Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Ok. Here we go.

It's a physical 'given' that force/energy will require and tend to find matter.

In terms of elementary particles, the latter, <Fermions>, basically because of their half-integer-spin, obey something called the Pauli exclusion principle, and are called rigid.

Force, or <bosons>, which condense according to full-integer spin, have no such exclusivity and can occupy the same space: 'Shared quantum state'. (To channel Stein, there is no there there. Yet.)

Composite particles become switch hitters according to distance relative to their structure size. If this is large, in comparison to this size, they behave bosonically. At smaller (high energy) distances, they get to be bunches of fermions.

So, you have to say that force/energy is potentially material.

Alright, let's take a leap, and translate this to the <energy> that we'll call *mind*. It can be *non-stuff* become *stuff*. In terms of this interchangeability, can we speak in quantum terms of where such a switch takes place? I think we can speak of it in terms of electromagnetic attraction. Which is fields exerting force on particles, and so have properties of electric charge. It can be said that we are electric, that our brain does work via chemical processes that are *charged*.

Ok, forces, bosonic behavior, are also called radiation. Wavelengths of radiation range from radio waves to visible light on up to gamma rays. Radiation is light is radiation, technically. (*Light is the electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths*)

SO: what are the philosophical implications of the statement:

LIGHT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Are we not all made of light? Does light have what we call form? I have shown that it is potentially form-having. Form-waiting-to-happen.

If "God" for lack of a more convenient term is the Formless Absolute, The Light, are we not just particularized "God"?

Nota

Could be people start out that way but then their own uniqueness is also part of the package. As if God were like this big fresh water lake and people were like different flavored glasses of Kool-Ade. God would then walk among us as if he or she were a glass of plain water with no uniqueness or flavoring added. Symbolicaly speaking of course.

In infinity (you don't know light to have a necessary end point do you?) there would be room for infinite uniqueness or particular flavor/color.

Light's starting point would be its only end point in infinity I think. That is if you saw a beam of light you could follow it back to its source and that would be its only beginning and ending point as light. So maybe the best answer to your question is yes and no. As for their being room for infinite uniqueness, yes more than enough room I would think and maybe there's enough time for it all to manifest.
Sometimes we find ourselves in the presence of confusion and find it to be frustrating and uncomfortable. I say embrace your confusion, shake hands and make friends with it and you'll be stronger for it in the long run. IMHO   

Quote from: Jonie on July 23, 2007, 11:33:02 AM
Light's starting point would be its only end point in infinity I think. That is if you saw a beam of light you could follow it back to its source and that would be its only beginning and ending point as light. So maybe the best answer to your question is yes and no. As for their being room for infinite uniqueness, yes more than enough room I would think and maybe there's enough time for it all to manifest.

---

draft of my thoughts on the thing (/not-thing):

POLYVALENCE

(note: 'qualia' is 'what-it-is-like', or what is ineffable in experience)

I. Information is Not Knowledge

[The Knowledge argument

In "Epiphenomenal Qualia" (1982), Frank Jackson offers what he calls the "Knowledge Argument" for qualia. One example runs as follows:

    Mary the colour scientist knows all the physical facts about colour, including every physical fact about the experience of colour in other people, from the behavior a particular colour is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a colour has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the colour red the first time she sees it — specifically, she learns what it is like to see that colour

This thought experiment has two purposes. First, it is intended to show that qualia exist. If we agree with the thought experiment, we believe that Mary gains something after she leaves the room — that she acquires knowledge of a particular thing that she did not possess before. That knowledge, Jackson argues, is knowledge of the quale that corresponds to the experience of seeing red, and it must thus be conceded that qualia are real properties, since there is a difference between a person who has access to a particular quale and one who does not.

The second purpose of this argument is to refute the physicalist account of the mind. Specifically, the Knowledge Argument is an attack on the physicalist claim about the completeness of physical truths. The challenge the Knowledge Argument poses to physicalism runs as follows:

   1. Before her release, Mary was in possession of all the physical information about colour experiences of other people.
   2. After her release, Mary learns something about the colour experiences of other people.
      Therefore,
   3. Before her release, Mary was not in possession of all the information about other people's colour experiences, even though she was in possession of all the physical information.
      Therefore,
   4. There are truths about other people's colour experience that are not physical.
      Therefore,
   5. Physicalism is false.

