known only by it's content, which all arises and dissolves into energy.

JL

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-05-masses-common-quarks-revealed.html#jCp

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - May 26, 2015 - 10:45am PT

Moose, when you hear the word, "no-thing," what are you picturing in your mind? What does "no-thing" mean to you, in terms of your own self-definition?

In broader terms, to you is there any difference between a "thing," and material/stuff?

In what way is a dimensionless, zero-size electrical phenomenon a thing?

JL

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

May 26, 2015 - 12:46pm PT

This conversation should be on a PhD oral exam for a graduating physicist.

I can imagine the professor saying "Ok, now here is a lengthy comment on virtual particles by a certain well-known rock climber. Do you think he knows what he's talking about?"

(Laughter among all present)