It's not significantly different from solipsism.

Only in what is believed yes, in what can be known no its identical.

How dare you tell me my unique flower of an idea has been thought of before!?

Oh wait, I understand that as creative as I am I follow patterns and better people than I have have pursued every pattern of wide appeal to it's conclusion or at least as far as I have long ago. It's the "spiritualist" group that wants it all to be new, except when being old gives it credibility...

*I'm sure there are plenty of douchey atheists that swing the same way but I don't think any of the people here are one of them.

Thing is we don't ever see "pure energy." We see manifestations of it as mass or temperature or motion.

The belief is really the same thing with a coat of paint on it but I was trying to be less blunt about things.

So? What's your point?

Energy isn't really a thing. It's a measurement.

So the question is a lot like asking if "blueness" is physical. Blue photons are but they aren't the same thing as blueness.

Wait a second, sure it does. Its a perfect fit.

So the car is the body, the mind the driver.

THAT is dualism. Perfect fit.

Dualism -- Definition from the Specific Philosophy of Mind concept of Dualism I was referring to:

Time is a measurement. Energy is a thing when it is stored.

Geez.

Which kind of energy are we talking about?

You really need to calm down and not allow yourself to become so emotionally involved when sharing philosophical ideas.

Instead of calling me stupid, you might just confess that this particular concept is difficult for you to grasp.

Everything that we consider to be physical in terms of interactions depends upon standing waves of energy. Yet we know that all energy is not bound in standing waves.

So with that in mind, it shouldn't be much of a philosophical stretch for you to imagine all of the energy in the universe becoming unbound from standing wave patterns. Assume that you can imagine this, then you'd have a universe in which it would be impossible to 'detect' the remaining energy.

Thus energy itself is 'non-physical' by the very definition of an 'observable' unless at least some part of it is bound up in standing waves.

It is only the standing wave patters that gives energy it's 'physical' properties.

So I accept your outburst in prematurely judging my intellectual capacity, and hope that you can embrace this purely philosophical notion.

I only offer it as food for thought.

There's no need to become emotionally distraught over it.

It's simply an idealized philosophical view.

I'm not even suggesting that it could be accomplished in practice. It's merely a philosophical commentary. (A mind experiment)

I hope you do not take this the wrong way, but the above does not reflect my thoughts, nor would it follow from what I am attempting to convey. Old habits die hard, and I have not done the best job of re-phrasing things in a more applicable way, although my last post was much better at that. Hell, for all I know I could end up walking in a big circle. This is still in mid process.

I do not see a significant difference between reason and cause. I do not think that we can say either of those things. I think that we can say that the tail posture has an intrinsic meaning and reflects the cat's mental state/attitude - in and of itself.

We say the cat is 'happy', but I do not think that that can be concluded as the 'cause' for the posture, only a reflection of an intrinsic mental state behind the behavior itself. What the behavior intrinsically means.




Are you really doubting that the cat has a mental state regardless of whether or not humans have created a label for it?



The same way we know that any creature capable of different states of mind have them... by observation.



I think it can be, and has been done to some degree.

If I observe a cat for a long enough period of time under normal everyday conditions, I can establish a baseline of normal everyday behavior. I can know how it acts when hungry, hunting, seeking to be pet, etc. If, during that time, there is no set of conditions which unexpectedly disturb/startle the animal, then I would not be able to assess how being 'startled' affected that cat's behavior.

If a bucket of water unexpectedly woke the cat from a nap, are you saying that that cat's behavioral response would not display intrinsic meaning. Are you saying that that would not display what a 'startled' state of mind looked like through observable behavior? Are you also claiming that the next time the cat acted in the same manner, despite my not knowing the actual cause, that I would not be able to confidently say that the behavior meant that the cat was startled?

Why not?



I don't think that I am labeling the entire set of circumstances as the intrinsic meaning. I very well may be equivocating between a mental state/attitude and displayed behavior though. I am not quite sure of that just yet.



