I fail to understand why you appear to believe in a dimension of which we have no proof. Why not argue for ninety-nine dimensions ? It would make juist as much sense. Are you talking about beauty in the Platonic sense or have you some tangible objects in mind ? Beauty is a mental construct, so what point are you making by saying it cannot be measured ? Your thoughts cannot be measured; do you believe they don't exist ?
An advanced kind. A self regulating kind. An extremely complex kind. (Do you know what supervention is?) Biochemistry is a kind of chemistry the way a cruise missile is a kind of "thing that we throw", a rock, say.
You mean, the science is. The processes that constitute "living", for any living thing are chemical in nature: the interaction of structures, the "fitting together" of enzymes and other things that "get" assembled, a lot like a factory. Charge separation is important and is presumably an agency that led to (differentiated) neuronal cells. Life shapes things and relies on the shapes (and tensions and "squishiness" of organic chemistry). The NADH complex is known to be strained, so that arginine units can be stored, and also "picked" from the complex, efficiently. An adaptation of stereochemical conformality and the tension (stored energy) in "bendy things". A bit like the way some tools we use, exploit the springiness of what they're made out of.
Well instead of listing each thread I've started on the topic of abstracts, it's easier to list a single thread i was asked to make to link to a bunch of threads on all this. I still find it interesting reading, maybe you will too. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49959 And my apologies for missing graphics in couple of the threads. My retarded ISP reset my web account without my knowledge, didn't notice for a while then the HD crashed that they were all stored on. Pisses me off. Anyway, back to proper responses.
It's all nature, this is just a facet - something to model. Consider the content of my quoting of myself from another thread above about evolution if you don't mind. Indeed. I think it falls into a perspective I laid out in the thread I'm talking about just below here, the thread title is obvious once you see it in the list in the compilation thread, can't think of it at the moment. You can find a thread I started about it in the link to my compilation of threads I started. How does what specifically differ? I can really only speak of what I can relate to, and not being a dog or a frog, I can only speculate based on observation, and won't bother for the moment.
Sounds interesting. I'd almost like to see you give it a go so I could try to prove you wrong... hehe. I don't think shakespeare necessarily has greater value. True. No. That they lack value doesn't mean they lack potential utility. *shrug* If having conversations about things I find terribly interesting that literally bore most of the people i know to tears is "spreading the word", then color me guilty! Finding verbal sparring partners that are near-caliber isn't the easiest task, even here. I like you though, as you seem like a contender! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Brain food. Yummy. Not that I don't get all involved, passionate, stupid, or whatever about topic x... but it's just an outlet that I haven't found anywhere else. It allows me to indulge things I find interesting in a fairly easy, but sometimes annoyingly time consuming way. Oh, and uhm... I was here first, so why don't YOU defend "why you're here". I won't even make any assumptions about it.
It's easy to understand why you fail to understand, as you've obviously put no effort into doing so. I have provided resources in another post that could aid in that understanding. I really doubt you're intersted though for some reason, I guess just the tone of your response. Lol, that's just half-assed. Seriously. I realize I didn't provide much argument in this thread to that end, but have since posted a ton of links to supporting material. My application of the razer slices your ninety-nine to one relevant, irreducable: that which is abstract has no place (literally) in the materialist's model (of which you apparently subscribe). The only possible exception I see is some sort of holographic something or other, in the physics sense of the term if I'm not mistaken. I'm talking about the gereralized concept of beauty. I think it trancends language and is subjective in what satisfies it. That mental constructs cannot be measured, yet exist and are part of reality. Lol. Pay attention you thread flirting bastard. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not than you, but Sidney Sheldon. Which has no value, except as perceived. I guess it seemed to me there was at times a concern that others were confused about the truth. If you look at this as enjoyable sparring then you are consistant.
That is lame sparring. You've got more, but you're holding back. Cut loose for chrissake, please. 'I guess it seemed to me there was at times a concern that others were confused about the truth.' I think there are times when others seem to be unable to see what I plainly see as inconsistency, and I try to splain the inconsistency - partially to test my own. EDIT: Hmmm... in looking through your comments in several threads it seems your point of being here is character study. Writing anything interesting, or just following your curiosity?
It has value to me because I think it is very likely to be true. Anyway, what I am saying is that in objective reality my philosophy has no value. Not a single idea has objective value.. In addition, my philosophy doesn't seem to have any value in subjective reality either.. lol
I was talking about value not existing outside the mind. You can believe that a rock has value, and maybe it than has value to you.. but the rock does not objectively have value because it's outside of your mind.
