Author Topic: A question about energy for you science types  (Read 1883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Seze Mune

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2052
  • Karma: 39
  • Fwa kan ke lu nìtam. Nga zene swizawit livonu.
    • Our fun & awesome RP: Aysautral
A question about energy for you science types
« on: February 25, 2013, 12:27:54 pm »
Alright, so I was wondering...

Is energy static?

I'm thinking 'not'. The energy within a single cell is a flow, then, right?  Where does it come from and where does it go? (Oh, heck, now we're getting into the laws of thermodynamics, right? Pfffttt.  :o )

So if the energy which composes a cell is not static, then the cell is not the same cell from one moment to the next.  It is in a continual state of flux.

It might be appropriate to think of that cell as an icon fabricated by human perception as a type of energy expression or flow. And if that makes sense, then other perceptive mechanisms (non-human) might construct different icons which could possibly give rise to different ways of perceiving (using) energy.  Which *could* mean that different flow associations were perceived.  For non-humans, that could change the entire operative matrix as we know it. Our science and our natural laws would not apply.  Not that it would make any difference to those of us limited to current human expression.  There's the wormhole for ya...  ;)

Agree or disagree?

Offline Nyx

  • Eyktan
  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 1902
  • nv Eywa'eveng
  • Karma: 56
  • Eywìng te Eana Txon'ite
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2013, 04:19:52 pm »
Disclaimer: I am way too tired and ill to be thinking right now, not to mention interacting with others.

A cell has some processes which use up energy and some which release it, it's constantly converting energy so if that's what you mean by it being a flow, then I guess you're right. I wouldn't call it flow because it makes me think of pipes with fluids but basically there is some energy input and output. And lots of reactions in between those. As a total, I'd say it's mostly using up energy, hence the need to feed in some way.

As for whether it's the same cell from one moment to the other, I'd say it is, but it isn't, but it is :P. In some way, matter is a form of energy and the cell is taking in new matter in the form of food and getting rid of it too. The matter is used for energy storage, building blocks and so on. Those molecules are constantly being replaced too as they've done their job. But how can you really tell the difference between two carbon atoms (for example)? Or two electrons? They are the same, so in that way the cell is the same even when all its atoms are replaced (reminds me of that old question about teleporters and whether you're the same person or a precise clone when you step out on the other side). But since it is eating and pooping and converting one molecule to another and storing energy in bonds and using it to drive other reactions, it's maybe not exactly the same all the time. It depends on what level you look at it, I guess. Are you still the same after you eat a candy bar?

Maybe I went off in the wrong direction here. I hope I'm not derailing this already, that'd be awkward :P

One more thing, I'm not quite sure about how we actually define the difference between matter and energy, but the icon idea you mention seems a bit too much like we made up the idea of cells when they actually are there. I think other species might define things differently, but they should see the same cell even if they're able to somehow see the energy it uses. Okay, tired, losing ability to form sentences, hope you could follow :)

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4757
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2013, 04:59:14 pm »
Science already has terms for these energy states: Potential energy and Kinetic energy. Potehtial energy is like that you would find in a barrel of oil, or in the binding energy of a hydrogen atom, or in the body of a dead plant or animal, intended as food or fuel. Kinetic energy is energy that is doing work of some kind. It is the kind of energy we see all around us. And it is always moving with the energy gradient, and never against it (without some other form of energy moving with the gradient, giving it a 'push').

Your 'icon' idea, from what I can gather from a quick reading, falls more in the metaphysical or psycospiritual realm, and is of itself a whole other topic. Life as we understand it, follows these rules, but is complex beyond what thermodynamics would otherwise allow for. This also is a whole other topic!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Offline Clarke

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Karma: 8
  • This is gonna be great
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2013, 02:53:07 pm »
Alright, so I was wondering...

Is energy static?

I'm thinking 'not'. The energy within a single cell is a flow, then, right?  Where does it come from and where does it go? (Oh, heck, now we're getting into the laws of thermodynamics, right? Pfffttt.  :o )

So if the energy which composes a cell is not static, then the cell is not the same cell from one moment to the next.  It is in a continual state of flux.

It might be appropriate to think of that cell as an icon fabricated by human perception as a type of energy expression or flow. And if that makes sense, then other perceptive mechanisms (non-human) might construct different icons which could possibly give rise to different ways of perceiving (using) energy.
You're fine up until here, except for that one word. The fact that we group the configuration of mass-energy into cells as we do is indeed arbitrary - one could pick out different structures and apply labels to them.

Buuuuuut the laws of physics don't care about what labels you're applying to which structures. Eventually, they dictate how energy moves around and evolves - which means that even if you use different labels, the universe will still behave the same, and science still works. The laws we have constructed, e.g. the first law of thermo, electromagnetism, and so on (although discounting the 2nd law of thermo; that's not on the same ground as the others) will work even for completely alien intelligences.

Offline Seze Mune

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2052
  • Karma: 39
  • Fwa kan ke lu nìtam. Nga zene swizawit livonu.
    • Our fun & awesome RP: Aysautral
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2013, 08:57:26 pm »
I don't think that's necessarily true, Clarke.  I'll grant that you are probably more classically indoctrinated in science than I am, but I don't see any reason to assume that human perception is the limit of reality. 

We see how things work at our level.  That doesn't mean that evolution eons from now wouldn't provide us with the means to experience a completely different energetic dynamic.  We would have to compartmentalize physics, say, at the level of certain types of perception and then again at other levels...something very roughly akin to saying that Newtonian physics works at one level, and quantum physics at yet a different level.

If we decide that those are the only two operative levels of physics then we've foreclosed our comprehension of science.  What TRUE scientist would say, "I HAVE FOUND THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!"  Anyone who did would be making a religion of science.

As for my alternative use of the word 'using' to which you objected - unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure you will tell me if I am) until we perceived quantum physics, we could not make use of it.  That is how I meant it. 

Thanks for your thoughtful response. :)

Offline Clarke

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Karma: 8
  • This is gonna be great
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2013, 07:07:55 pm »
I don't think that's necessarily true, Clarke.  I'll grant that you are probably more classically indoctrinated in science than I am but I don't see any reason to assume that human perception is the limit of reality.
Indoctrination doesn't build you nanotechology. ;)
 
Quote
We see how things work at our level.  That doesn't mean that evolution eons from now wouldn't provide us with the means to experience a completely different energetic dynamic.
Would this be the "dynamic" at the level of components of protons, where the structure of space itself behaves much like a waterbed, or the level of galactic superclusters, where ghosts of long dead galaxies can be staring you in the face? We haven't relied on our honest-to-goodness physical senses in doing cutting-edge physics for the best part of 110 years; we build machines to do the experiments and observations for us. (The 26km long machine sitting under Switzerland designed to find an object smaller than light itself says "Kaltxì!" 8)) As such, our physical/evolved form doesn't have much to do with it any more.

