We are mostly not there?

[Bill]

We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space; less than
1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of atoms it
must follow that reality is mostly empty space. Yet we
perceive it as having substance. Whatever we experience isn't
really there which probably means that our perception is all
there really is.

This observation fits both the materialism of the sciences
and and what each of us knows intuitively. Alas, our
philosophies always take precedence forcing the obvious to
become controversial.

Bill

[Kalkidas]

On 1/4/2017 7:47 PM, Bill wrote:
> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space; less than
> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of atoms it
> must follow that reality is mostly empty space. Yet we
> perceive it as having substance. Whatever we experience isn't
> really there which probably means that our perception is all
> there really is.

If we experience something as having substance, then even if that
particular experience is illusory, there must be actual substance
somewhere. Otherwise, where does the idea of "having substance" come from?

It's the rope and snake problem. Ropes are real and snakes are real, but
mistaking a rope for a snake is illusion.

[*Hemidactylus*]

"We" are a fable cobbled by our brain. Our sense of reality is projected
umwelt, but there's an objective reality to be had. Don't mistake the map
for territory. Stuff existed before us and will exist when we depart. Other
species see things differently. They just don't navel gaze about it and
construct gibberish infested epistemic systems full of bullshit. One needs
a set of cerebral hemispheres, a narcissistic bias, words, and sufficient
spare time to do that.

[Bill]

What you mean, then, is that you don't think about stuff
because you believe you already have the answers. This is the
kind of intellectual conservatism that made the industrial
revolution impossible for earlier generations.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Why should he think about stuff? You've already said that our conclusions are determined by what we wanted to believe before we started thinking about it anyway.

[Bill]

You didn't see the flip dismissal based, it seems, on the
assumption that there's nothing left to learn? It seems that
some folks are content with the mere existence of
explanations without regard for their correctness. I believe
that the goal of investigating nature is the investigation
itself rather than contriving explanations.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

The "flip dismissal" was based on the assumption that there's nothing left to learn from content-free navel gazing. But it's hard to see what your argument is. You claim that our conclusions are based on what we want to believe anyway, as are our interpretations of evidence in support of those wished-for conclusions. So by your lights there is no point in investigating anything at all. We might just as well believe what we feel like believing and forget about thinking about it.

[Bill]

That sums it up. The profoundest mysteries are disregarded in
favor of simplicity. Rather than pondering the the difficult-
to-comprehend realities, we (myself included) prefer
appearances,

The Earth is flat because we can't see the curvature. The
Earth is the center of the universe because we can't feel it
moving. There are four elements because the resulting
explanations appear plausible. This not only can happen, it
did, for thousands of years.

We know that everything is made of atoms yet tell ourselves
that vast collections of atoms are the real reality. We know
better but accept it anyway. Maybe there's more to think
about than anyone wants to think about.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip poorly formatted reply]

>
> What you mean, then, is that you don't think about stuff
> because you believe you already have the answers.
>

Where did you glean that from what I wrote?
I was flipping your apparent paean to epistemic relativism back upon itself
in that the self itself is unreal and only the world exists however
constituted. Not sure atoms are the appropriate lowest level.

Being a fallibist I am comfortable not knowing much at all. But I am not
getting trapped in a bubble of solipsism. Our bubbles intersect and methods
exist to extract sense and eschew nonsense.

>
> This is the
> kind of intellectual conservatism that made the industrial
> revolution impossible for earlier generations.
>

Wait what? I am aware of the cognitive revolution where we aren't even
center of our own subjective universes as so much of "us" exists outside
awareness. We make shit up as we go called narrative and misconstrue the
past. Yet we can attain a semblance of an Archimedean point to realize such
limitations and realize that a real world exists outside ourselves and that
real things inside us evade introspection.

You've been absent awhile. Welcome back.

[William Hyde]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 1:54:58 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space;

In physics textbooks written about 1910, maybe, when electrons were thought to be tiny particles. And sadly in much popular literature for decades after.

less than
> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of atoms

That is certainly untrue. Most of the matter in the universe is not made of atoms.

it
> must follow that reality is mostly empty space. Yet we
> perceive it as having substance.

What we perceive by sight we perceive by photons. To a photon, an atom is not empty space. What we feel, we feel by an essentially electromagnetic effect. To an electron, other atoms are also not mostly empty space. Our taste and smell involve chemistry, hence electrons again.

What we see, feel, touch, and taste are all intimately connected to electromagnetic fields, which exist everywhere.

Whatever we experience isn't
> really there

Unwarranted conclusion.

which probably means that our perception is all
> there really is.
>
> This observation

... is entirely unsupported by anything you have said.