Finally, Jackson argues that qualia are epiphenomenal: not causally efficacious with respect to the physical world. Jackson does not give a positive justification for this claim — rather, he seems to assert it simply because it defends qualia against the classic problem of dualism. Our natural assumption would be that qualia must be causally efficacious in the physical world, but some would ask how we could argue for their existence if they did not affect our brains. If qualia are to be non-physical properties (which they must be in order to constitute an argument against physicalism), some argue that it is almost impossible to imagine how they could have a causal effect on the physical world. By redefining qualia as epiphenomenal, Jackson attempts to protect them from the demand of playing a causal role.]

---

OK. I am not a materialist/'physicalist' or the other thing, whatever they call it. (The Middle Way, you know the drill.) The key word here is DUALISM, which no one likes to really deal with, per se.

It is easy to refute Jackson's argument with no skin in this game:


1. Mary was in possession of all the THEORETICAL physical information about color. Which outside of experience is MEANINGLESS. It puts the cart before the horse, in simple terms. (a description of a thing is not the thing itself.)

2. Mary learns something about the experience of color, by definition.

3. ... contains the fallacious premise of #1:

4 & 5. Since the premise can be shown to have been faulty in #1., anything that follows is indefensible, logically.

So the experience of color is all there is to say about 'color' that has any real meaning, because 'color' is a convention which exists to describe an set of experiences.

---

The epiphenomenalist view is right where thought breaks, I think. Mr Jackson, who is apparently a very smart man, seems to have confused himself by even considering its validity, which he was hoping to do to refute physicalism, in favor of qualia.

He is trying to wrestle with the idea that thought is its own cause. He doesn't like it, but he isn't sure why, it appears to me.


First, to say that a thing is its own cause is a concept that, empirically, must be experimented on as models, or at a fundamental level, particles; there is 'evidence' that at some levels of the physical plane, this, 'violation of causality', may be possible, but that this indicates a different structure to the universe than we 'know'. And this relates to my statement that a thing is not its description; *this* requires an observer, even if a thing can be quantified. Which some recent experiments have cast into doubt. It isn't 'there' 'til we see it's there. And since there is no such thing as simultaneity, all bets are off.

So you get into a situation: what is a thing-in-itself? Is thought a thing-in-itself? Does it have essence, IE: does it exist outside of its own loop?

IF IT DOES, then thought is the origin of all physicality, in fact IS all physicality*. (Physicality, <things>, is/are interdependent.) If it DOES NOT, then it must be caused by itself, or a reasonable facsimile, and this is a vicious circle. And any arguments one hears will tend to follow from that. (if the brain exists to think, how can the mind be just the brain.)

To be, or not to be, THAT is the question.

*: Here's the thing about dualism: to say that the vice versa of my statement is false, is impossible.

.......

The dualist is always faced with the question of why anyone should find it necessary to believe in the existence of two, ontologically distinct, entities (mind and brain), when it seems possible and would make for a simpler thesis to test against scientific evidence, to explain the same events and properties in terms of one. It is a heuristic principle in science and philosophy not to assume the existence of more entities than is necessary for clear explanation and prediction (see Occam's razor). This argument was criticized by Peter Glassen in a debate with J. J. C. Smart in the pages of Philosophy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Glassen argued that, because it is not a physical entity, Occam's Razor cannot consistently be appealed to by a physicalist or materialist as a justification of mental states or events, such as the belief that dualism is false.

.......

Round and round go the arguments. I include that one, because of its classic absurdity. One side will always reduce the other's arguments thusly, and they will both be correct.

So the physicalists and their opponents are both wrong, and both not-wrong.

Let's say that your thought is yourself. That it meets the terms for a thing-in-itself; that is, that it transcends its own convention. INDEPENDENT OF ATTRIBUTES. This is to say, that it pre-exists materiality. Is neither produced nor does it produce. Pure mind.

It is a boson without a fermion, energy with no object/no matter. (NB: Einstein already made the strongest case of an equivalence of the two, figuring in <c>) Now, to know about anything, to realize there is this thing called consciousness, we have to have been put into motion, the Big Clock has to have started, and we are able to observe its measurements, in a material sense. Now, *this* cannot be said to be independent of its origin, thought. This is your mind, but this is NOT your mind.

So, what of the question that is hard to even address: what is the cause of the material world?

Cause cannot be separated from effect, I don't see it. You have to remove <c> from the equation, which leaves what? Outside of light, it all tends to be a moot point, and here we go again. Ground Zero.

Was there an original cause? IF there can be such an idea, even, can it be given a 'real' point-of-origin? In geometry, a 'point' is considered to have zero dimensionality. There is no *there* there, outside of reference to other 'points'.