Quote
We would have to compartmentalize physics, say, at the level of certain types of perception and then again at other levels...something very roughly akin to saying that Newtonian physics works at one level, and quantum physics at yet a different level.
While that compartmentalization does happen, there are two reasons for it, neither of which are significant in the "grand scheme" of things, e.g. if aliens were asking. The first is the appropriateness of complexity - you could use Relativity to design a suspension bridge, and you'd get the right answers, but the huge amount of complex mathematics involved is not worth it when Newtonian mechanics (which is much simpler) gives you answers that are "wrong" in the most technical sense, but so close to the right answers that nothing you could possibly do would detect the difference.

The second is that we've not done enough good observation: we need to use different theories at different scales because we simply haven't invented the grand Swiss Army knife theory that handles all scales correctly. However, there is every reason to think that there is one somewhere, and we just haven't found it yet.

But just because we haven't finished yet doesn't mean we haven't made progress - in an unlocking-the-universe sense, there is no area in which Newtonian mechanics would be used, because Relativity describes everything accurately unless the things involved are small enough for quantum to be significant, in which case quantum field theory describes it accurately. (Except if it's smaller than the Planck mass, in which case there's no known description - that's what the SAKT is for.)

Quote
If we decide that those are the only two operative levels of physics then we've foreclosed our comprehension of science.  What TRUE scientist would say, "I HAVE FOUND THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!"  Anyone who did would be making a religion of science.
The "Theory of Everything" that pops up in the literature occasionally would indeed be that absolute truth - it would correctly describe the entire universe, and the result of all possible experiments, counterfactuals and scenarios therein; there would be no compartmentalization of it, except for reason #1 above.

There is no reason to suppose it is impossible to find, if we keep doing science long enough and gather enough data. However, due to a bit of logical Judo by Gödel in the 1940s, we also know that, even if you found the all-encompassing ultimate Swiss army knife theory of everything... you couldn't tell that you had - there might be some evidence that you don't know about that invalidates the theory.

As such, we may find the absolute truth, but not know that we have.  :P

Quote
As for my alternative use of the word 'using' to which you objected - unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure you will tell me if I am) until we perceived quantum physics, we could not make use of it.  That is how I meant it.  
Oh, I thought you meant "using" in the same way that a cell uses energy. I guess it really depends on what you mean by us "using" a phenomona - after all, our atoms held together, our cells did chemistry, our brains did... currently unexplained electrochemical voodoo, before we knew the underlying physics that explained how any of those things worked.

Offline Seze Mune

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2052
  • Karma: 39
  • Fwa kan ke lu nìtam. Nga zene swizawit livonu.
    • Our fun & awesome RP: Aysautral
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2013, 08:37:47 pm »
I don't think that's necessarily true, Clarke.  I'll grant that you are probably more classically indoctrinated in science than I am but I don't see any reason to assume that human perception is the limit of reality.
Indoctrination doesn't build you nanotechology. ;)
But of course it does.  That's what MIT, Stanford, USC Berkeley, etc. are all about.  ;)

Quote

Quote
We see how things work at our level.  That doesn't mean that evolution eons from now wouldn't provide us with the means to experience a completely different energetic dynamic.
Would this be the "dynamic" at the level of components of protons, where the structure of space itself behaves much like a waterbed, or the level of galactic superclusters, where ghosts of long dead galaxies can be staring you in the face? We haven't relied on our honest-to-goodness physical senses in doing cutting-edge physics for the best part of 110 years; we build machines to do the experiments and observations for us. (The 26km long machine sitting under Switzerland designed to find an object smaller than light itself says "Kaltxì!" 8)) As such, our physical/evolved form doesn't have much to do with it any more.


You speak of the two clusters of physics phenomena now currently known.  Are you saying that's ALL there is to know? If so, how can you know that for sure?

And yes, we use our physical senses in doing current physics.  It seems to me that any machine you use to explore and observe is made to interpret the data in terms of our current physical senses.  In other words, they are all extensions of current senses.  The Hubble is just an eye in the sky.  The Rover is the same, and sends back information which is then interpreted in terms of the same senses.  The same with the newly discovered bypass for the Heisenberg Principle.  So how can you say that our physical form hasn't much to do with it?  Of course, it has everything to do with it, the way I see it.

Quote
Quote
We would have to compartmentalize physics, say, at the level of certain types of perception and then again at other levels...something very roughly akin to saying that Newtonian physics works at one level, and quantum physics at yet a different level.
While that compartmentalization does happen, there are two reasons for it, neither of which are significant in the "grand scheme" of things, e.g. if aliens were asking. The first is the appropriateness of complexity - you could use Relativity to design a suspension bridge, and you'd get the right answers, but the huge amount of complex mathematics involved is not worth it when Newtonian mechanics (which is much simpler) gives you answers that are "wrong" in the most technical sense, but so close to the right answers that nothing you could possibly do would detect the difference.

The ends justifies the means, mathematically speaking.

Quote
The second is that we've not done enough good observation: we need to use different theories at different scales because we simply haven't invented the grand Swiss Army knife theory that handles all scales correctly. However, there is every reason to think that there is one somewhere, and we just haven't found it yet.

Yes, exactly.  Leaving the door open for new scientific potential, i.e. not foreclosing even some of the wildest options.

Quote
But just because we haven't finished yet doesn't mean we haven't made progress - in an unlocking-the-universe sense, there is no area in which Newtonian mechanics would be used, because Relativity describes everything accurately unless the things involved are small enough for quantum to be significant, in which case quantum field theory describes it accurately. (Except if it's smaller than the Planck mass, in which case there's no known description - that's what the SAKT is for.)

Quote
If we decide that those are the only two operative levels of physics then we've foreclosed our comprehension of science.  What TRUE scientist would say, "I HAVE FOUND THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!"  Anyone who did would be making a religion of science.

The "Theory of Everything" that pops up in the literature occasionally would indeed be that absolute truth - it would correctly describe the entire universe, and the result of all possible experiments, counterfactuals and scenarios therein; there would be no compartmentalization of it, except for reason #1 above.