Ok, thanks Wes.. I don't have any time to go through your links now though. I'll be back tomorrow after I've read the links Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah, intrinsic value. You could have just said that. The only intrinsic value I can think of is that generated by self, that self cannot help but value self in some way. That exists in reality, but isn't objective from the subjective perpsective, because there is no such thing. Value is part of a program, a subroutine, an emergent property, or something regarding ego's motivating component - so to speak. Regardless, that doesn't mean 'nothing really matters'. It only means what matters is literally a function of "programming" (cept not exactly programming in the typical sense, as programs are designed to an end). Perhaps you could say "things only matter under the particular condition of the existence of a perspective" or something more succinct. Then again, that wouldn't be nearly as controversial. It's just bad marketing. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! lol You I have for years seen the potential for the unification of religion and science in this line of reasoning, because both are trying to explain the same thing and missing each other's points (the real, thoughtful theologians) because of their assumptions - missing the commonality that they are both bound by faith to their understanding. The thing I don't like about the popular beliefs regarding "god" is the merciless anthropomorphization. If you consider the universe a conscious entity, then it's easy to say I'm arguing for god. I'm not, because firstly - I think the term "conscious" couldn't possibly apply to such an entity - and secondly perhaps more importantly - I don't think it's possible to ascertain such an entities' status, rendering it simply irrelevant to me... to the point that the question can't even really be seriously entertained because of its utter mootness. So if you can't entertain the ridiculous notion of realistically describing a "designer" (which is such a simplistic, limited, human notion), but can think with depth on the topic... I think you end up basically an accidental taoist. *shrug* But then again, I'm just talking shit at this point... but before the last paragraph I think I might have made some sense. Pardon the forthcoming editing if I find stupidity.
Lol. I see now. Do you remember posting this? "Wtf ? Now everyone agrees ? If intrinsic value doesn't exist then intrinsic meaning doesn't exist either.. "Nothing really matters".. lol, i totally forgot. fucking full circle eh? rofl. That's from my thread on intrinsic value .
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wes.
I put no effort into.....I thought about it and dismissed it. I am not obliged to do any more. Beauty is subjective. There's an original idea. It cannot be measured. That follows from the fact that it is mental construct. What's the big deal here ? In what way would it be diminished if it could be measured ? And, as I said before, are you bothered that your thoughts cannot be measured ? Mental concepts are part of SUBJECTIVE reality. I'll see you in a year or two when I have finished work on my Tardis.
from that thread again: "Objective reality does not include any subjectivity. Thus in objective reality nothing matters." Lol, so now yeah I think we almost agree completely but I've just been nitpicking your choice of words for thousands of words. Your sentences above are crap for what you really mean! Lol. "Objective reality does not include any subjectivity" Oh I just realized WHY, SUCKAH! You forgot the fuckin rules brotha! "the tao cannot be spoken of" And there you are, all trying to speak about it and shit - screwing it up royally too! Don't get me wrong, I think it can be "spoken of" but only with great care as not to speak of it, lol. What you mean is something I said and you agreed with, and you probably also said meaning something like "as a logical consequence of self-defining as a subjective creature, objective reality cannot be said to have a perspective, so in this sense lacks subjectivity". What you said means "subjectivity doesn't exist", which isn't what you meant at all. Same thing for your other sentence.
"Mental concepts are part of SUBJECTIVE reality." So you really didn't think this or type it, and I really wasn't supposed to read it and think about it? REALLY? Objectively? If not then kk, cya. If so, then your subjective concepts are part of objective reality. They are a phenomenon that have come to be in objective reality. Where is the meaning in your subjective concepts, physically? I contend that the meaning of your subjective concepts are intangible. It is a reflection only seen directly through itself. Through changing the physical synapses that grow in response to the activity of experience, you could change the meaning, but you cannot be it. To the subject, it would still be "meaning" however it changed and it, of itself still cannot be touched, only apparently extinguished - but this is as it always is with every passing moment, meaning changing with the moment, yet often recurring similarly to before over time. You apparently equate the content with its conduit? I think they are two distinct components that are actually separate but inter-related aspects of the same entity. Since you have determined that consciousness is not an "emergent property" of a human being, but "just mechanics", there's not really much we can say to each other I suppose. I will offer that you could be right, but obviously things seem differently to me.