<In the beginning, there is no beginning; at center, there is no center>

In arithmetic, division by zero only gives infinitudes. (which is the point. We have a valence. Not a pre-valence.)


It's just a lotta nothin', so what can it mean?

and the age-old musical question is answered:

"you're just A Token of My Extreme" ;)


N ø/∞ T A 

Do not discount the other 6 dimensions from the string theory.

Quote from: None of the Above on July 22, 2007, 09:55:05 PM
SO: what are the philosophical implications of the statement:

LIGHT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Are we not all made of light? Does light have what we call form? I have shown that it is potentially form-having. Form-waiting-to-happen.

If "God" for lack of a more convenient term is the Formless Absolute, The Light, are we not just particularized "God"?

Not sure if I really follow the arguments but my thoughts are you need to go to a more basic level than just light. I think it is better to say we are made from 'energy' or 'spirit' because light is also made up of 'energy' too. If god was essentially this energy at it's most basic level then I guess you could say we are built on god.

I had this theory that just as energy can become matter, energy can become spirit and spirit can become energy. We just have not found a way to measure spirit yet.

Quote from: NickSister on September 10, 2007, 04:36:22 PM

Quote from: None of the Above on July 22, 2007, 09:55:05 PM
SO: what are the philosophical implications of the statement:

LIGHT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Are we not all made of light? Does light have what we call form? I have shown that it is potentially form-having. Form-waiting-to-happen.

If "God" for lack of a more convenient term is the Formless Absolute, The Light, are we not just particularized "God"?

Not sure if I really follow the arguments but my thoughts are you need to go to a more basic level than just light... better to say we are made from 'energy' /...

'energy' and 'light' I believe I indicacted as equivalent, at least in conventional terms.

I think one implication is that you can flip it around. Matter can become energy and it generally ends up that way following the first two laws of thermodynamics.

Would this mean that god is energised us? We are the light and light it what we become. Eventually with the 'heat death' of the universe all that will be left is god.



edit: for spelling

Quote from: NickSister on September 10, 2007, 05:52:48 PM
I think one implication is that you can flip it around. Mater can become energy and it generally ends up that way following the first two laws of thermodynamics.

Would this mean that god is energised us? We are the light and light it what we become. Eventually with the 'heat death' of the universe all that will be left is god.

that, I think is *it*; in what Vedic sages posited as like an infinite self-referential loop, like a camera looking at a mirror. you have what I was trying to get at. IE if 'we' are particularized Source, then Source is non-particularized 'us'...

When we become light does the light have a memory of it's former form? If this could be shown to be true then that would be a fantastic mechanism for things such as reincarnation, karma, rebirth, past memories, ancestral memory, Jesus ascending into heaven in the flesh...

interesting question, the vibe one tends to get from schools of thought on it is that 'into the light' is *transcendent*, but would that be the same as *without {or outside} attribution*?

light is one component?

is it a particular or a wave-like component?

how is a FIELD one component?


to try and say that the physical and 'meta'-physical are separate, and offer nothing in support of such a radical claim, is the very definition of incaution, I must say

do us both a favor and find a definition of META -

now apply it to <physical> as a prefix, as if we are looking at language

now show us how you have neatly separated these two words as if opposites

Quote from: Ell on September 10, 2007, 11:15:45 PM
why attempt to intermingle the physical with the metaphysical?

*I* attempted nothing, I showed how I think it works.

Why have you attempted to dismiss someone's thinking? Do you hope somehow to, by this maneuver inflate yourself?

or, are you having me on?

I guess there's always the mute button, when the loud voice is there to interrupt the show with nothing to say except to announce itself.

^-^

in this case I am turning the set off for awhile

Quotei thought you were (forgive me) attempting to integrate the physical with the metaphysical. i use caution here, because if you have integrated them, then perhaps you are a genius and should publish the theory, because, up to this point, i don't think it's been done.

Physical laws leave off where speculation begins. Many times when no proof or reasoned and logical answers based on proof are attainable, we use beliefs that we can call metaphysical. You could just as well say because God made it that way and be no closer to an answer.

Quote from: None of the Above on July 22, 2007, 09:55:05 PM
Ok. Here we go.


SO: what are the philosophical implications of the statement:

LIGHT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

Are we not all made of light? Does light have what we call form? I have shown that it is potentially form-having. Form-waiting-to-happen.

If "God" for lack of a more convenient term is the Formless Absolute, The Light, are we not just particularized "God"?

Not a new thought. The poet, Ezra Pound quoted a 12th century Parisian monk who said: "All things that are, are lights."

The more we learn....

Nichole