There is no reason to suppose it is impossible to find, if we keep doing science long enough and gather enough data. However, due to a bit of logical Judo by Gödel in the 1940s, we also know that, even if you found the all-encompassing ultimate Swiss army knife theory of everything... you couldn't tell that you had - there might be some evidence that you don't know about that invalidates the theory.

As such, we may find the absolute truth, but not know that we have.  :P

Quote
As for my alternative use of the word 'using' to which you objected - unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure you will tell me if I am) until we perceived quantum physics, we could not make use of it.  That is how I meant it.  

Oh, I thought you meant "using" in the same way that a cell uses energy. I guess it really depends on what you mean by us "using" a phenomona - after all, our atoms held together, our cells did chemistry, our brains did... currently unexplained electrochemical voodoo, before we knew the underlying physics that explained how any of those things worked.

I think we're still not clear on some - if not quite a bit - of that. 

We used to think there was junk DNA, but have come to understand that *we* (not Nature) were in error as we've widened the nets of our theories and improved the reach of our senses via finer machines. 

I think the same could be true for such things as dreams. No one really knows their function in the life of the human organism.  Many consider them the detritus of physical-psychological life.  I believe they are more than that, but current science has little proof of it.

Strangely, science itself owes much to dreams.  Of course, you know the story of the brilliant mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.  A hundred years ago as he lay on his deathbed, he wrote down a series of functions which he said came to him in dreams.  He'd discovered seventeen functions he called 'mock modular forms'. I won't pretend to understand them, but decades later they were used to describe the entropy of black holes.  That sort of thing begs for theories and studies of the nature of dreams, because how far could this take us even scientifically if we were to understand it better?  Maybe it's the psychological equivalent of the caveman stumbling across fire.

I find it strange that most science is used to study subjects which are extrinsic to us like galaxies and molecules, rather than subjects which are intrinsic - like dreams and other psychological/mental/emotional aspects of the human experience.  THAT is the REAL frontier.  Such science is considered a 'soft' science, and yet there couldn't be anything more scientifically relevant than the study of the human experience.

Clarke, back to the concept of energy flow - picture being on a raft in the ocean.  You are close enough to the shore to see the waves rolling in, all way to the beach. You are watching a bit of flotsam rise and fall with the waves.  You realize it moves more up-and-down than in any other direction.  The waves are only an indication of an energetic pulse as they rise and fall.  Of course you and I know there is potential energy in the water molecules, but that's not what I'm talking about.  So what I was talking about originally when I referenced the flow of energy, was the similarity to the flow of energy through water which produces waves as a byproduct.

I experienced this somewhat recently in a different form.  I was eating dinner when without warning I felt a massive WHOOMP.  I could tell the direction of origin, and I could sense the flow of energy.  This was a terrestrial version of the marine energy flow.  Only because it was massive could I distinguish it with my physical senses, but I think there is an energy flow impacting us - flowing through us - at all times.  My unscientific mind would comprehend this as an energy flow, not just in the sense that we can transform physical food molecules from potential into kinetic energy, but that there are other kinds of flows through the cells, something like the energy that flows through water or in massive explosions like the one I experienced.  I just don't have the scientific vocabulary to describe it.   :(

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4757
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2013, 04:05:46 am »
If there wasn't an energy flow through us, we would be dead. Almost all energy we experience is kinetic energy-- it is on the move.

As I see it, there is one, and only one set of principles and laws that dictate how the universe operates. They appear to us on many levels, bu they are all unified somewhere because this is the way God tends to do things. (Yes, science and spirituality must needs meet at some point!)

I saw the bit today about the experiment that casts doubt on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I am not so sure that their explanation holds much water. Especially because they have to use statistics to get the 'correct answer', which in and of itself, is uncertantity. It will be interesting to see where they go with this interesting experiment. Remember that cold fusion and neutrinos faster then the speed of light didn't 'hold up' for long, either. (BTW, there is a way to do cold fusion. It just isn't very efficient. Look up 'Farnsworth Fusor').

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Offline Seze Mune

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2052
  • Karma: 39
  • Fwa kan ke lu nìtam. Nga zene swizawit livonu.
    • Our fun & awesome RP: Aysautral
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2013, 08:39:42 am »
If there wasn't an energy flow through us, we would be dead. Almost all energy we experience is kinetic energy-- it is on the move.

As I see it, there is one, and only one set of principles and laws that dictate how the universe operates. They appear to us on many levels, bu they are all unified somewhere because this is the way God tends to do things. (Yes, science and spirituality must needs meet at some point!)

I saw the bit today about the experiment that casts doubt on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I am not so sure that their explanation holds much water. Especially because they have to use statistics to get the 'correct answer', which in and of itself, is uncertantity. It will be interesting to see where they go with this interesting experiment. Remember that cold fusion and neutrinos faster then the speed of light didn't 'hold up' for long, either. (BTW, there is a way to do cold fusion. It just isn't very efficient. Look up 'Farnsworth Fusor').

The way I conceive of it, the origin of all energy in whatever manifestation on whatever plane is "God" in Christian terms: the Apex Energy.  Most scientists resist the personification and like to describe it in terms denuded of spirituality.  But I agree with you, ma 'Eylan: there comes a point when there must be a confluence of science and spirituality, whether modern scientists like it or not.

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4757
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2013, 08:56:51 pm »
The way I conceive of it, the origin of all energy in whatever manifestation on whatever plane is "God" in Christian terms: the Apex Energy.  Most scientists resist the personification and like to describe it in terms denuded of spirituality.  But I agree with you, ma 'Eylan: there comes a point when there must be a confluence of science and spirituality, whether modern scientists like it or not.

Over time, the 'spiritual solution' to the problems of science have always proven to be the correct view. For the things we don't yet fully understand, part of it is because we don't fully understand the spiritual parts, either.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Offline Seze Mune

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2052
  • Karma: 39
  • Fwa kan ke lu nìtam. Nga zene swizawit livonu.
    • Our fun & awesome RP: Aysautral
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2013, 10:01:17 pm »
The way I conceive of it, the origin of all energy in whatever manifestation on whatever plane is "God" in Christian terms: the Apex Energy.  Most scientists resist the personification and like to describe it in terms denuded of spirituality.  But I agree with you, ma 'Eylan: there comes a point when there must be a confluence of science and spirituality, whether modern scientists like it or not.

