Is there a GOD? Or a continuous recycle process of life? Or does everything cease to exist in death? (Adam, Jesus)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hold up a minute, you have barrelled on ahead without addressing the issue! I'm starting small and simple for a reason. I need to take this step by step to understand. Before we deal with the great unknowns of existence, let deal with automobiles.
To return to the point:
1) Automobiles have some number, usually 4, of tires as a component.
2) Tires are made primarily of rubber.
3) Therefore, Automobiles are made primarily of rubber.
Can you explain in the context of this example what perspective you would take that will make 3) true?
You asked to understand the context of the perspective of ONENESS that makes the fallacy of composition NOT apt. But you then want to restrict the explanation to the context of separate things where the fallacy is appropriate. In the context of separate things, the fallacy is true but it fails in the context of ONENESS.
thats a wrong starting point NoCap. because the tires are rubber doesn't mean the car is rubber.
your whole premise is wrong.
Wow, your ability to not follow a conversation amazes me.
My point is exactly your first sentence. My premise is that those three steps of a logical argument form a proof by contradiction, which shows us that it is not logical to assume that a system shares all the attributes of its parts.
The premise you are claiming is wrong is actually Mystic's...
I tend to agree with you in that assessment, but I am trying to get him to show his work, to explain where I've gone wrong. If I've missed a step, I'd like to understand what it is, not just plug my ears and yell, "Nuh-uh".
You asked to understand the context of the perspective of ONENESS that makes the fallacy of composition NOT apt. But you then want to restrict the explanation to the context of separate things where the fallacy is appropriate. In the context of separate things, the fallacy is true but it fails in the context of ONENESS.
Right, so apply this concept to the car...
That's what i'm asking, how do we apply it, what are the implications, and how does it square with what we know about automobiles?
Is the "perspective of oneness" what I mentioned before, treating the automobile as atomic? I still don't see how it would lead to us able to conclude that the car is primarily rubber.
Or are you arguing that because an automobile is a thing that is a collection of other things, discrete parts assembled to form a whole, that the fallacy of composition is applicable, and my analysis holds, but for other things it does not hold?
Are the particles that are the building blocks of the universe living? (That’s not a rhetorical question: I don’t know the answer.)
I would think as far as we can define life, probably not.
Usually we define life by things like growth, metabolism, reproduction, adaptation, etc... There are a lot of edge cases like viruses, which are kind of iffy. But electrons, protons, quarks, and gluons don't hit many if any of the qualifiers.
I would think as far as we can define life, probably not.
Usually we define life by things like growth, metabolism, reproduction, adaptation, etc... There are a lot of edge cases like viruses, which are kind of iffy. But electrons, protons, quarks, and gluons don't hit many if any of the qualifiers.
-NoCapo
What about consciousness? I’m going to assume we don’t really know?
Right, so apply this concept to the car...
That's what I'm asking, how do we apply it, what are the implications, and how does it square with what we know about automobiles?
Is the "perspective of oneness" what I mentioned before, treating the automobile as atomic? I still don't see how it would lead to us able to conclude that the car is primarily rubber.
Or are you arguing that because an automobile is a thing that is a collection of other things, discrete parts assembled to form a whole, that the fallacy of composition is applicable, and my analysis holds, but for other things, it does not hold?
-NoCapo
In the context of separate things, the fallacy holds. In the context of ONENESS, it does not. There is no "primarily" in the context of ONENESS because there is no separateness. You want to understand the context of ONENESS but insist on doing it in the context of separate things. We see separate things because we are inside the living ONENESS that is REALITY. We see the guts and processes from the inside that comprise the ONENESS that we cannot see from the outside. That is why I analogized it to YOU in my previous post that you brushed aside.
Wow, your ability to not follow a conversation amazes me.
My point is exactly your first sentence. My premise is that those three steps of a logical argument form a proof by contradiction, which shows us that it is not logical to assume that a system shares all the attributes of its parts.
The premise you are claiming is wrong is actually Mystic's...
I tend to agree with you in that assessment, but I am trying to get him to show his work, to explain where I've gone wrong. If I've missed a step, I'd like to understand what it is, not just plug my ears and yell, "Nuh-uh".
-NoCapo
what i am saying is the car is the property of that mixture in that state. the car is the property of matter. Its not separate from it.
the only point mystic and I disagree on is his fundamental field. I don't see it. But our conclusions is the same. I just don't call it god.
a car works because all the fields, that make up space, interaction is such away that we call that volume of space 'a car" so long as it in that configuration.
Are the particles that are the building blocks of the universe living? (That’s not a rhetorical question: I don’t know the answer.)
I would say no also. they don't fit what we see as life. there just isn't the complexity vs volume ratio in the individual pieces. Also, when we compare (measure) them to things we call alive they don't match up best with them.
when I say we are in a system of life I am referring to the hierarchy of structure that we see. little pieces of the universe make "atoms", then molecules, then life, then what?
The evidence points to us as just a middle rung in this hierarchy. I just don't think it has omni powers. or dies, wakes up, and flys away for our sins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