I am only metaphysical in private!

You still haven't even started to touch on the concept you have introduced . . .


How does something non physical interact with something physical?

What is the relationship that allows this to happen? Right now your completely flopping around for what you mean and its sad.

Seems to me like it is. There are multiple individuals in the Matrix, and as I understand it, Bohm's theory doesn't say anything about individuals at all, only the nature of reality.

Personally, I would hope for a physical ambulance, but you can wait for an astral ambulance if you want.

Yep, dualism fits the analogy perfectly.

See quantum mechanics.

I completely understand and I'm just doing my job playing the devil's advocate.

No harm, no foul.

Personally, I don’t see a significant difference between reason and cause either. But that’s the best I could do in trying to differentiate between cause and intrinsic meaning.

Dictionary.com has this to say in it’s synonym study: BECAUSE introduces a direct reason: “I was sleeping because I was tired.”

It also says this in it’s usage notes: “Usage Note: A traditional rule holds that the construction ‘the reason is because’ is redundant, and should be avoided in favor of ‘the reason is that.’”

So the way it looks to me is that “The reason the cat raises it’s tail is that it is happy.” And “The cat raises it’s tail because it is happy.” Are perfectly synonymous. And if so, then “I do not see a significant difference between reason and cause.” would mean to me that there would be no significant difference between that and “The cat being happy caused it’s tail to raise.” Which would mean the intrinisic meaning is the cause.

And yes, of course, this is all about labels. But that only because it’s all about labels, if you get what I’m saying.

I knew I shouldn’t have gone there. It only serves to spin off on a tangent. So let me just say that I consider the mental state of the cat to be equivalent to the chemical and neurological processes that constitute what you are calling “inherent meaning”. That is, “mental state” is itself an “assigned meaning”, not an intrinsic one, which is what this discussion is all about. So that direction is an unnecessary tangent that I don’t think we need to spin off into as it will only lead to the same place.

If that’s ok with you.
No problem. I’m willing to work with you on it.

Well lets see... the reptoids from the 4th dimension pass through their vortex worm holes. They wear a device on their belt that transports them back and forth.




I know, Billyclub will claim that if they can interact with us then they must be "physical." Not true. They are not classified "physical" except when they have materialized here in our world. But they cannot maintain that vibration permanently. It takes too much of their energy.

There is another "reality" that exists along side of ours and although it is not "physical" it is considered "material."

But the point is, (even if you think that is nonsense) that interaction with a thing (like a UFO or 4th dimensional reptoids,) does not prove or define that thing to be "physical." To be "physical" it must maintain its integrity and function in this physical world.

If you want to interact with something that is "not physical" or not of this reality, you have to change your vibrations, or your consciousness.

Hope you don't mind if I jump in on this one.

And mind you this is now from the perspective of my own philosophy. I’m not claiming to know what Abra’s views are.

So with that in mind…

The question does not really apply. There is not "a relationship that allows it to happen”. That idea is contrary to the basic “independent” quality of the non-physical entity.

Simply put, it is an act of pure creation. That is, the effect on the physical is created, literally out of nothing. (And yes, the implications of that mean the physical itself was created through the same process. But I won’t go there just yet.)

In anthropomorphic terms, the best label for it is probably “decision”. One could look to a very simple everyday thing to illustrate it…

One is sitting on the couch, watching TV and then they “decide” they want to watch something else. That “decision” is the ultimate cause of their body reaching for the remote and pushing a button.

Now of course one can argue that there were millions of mechanistic, neuro-chemical events going on in the body that lead from the “decision” to the pushing of the button on the remote. But that’s all but irrelevant to my point. My point is that it was the original decision that was the genesis of all those mechanistic neuro-chemical events. The decision itself was not mechanistic or physical. It was pure creation.

And this is pretty much the exact point where my philosophy parts ways with mainstream science.