Over time, the 'spiritual solution' to the problems of science have always proven to be the correct view. For the things we don't yet fully understand, part of it is because we don't fully understand the spiritual parts, either.

The spiritual is inextricably linked with the experience of human expression.  One cannot fully know one's world without knowing one's humanity. 'Humanity' (in terms of personal human experience) doesn't exist in formulae or algorithms.  If you do not understand yourself or the quality of being human in all its aspects, then of what fundamental value is extrinsic science?

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4757
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2013, 02:33:58 am »
The spiritual is inextricably linked with the experience of human expression.  One cannot fully know one's world without knowing one's humanity. 'Humanity' (in terms of personal human experience) doesn't exist in formulae or algorithms.  If you do not understand yourself or the quality of being human in all its aspects, then of what fundamental value is extrinsic science?

Now, that's just plain deep!

I probably 'know myself' better than most people. But I can't say I totally know every aspect of myself, not even close. But that said, I find 'extrinsic science' of great value to me personally. But if I do not *fully know myself* and the farthest limits of my humanity, yet enjoy 'extrinsic science' and find it valuable to me, does this not disprove what you have concluded?

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Offline Seze Mune

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2052
  • Karma: 39
  • Fwa kan ke lu nìtam. Nga zene swizawit livonu.
    • Our fun & awesome RP: Aysautral
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2013, 09:25:28 am »
The spiritual is inextricably linked with the experience of human expression.  One cannot fully know one's world without knowing one's humanity. 'Humanity' (in terms of personal human experience) doesn't exist in formulae or algorithms.  If you do not understand yourself or the quality of being human in all its aspects, then of what fundamental value is extrinsic science?

Now, that's just plain deep!

I probably 'know myself' better than most people. But I can't say I totally know every aspect of myself, not even close. But that said, I find 'extrinsic science' of great value to me personally. But if I do not *fully know myself* and the farthest limits of my humanity, yet enjoy 'extrinsic science' and find it valuable to me, does this not disprove what you have concluded?

First, let me say that I appreciate your ability to enjoy extrinsic science and the fruits of its use.  I do too.  (I'm sitting here at a computer, communicating with you - 'nuff said!  ;) )

The short answer to your question is 'no'. 

But what I'm getting at is more fundamental than that.  We can develop our sciences enough to send us to another planet, but without developing a science of thoroughly understanding *ourselves* both as a species and as individuals, then what have we done of value?  We just end up with an RDA mining Pandora to bring unobtanium back to the masses who value the extrinsic more than their intrinsic connections to ALL of What Is.  We end up with Climate Change, we end up with Colony Collapse Disorder in bees, we end up with Genetically Modified corn which not only kills the insects which feed on it, but creates microperforations in our own colons, leading to increasing rates of celiac, IBS and eczema.  And on and on.

In other words, focusing on extrinsic things the way most current science does, we end up with things which seem valuable until you realize they all end up in landfills, poisoning our land and the very water we drink.

If we focused instead upon our intrinsic connections, I do not think we would be facing these kinds of issues.  I think the development of the species would go in another direction and we would recognize our basic indivisibility from Nature; that caring for life in its many expressions is in actual fact caring for ourselves.  Caring for animals like lions would be seen as far more valuable, fulfilling and life-enhancing than caring for iPads or the stock market, for example.

To focus more on understanding ourselves as a human expression of Life's energy would actually end up creating more value for whatever extrinsic science might be used for.  We can use knowledge to help or to harm, and with a fuller understanding of who and what we really are, we humans could be more boon than bane on the Earth.  How much sense does it make to use extrinsic science at the service of values like greed, anger, fear, etc. so that we create more WMD, more chemicals which poison people and harm the environment, more 'things' which must ultimately be buried for millenia before the land can be safely used again?

The development of intrinsic science would only add more value to extrinsic science, and extrinsic science would develop along saner and more life-enhancing lines.  Until this is understood, extrinsic science is a loaded gun waiting for any nutjob to come along and use it at the service of his need for power, influence, greed, or revenge.

Until there is more focus on the science of what it truly means to be human in its physical, emotional, mental expression in the context of Nature, then we'll see Avatar dynamics played out over and over again, ad nauseum.

The following is a quote I found this morning that paints a portrait of what I'm talking about:

Seeing Beauty is about broadening our ability to recognize the interconnectedness of all manifestations of life and delighting in how the smells and sounds and tastes and sights that surround us conspire to draw us toward living fully.

...

I want to focus on my fingertips, on the shape and weight of my hand, on blood and bone and a thousand nerve endings, as I raise an apple to my mouth and let the tip of my tongue slide on the round, smooth firmness of the cool surface and feel the spray of juice as my teeth pierce the skin and enter the crisp flesh inside.

I want to taste the weeks of rain and sun, the ripening on the tree, the labour of the farmer, and the fruit-picker, the journey of the men and women who bring fruit from grove to table.

I want to receive the beauty that reminds me that there is no separation- that each act lived fully awake cannot help but be both prayer and love-making. ~ Oriah from "The Invitation"


Being human is about both prayer and love-making in the most expanded sense of those words. Fìaylì'u 'ivong.  :D

Offline Clarke

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Karma: 8
  • This is gonna be great
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2013, 08:42:56 pm »
But of course it does.  That's what MIT, Stanford, USC Berkeley, etc. are all about.  ;)
To describe that as "indoctrination" is just mangling words.  :P
Quote
You speak of the two clusters of physics phenomena now currently known.  Are you saying that's ALL there is to know? If so, how can you know that for sure?
Well, no, it's not definitely all there is to know. But we don't have a reason to think there's anything else.
Quote
And yes, we use our physical senses in doing current physics.  It seems to me that any machine you use to explore and observe is made to interpret the data in terms of our current physical senses.  In other words, they are all extensions of current senses. The Hubble is just an eye in the sky.  The Rover is the same, and sends back information which is then interpreted in terms of the same senses.
...Sort of. The Hubble telescope is an "eye" only in a figurative sense; it is vastly more precise than any eye, and no human can see infrared or ultraviolet. No human can detect ultrasound, infrasound, or radio waves, to pick a few examples of many. Some other apparatuses measure phenomena that humans cannot detect, even indirectly. You can't detect things like magnetism, quantum mechanical "spin", or length contraction, nor is there any "everyday" experience that's comparable to these things.
Quote
So how can you say that our physical form hasn't much to do with it?  Of course, it has everything to do with it, the way I see it.
We could still invent the Hubble space telescope if we were all blind; and it would still work. The results would be far harder to interpret (since "sight" is now one of the things mentioned above that we have no everyday experience of) but that's our failing, not science's.
Quote
Yes, exactly.  Leaving the door open for new scientific potential, i.e. not foreclosing even some of the wildest options.
The wildest options are wild precisely because there is little, if any, reason to believe them. As Russell said, (paraphrasing) to believe without reason is fantasy, not science.
Quote
I think the same could be true for such things as dreams. No one really knows their function in the life of the human organism.  Many consider them the detritus of physical-psychological life.  I believe they are more than that, but current science has little proof of it.
So why believe that, over any of the infinity of other unsubstantiated explanations? Because it sounds good? ;)
Quote
Strangely, science itself owes much to dreams.  Of course, you know the story of the brilliant mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan.  A hundred years ago as he lay on his deathbed, he wrote down a series of functions which he said came to him in dreams.  He'd discovered seventeen functions he called 'mock modular forms'. I won't pretend to understand them, but decades later they were used to describe the entropy of black holes.  That sort of thing begs for theories and studies of the nature of dreams, because how far could this take us even scientifically if we were to understand it better?  Maybe it's the psychological equivalent of the caveman stumbling across fire.
You picked perhaps the worst possible example, because mathematics is fundamentally about proof. (The only field where that's possible) As pointed out in the wonderful (although arcane) book How to Solve It, intuition, guessing and wandering around (which happens a lot in dreams) are very useful in thinking of solutions to maths problems - but they are all, ultimately, subservient to logic. You can dream the route from A to B, but it's only right if the logic says so.
Quote
I find it strange that most science is used to study subjects which are extrinsic to us like galaxies and molecules, rather than subjects which are intrinsic - like dreams and other psychological/mental/emotional aspects of the human experience.  THAT is the REAL frontier.  Such science is considered a 'soft' science, and yet there couldn't be anything more scientifically relevant than the study of the human experience.
Plants Atoms are easier than people. ;) Besides, they are called the "soft" sciences not so much because they're about "experience," but because they are qualitative, not quantitative. Think about this: what would the human experience be like if we could predict humans as easily as we can predict billiard balls?
Quote
[...]
I experienced this somewhat recently in a different form.  I was eating dinner when without warning I felt a massive WHOOMP.  I could tell the direction of origin, and I could sense the flow of energy.  This was a terrestrial version of the marine energy flow.
How did you arrive at the last statement from the previous ones?  ;)
Quote
Only because it was massive could I distinguish it with my physical senses...

(As opposed to non-physical senses?)
Quote
...but I think there is an energy flow impacting us - flowing through us - at all times.
Which type of them do you want to talk about? There's the kinetic energy of you moving around, (even involuntarily, e.g. your breathing) the thermal energy of your body's waste heat, the sounds you make, the materials you leave behind, etc. There's not one "energy" - energy is always in something, and what it's in can be very important.

(I've skipped the next part of what you said because I hope I'll respond to it later on)
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 09:12:33 pm by Clarke »

Offline Clarke

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Karma: 8
  • This is gonna be great
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2013, 09:06:19 pm »
We can develop our sciences enough to send us to another planet, but without developing a science of thoroughly understanding *ourselves* both as a species and as individuals, then what have we done of value?
Science cannot tell you, for it makes no value judgements. (My answer is: we have partially understood something.)

Quote
We just end up with an RDA mining Pandora to bring unobtanium back to the masses who value the extrinsic more than their intrinsic connections to ALL of What Is.  We end up with Climate Change, we end up with Colony Collapse Disorder in bees, we end up with Genetically Modified corn which not only kills the insects which feed on it, but creates microperforations in our own colons, leading to increasing rates of celiac, IBS and eczema.  And on and on.

In other words, focusing on extrinsic things the way most current science does, we end up with things which seem valuable until you realize they all end up in landfills, poisoning our land and the very water we drink.
This is perhaps the most ironic thing about us, and the irony is only added to by its revelation via science. Human beings are the most intelligent species on this planet by a very large margin - but we are not intelligent enough. Specifically, we have the abstract thought capabilities necessary to build, e.g. GM crops, industrial machines, etc, but we do not have the "deferred gratification" skills to resist the impulse to run our big smoky machines, despite it being potentially fatal in the long-term.

Quote
If we focused instead upon our intrinsic connections, I do not think we would be facing these kinds of issues.
Contrariwise, we would, we'd know about it, and we still wouldn't do anything about it!   :P

Quote
I think the development of the species would go in another direction and we would recognize our basic indivisibility from Nature; that caring for life in its many expressions is in actual fact caring for ourselves.  Caring for animals like lions would be seen as far more valuable, fulfilling and life-enhancing than caring for iPads or the stock market, for example.
See above about deferred gratification.

Quote
To focus more on understanding ourselves as a human expression of Life's energy would actually end up creating more value for whatever extrinsic science might be used for.  We can use knowledge to help or to harm, and with a fuller understanding of who and what we really are, we humans could be more boon than bane on the Earth.

As mentioned, science cannot be used for value - it will only tell you what is, and which consequences follow from which circumstances. It can't say whether those consequences are good or bad.

Quote
The development of intrinsic science would only add more value to extrinsic science, and extrinsic science would develop along saner and more life-enhancing lines.  Until this is understood, extrinsic science is a loaded gun waiting for any nutjob to come along and use it at the service of his need for power, influence, greed, or revenge.
Until there is more focus on the science of what it truly means to be human in its physical, emotional, mental expression in the context of Nature, then we'll see Avatar dynamics played out over and over again, ad nauseum.
Unfortunately, we have done science on our own behaviour, and what it means to be human - in an entirely evidence-based sense - is to be greedy, power-hungry, and unforgiving. Not always to the same extent, and not always to the same persistence (humans are complex beasts  :P ) but those are behaviours fundamental to the human psyche, and evolving them out is going to take time, if it happens at all.

Quote
Seeing Beauty is about broadening our ability to recognize the interconnectedness of all manifestations of life and delighting in how the smells and sounds and tastes and sights that surround us conspire to draw us toward living fully.

I want to focus on my fingertips, on the shape and weight of my hand, on blood and bone and a thousand nerve endings, as I raise an apple to my mouth and let the tip of my tongue slide on the round, smooth firmness of the cool surface and feel the spray of juice as my teeth pierce the skin and enter the crisp flesh inside.

I want to taste the weeks of rain and sun, the ripening on the tree, the labour of the farmer, and the fruit-picker, the journey of the men and women who bring fruit from grove to table.

I want to receive the beauty that reminds me that there is no separation- that each act lived fully awake cannot help but be both prayer and love-making. ~ Oriah from "The Invitation"
If you don't mind me saying so, I actually find this concept of "beauty" (much like the Na'vi concept of "Seeing", which it seems to mirror) shallow, unambitious, and comparatively uninteresting. Similarly, IMO to stop there, convinced that you have found "understanding", is foolish. Why?

This is why:
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 09:16:12 pm by Clarke »

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4757
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2013, 10:13:27 pm »
Clarke did a very good job about addressing the nature of science. I am going to talk, therefore, more about our humanity and its failings.

Yes, we can perceive beauty in many forms, as Mr. Feynman pointed out. But the fact that I don't see all that you want to see when you bite into an apple (or a steak in my case) doesn't really dimish my humanity. It is just that, for everyday living, a lot of the details behind that bite of steak are at that moment, unimportant. But we can't conclude that its pointless to care from this 'lack of experience'.

I believe, as a Christian, that mankind is a pretty despicable creature when left to themselves. We are this way because we are living inherently insecure lives in an insecure world. We desire and crave that security. No one ever truly reaches the place where they are truly secure; every man will eventually die.

Therefore, we are individually greedy for resources, because we never feel we have sufficient to see us through the next crisis (and the ones after that, as well). People who are poor aspire to have some money set aside. People that are very rich are busy becoming even richer to satisfy that which we can never truly satisfy.

Some people choose to let their greed 'flow' and take all the resources that can for themselves. This behavior pervades every aspect of our behavior. Other people have their 'eyes open' as you mention at length in your post.

Our relationship with God is where we 'get off the path' of trying to be secure and find security instead, in something we can't see but know must be there. (And our limited senses, a Clarke points out, can't sense *everything* and we never will be able to do this.) We just have to take the evidence we are presented with that God is there, and build our lives around this. this is the 'faith' of faith.

None of us will ever reach the state you describe of 'fully understanding our humanity'. No, not with the need to work to be secure. But through our faith in God, we can find enough of that security to keep us well-balanced. Christianity teaches steward of resources 9believe it or not!), but many don't have enough faith to accept that and instead continue to be resource-greedy.

So, I think we can conclude that we all need to kame a little more. But we cannot become placid, like that apple-eating writer you quoted. Such people are doomed because, in trying to be 'aware', they ignore their insecurity, which is just as bad as *taking everything* to be secure.

So let us strive to be better at kerame, but realize that no one will ever get to the point that we can kame fra'u. Many of us take a spiritual route to help with this (and I think this describes both Seze and myself), but in the end we have to act in some way to make sure we are in as good a balance as we can achieve. Although we do as spiritual people need to 'trust God', there is also a lot of truth to the statement 'God helps those who help themselves'. Or another way to say it is our faith needs to have legs.

What I am trying to communicate here is tough to fully explain, but I hope you can at least get the basic drift of my thoughts here!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Offline Seze Mune

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 2052
  • Karma: 39
  • Fwa kan ke lu nìtam. Nga zene swizawit livonu.
    • Our fun & awesome RP: Aysautral
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2013, 10:54:31 pm »
Hello again, Clarke.  Your own values for your concept of beauty, as I understand them, are really an example of the extrinsic mentality.  You find the intrinsic appreciation of an experience like that above, to be shallow, unambitious and uninteresting.  Is that because you would rather regard the apple at the molecular and chemical levels? 

Nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly a pallid appreciation for the apple as part of a human experience. Personally, I would be more interested in the experience of my senses.  Science objectifies things and studies them as discrete and separated. That is part of the rigorous scientific protocol unless you're talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle effects.  But for me, the best scientific tools I have for exploring my human experience are my senses.

The depth of my experience of my world through my personal senses is not shallower than your consideration of yours in molecular or mathematical terms.  That is merely the arbitrary value you have ascribed to the differing appreciations.  For me, that would be shallow and lopsided. 

Not only do I want to experience the apple with my senses, but I also enjoy knowing how my body begins the process of transformation - how does that apple become part of my fingernail?  And how does my mental and emotional state flip those epigenetic switches for certain disease or health processes in my body?  What is the genesis of my emotions which control my digestive processes?  Where do thoughts come from?  How does the psyche create dreams, and why do some people dream of 'mock modular formulae' and some dream of flight? Why are some people old at 30 and some are young at 90?  Mathematical formulae may be a way to code scientific knowledge, but it really doesn't say much about the deepest aspects of the human interface with this dimension.  NaCl(aq) + AgNO3(aq) → NaNO3(aq) + AgCl(s) really says zip about mine and most peoples' working realities.

Oh, I understand the overt and simplistic point Feynman is trying to make is that his knowledge of science adds to his appreciation of beauty.  It may, or it may not; it depends on how he chooses to contemplate it.  Tell me though, how many scientists express their heartfelt appreciation for the beauty of the molecular structure of the AIDs virus or the stunning efficacy of a fecal transplant?   :-\

And whether or not scientific knowledge enhances appreciation of beauty for HIM, it means nothing about the appreciative processes in any different scientist.  This is where Feynman's argument derails because he is assuming that every other scientist is like him.  That kind of inductive reasoning doesn't hold water, imo, when you're talking about a scale of 'beauty' as he is.

(note: it is the electrical charge on a flower which attracts bees, not the color so much, btw, Mr. Feynman   ;) )

As for your other points, allow me to consider those in a following post. :)

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4757
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2013, 03:07:17 am »
Hello again, Clarke.  Your own values for your concept of beauty, as I understand them, are really an example of the extrinsic mentality.  You find the intrinsic appreciation of an experience like that above, to be shallow, unambitious and uninteresting.  Is that because you would rather regard the apple at the molecular and chemical levels? 

Nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly a pallid appreciation for the apple as part of a human experience. Personally, I would be more interested in the experience of my senses.  Science objectifies things and studies them as discrete and separated. That is part of the rigorous scientific protocol unless you're talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle effects.  But for me, the best scientific tools I have for exploring my human experience are my senses.

The depth of my experience of my world through my personal senses is not shallower than your consideration of yours in molecular or mathematical terms.  That is merely the arbitrary value you have ascribed to the differing appreciations.  For me, that would be shallow and lopsided.

Not only do I want to experience the apple with my senses, but I also enjoy knowing how my body begins the process of transformation - how does that apple become part of my fingernail?  And how does my mental and emotional state flip those epigenetic switches for certain disease or health processes in my body?  What is the genesis of my emotions which control my digestive processes?  Where do thoughts come from?  How does the psyche create dreams, and why do some people dream of 'mock modular formulae' and some dream of flight? Why are some people old at 30 and some are young at 90?  Mathematical formulae may be a way to code scientific knowledge, but it really doesn't say much about the deepest aspects of the human interface with this dimension.  NaCl(aq) + AgNO3(aq) → NaNO3(aq) + AgCl(s) really says zip about mine and most peoples' working realities.

The apple (or steak in my case) is good food, and enjoyable. It pleases the senses that are built into me for enjoying food. And more of your body's sensory apparatus is used to taste food than any other activity. I know and appreciate the biochemistry that goes on im my body that processes that steak into amino acids, fatty acids and a few other things. It is both clinical and beautiful-- what goes on our bodies is fantastically complex, and in my mind, proof of a Creator.

What I sense is that in many ways, you are a 'romantic thinker', and Clarke and I tend to be more 'science and/or engineering thinkers'. Both types of thinkers are needed, and they balance each other out. Life with just romantic or just science thinking would not be interesting at all.

Quote from: Seze Mune
Oh, I understand the overt and simplistic point Feynman is trying to make is that his knowledge of science adds to his appreciation of beauty.  It may, or it may not; it depends on how he chooses to contemplate it.  Tell me though, how many scientists express their heartfelt appreciation for the beauty of the molecular structure of the AIDs virus or the stunning efficacy of a fecal transplant?   :-\

Fecal transplant??  ::)
And yes, there is great beauty in the complex biochemical structure of a killer virus. There is a great deal of awe, power and beauty in a violent tornado (and it is even better if it is in the middle of nowhere, like in much of Texas). For me, there is great beauty in good engineering. For an example, there is an Ampex VPR-5 on display in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The VPR-5 is an utterly amazing machine-- it records video on 1 inch open reel tape in a form factor that allows it to be carried in a strap over your shoulder. Besides being an amazing piece of engineering (many years ahead of its time), it is also a work of art in its design. It is a beautiful machine to look at, as well as use. Thus its inclusion in the museum as an example of 'engineering art'. This, too is beauty.

Quote from: Seze Mune
And whether or not scientific knowledge enhances appreciation of beauty for HIM, it means nothing about the appreciative processes in any different scientist.  This is where Feynman's argument derails because he is assuming that every other scientist is like him.  That kind of inductive reasoning doesn't hold water, imo, when you're talking about a scale of 'beauty' as he is.

There is so much beauty that we cannot perceive with our senses. I know you would like to use your senses to learn all about our world by experiencing it. How about the Large Hadron Collider? It is sensing thing that are way outside our ability as living things to sense, physical process that are as real as consuming and digesting that steak or apple. You want to 'experience' the LHC? you can arrange to have one of the physics beams cut you in half! I would rather look at the machine's instruments that sense things we can't sense, in environments where it would not be safe for a person to be. There is incredible beauty in that world that cannot be directly sensed.

Quote from: Seze Mune
(note: it is the electrical charge on a flower which attracts bees, not the color so much, btw, Mr. Feynman   ;) )

Can you sense the electrical charge on a flower (And I have trouble believing this, considering the sophisticated compound eyes on a bee.)? But maybe bees can. Bees can also see ultraviolet light, which we can't. But you can measure electric charge or image in ultraviolet light with suitable instruments. And what you 'see' when you do this can be very beautiful.

There is nothing at all wrong with 'romantic thinking'. I guess the point Clarke and I are trying to make, is there is more than one way to look at the world around us, and most of these ways are equally valid.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]ail.com

Offline Clarke

  • Taronyu
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
  • Karma: 8
  • This is gonna be great
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2013, 08:05:38 pm »
Hello again, Clarke.  Your own values for your concept of beauty, as I understand them, are really an example of the extrinsic mentality.  You find the intrinsic appreciation of an experience like that above, to be shallow, unambitious and uninteresting.  Is that because you would rather regard the apple at the molecular and chemical levels?
No, it's because I think you stop too early. Feynman's artist friend isn't wrong to say that the flower's appearance is beautiful - but there's so much more to it than it's macroscopic appearance.

Quote
Nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly a pallid appreciation for the apple as part of a human experience. Personally, I would be more interested in the experience of my senses.  Science objectifies things and studies them as discrete and separated. That is part of the rigorous scientific protocol unless you're talking about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle effects.  But for me, the best scientific tools I have for exploring my human experience are my senses.
I think of it as more a consequence of having a comparatively small memory. We need to separate things because we don't have the concentration or the capacity to study them as holistic units and get meaningful answers.

Quote
The depth of my experience of my world through my personal senses is not shallower than your consideration of yours in molecular or mathematical terms.  That is merely the arbitrary value you have ascribed to the differing appreciations.  For me, that would be shallow and lopsided.  
No amount of sensory data will reveal the results of applied mathematics - and some of those results are quite profound. Take the law of gravity, for instance - when it was invented, it described a vital part of life and did so in such a way that it applied to anything that had ever been observed anywhere. But it's not brilliant just because it correctly described the universe - that's comparatively easy - but because it predicted something novel and astounding: you could literally throw yourself at the ground and miss!

And then, hundreds of years later, when we actually get man-made objects outside of the atmosphere, what do you know? Newton was right; and he got to be right by spotting and testing patterns - patterns too complex to see without the aid of mathematics.

Quote
[...] Mathematical formulae may be a way to code scientific knowledge, but it really doesn't say much about the deepest aspects of the human interface with this dimension.
Contrariwise, IMO, it dictates the deepest truths about human experience - those truths that always are true, and cannot ever not be.

For instance, allow me to introduce to you what I think is the single beautiful thing in reality: Gödel numbering. In layman's terms, the idea is this: logical statements can be translated into numbers and back. Now, that's not very important-sounding, let alone beautiful in any way. Here's the key: those logical statements describe the properties of numbers. ...We just proved that numbers correspond to logical statements, which means we now have logical statements about logic itself...

The beauty is this: this is a demonstration that reason - the language of relationships - is self-referential. This means that when a computer (meaning "reasoning thing" - I can elaborate on how both modern CPUs and brains are equivalent to that if you really want me to) comes along, it has no problem describing it's own state of mind with logic, which it can then reason from... and I seem to have pulled self-awareness out of an empty hat.  ;)

(Actually, I pulled a Platonic ideal of self-awareness out of an empty hat. Humans, being evolved rather than intelligently designed, do not match up to it.)

Quote
NaCl(aq) + AgNO3(aq) → NaNO3(aq) + AgCl(s) really says zip about mine and most peoples' working realities.
I can do better:

That is Columb's law of electric charge, which approximately describes the force felt by two electrically charged objects. That doesn't sound important... but it describes how your entire body is constructed and held together. Specifically: your cells are built of proteins, which are essentially gigantic molecules folded into complicated shapes. Some parts of the molecule are charged differently than others, which means that as they're put together, they bend... exactly as the equation describes.

Quote
Oh, I understand the overt and simplistic point Feynman is trying to make is that his knowledge of science adds to his appreciation of beauty.  It may, or it may not; it depends on how he chooses to contemplate it.  Tell me though, how many scientists express their heartfelt appreciation for the beauty of the molecular structure of the AIDs virus or the stunning efficacy of a fecal transplant?   :-\
I suspect you're missing the point. (Which is understandable, since it's a subtle one.) Feynman didn't appreciate things as one would a sculpture - a static object that has no interaction with anything. He's looking at how the flower (or the virus) relates to other things, and finds beauty in those relationships - possibly even just because they exist. My opinion is that Sagan was pretty much on the money when he said: "The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it; but the way those atoms are put together."

Because, y'know, there's no obvious reason the universe has to be interconnected to the extent it is.

Quote
And whether or not scientific knowledge enhances appreciation of beauty for HIM, it means nothing about the appreciative processes in any different scientist.  This is where Feynman's argument derails because he is assuming that every other scientist is like him.  That kind of inductive reasoning doesn't hold water, imo, when you're talking about a scale of 'beauty' as he is.
Feynman isn't here to defend that particular argument, but he's not arguing that the POV that "science subtracts beauty" doesn't exist - only that he doesn't comprehend it. This is most likely because he's a scientist.  :P

The apple (or steak in my case) is good food, and enjoyable. It pleases the senses that are built into me for enjoying food. And more of your body's sensory apparatus is used to taste food than any other activity. I know and appreciate the biochemistry that goes on im my body that processes that steak into amino acids, fatty acids and a few other things. It is both clinical and beautiful-- what goes on our bodies is fantastically complex, and in my mind, proof of a Creator.
Such a creator is not the world's best bioengineering student, unfortunately. ;)

Quote
What I sense is that in many ways, you are a 'romantic thinker', and Clarke and I tend to be more 'science and/or engineering thinkers'. Both types of thinkers are needed, and they balance each other out. Life with just romantic or just science thinking would not be interesting at all.
Why are you considering them mutually exclusive?

Quote
There is so much beauty that we cannot perceive with our senses. I know you would like to use your senses to learn all about our world by experiencing it. How about the Large Hadron Collider? It is sensing thing that are way outside our ability as living things to sense, physical process that are as real as consuming and digesting that steak or apple.
Almost more so, really. The biochemistry of life could theoretically work differently on different planets - but the Higgs' field is everywhere.

Quote
You want to 'experience' the LHC? you can arrange to have one of the physics beams cut you in half! I would rather look at the machine's instruments that sense things we can't sense, in environments where it would not be safe for a person to be. There is incredible beauty in that world that cannot be directly sensed.
The instruments aren't even that informative unless you know about the physics going on where the instruments can't see, i.e. in the collision. This is the same physics that dictates "Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory!  :P

Offline `Eylan Ayfalulukanä

  • Palulukan Makto
  • *****
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 4757
  • us United States
  • Karma: 44
  • Palulukan alu Kenya 06/23/1996 - 01/15/2017
    • The Lionlamb website
Re: A question about energy for you science types
« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2013, 12:12:01 am »
The beauty is this: this is a demonstration that reason - the language of relationships - is self-referential. This means that when a computer (meaning "reasoning thing" - I can elaborate on how both modern CPUs and brains are equivalent to that if you really want me to) comes along, it has no problem describing it's own state of mind with logic, which it can then reason from... and I seem to have pulled self-awareness out of an empty hat.  ;)

(Actually, I pulled a Platonic ideal of self-awareness out of an empty hat. Humans, being evolved rather than intelligently designed, do not match up to it.)

The 'self awareness' we ascribe to machines nowadays is nothing at all like our self awaremess. I believe that self awareness is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful psycospiritual process going on within us. Our self awareness is the strongest proof we as individuals exist, and that we are not something or someone else, at the same time. I also see it as the strongest evidence that we have a living spirit within us.

Quote from: Clarke
The apple (or steak in my case) is good food, and enjoyable. It pleases the senses that are built into me for enjoying food. And more of your body's sensory apparatus is used to taste food than any other activity. I know and appreciate the biochemistry that goes on im my body that processes that steak into amino acids, fatty acids and a few other things. It is both clinical and beautiful-- what goes on our bodies is fantastically complex, and in my mind, proof of a Creator.
Such a creator is not the world's best bioengineering student, unfortunately. ;)

The brightest bioengineering student in the world could hardly conceive a small portion of what we call 'life' on their own, let alone the whole system!

Quote from: Clarke
Quote from: 'Eylan Ayfalulukanä
What I sense is that in many ways, you are a 'romantic thinker', and Clarke and I tend to be more 'science and/or engineering thinkers'. Both types of thinkers are needed, and they balance each other out. Life with just romantic or just science thinking would not be interesting at all.
Why are you considering them mutually exclusive?

I am not considering 'romantic' and 'scientist' mutuslly exclusive at all. Indeed, we cannot be mentally healthy as humans unless we have some of each.


Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

 

Become LearnNavi's friend on Facebook Follow LearnNavi on Twitter! Watch LearnNavi's videos on YouTube

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
| XHTML | RSS | WAP2 | Site Rules

LearnNavi is not affiliated with the official Avatar website,
James Cameron, LightStorm Entertainment or The Walt Disney Company.
All trademarks and servicemarks are the properties of their respective owners.
Images in the LearnNavi.org Forums and Gallery may not be used without permission.

LearnNavi Affiliates:
ToS

LearnNavi is the community to learn Na'vi, the Avatar Language
"A place where real friendships are made." -Paul Frommer

AvatarMeet | Learn Na'vi Forum | Learn Na'vi Wiki | Na'viteri

LearnNavi