William Hyde

[Bill]

A pedantic avoidance of the obvious. Your point seems to be
that my generalizations aren't specific enough, not they're
false.

Bill

[Bill]

I believe that reality is only our perception of it. There is
nothing until it is observed, just a vast expanse of mostly
empty space. We measure reality on what we experience at the
human scale yet know that the experience is illusory. It's
just confusing enough to generate controversy.

>
> You've been absent awhile. Welcome back.

It got to the point that I couldn't take anyone seriously.
I'm trying again ...

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

What time settings is your OS using? Your posts are arriving out of
sequence for me:

Your headers from Google Groups:
X-Received: by 10.46.83.90 with SMTP id t26mr2526479ljd.26.1483659898783;
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 15:44:58 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: talk.o...@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.46.13.18 with SMTP id 18ls1563793ljn.53.gmail; Thu, 05 Jan
2017 15:44:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.25.201.137 with SMTP id
z131mr4923246lff.1.1483659897031;
Thu, 05 Jan 2017 15:44:57 -0800
(PST)
Path:
x66ni26605wme.0!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.xcski.com!darwin.ediacara.org!.POSTED.darwin.ediacara.org!darwin.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: We are mostly not there?
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 23:38:33 -0600

Not only am I reading your quoting as somewhat mangled your posts are
showing up 6 hours before posted. I had a four hour discrepancy in the past
when I used Knode in Linux with a Windows dual boot. Not sure if that was
casual or what I did to remedy it. Might have been time settings in the
Linux side, maybe whether or not system time was checked against NTP
server.

Anyone else seeing Bill's posts out of sequence? Google Groups sequences
them OK but maybe uses different way than some newsreaders to assigned time
stamp.

[*Hemidactylus*]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
[snip]

Maybe it was the UTC setting being ticked off that fixed it. Disregard what
I said about NTP server. I recall it being Fedora at the time:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/13/html/Installation_Guide/s1-timezone-x86.html

"Do not enable the System clock uses UTC option if your machine also runs
Microsoft Windows. Microsoft operating systems change the BIOS clock to
match local time rather than UTC. This may cause unexpected behavior under
Fedora."

http://lifehacker.com/5742148/fix-windows-clock-issues-when-dual-booting-with-os-x#js_discussion-region

"brigcam
dkuntz2
1/24/11 2:45pm
@don4: Telling Linux systems to use local time instead of GMT is a simple
configuration change. Using this registry hack shouldn't be needed."

[Bill]

Simple fix. I installed Fedora 23 in virtualbox on Windows 10
so I adjusted Linux time. The time warp should fade over
time.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Time fixed but quoting looks choppy to me. No biggie.

[Bill]

That will require tinkering with Knode - I'll work on it.

Bill

[Bill]

William Hyde wrote:

> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 1:54:58 PM UTC-5, Bill
> wrote:
>> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space;
>
> In physics textbooks written about 1910, maybe, when
> electrons were thought to be tiny particles. And sadly in
> much popular literature for decades after.
>
> less than
>> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of
>> atoms
>
> That is certainly untrue. Most of the matter in the
> universe is not made of atoms"

Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

or,especially, "More than 99.94% of an atom's mass is in the
nucleus."

"An atom is the smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter
that has the properties of a chemical element.[1] Every
solid, liquid, gas, and plasma is composed of neutral or
ionized atoms. Atoms are very small; typical sizes are
around 100 picometers (a ten-billionth of a meter, in the
short scale).

What, other than atoms, is the universe made of?

Bill

[William Hyde]

There is nothing to avoid.

Your point seems to be
> that my generalizations aren't specific enough, not they're
> false.

What part of "That is certainly untrue" do you not understand?

You base your argument on certain things you cite as facts. They are not facts.


William Hyde

[William Hyde]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 9:54:58 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> William Hyde wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 1:54:58 PM UTC-5, Bill
> > wrote:
> >> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space;
> >
> > In physics textbooks written about 1910, maybe, when
> > electrons were thought to be tiny particles. And sadly in
> > much popular literature for decades after.
> >
> > less than
> >> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of
> >> atoms
> >
> > That is certainly untrue. Most of the matter in the
> > universe is not made of atoms"
>
>
> Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
>
> or,especially, "More than 99.94% of an atom's mass is in the
> nucleus."

True. But that does not mean the rest is "empty space"

>
> "An atom is the smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter
> that has the properties of a chemical element.[1]

You seem to think you've made a point here, but you have not - much of the universe does not consist of chemical elements.

Every
> solid, liquid, gas, and plasma is composed of neutral or
> ionized atoms. Atoms are very small; typical sizes are
> around 100 picometers (a ten-billionth of a meter, in the
> short scale).
>
> What, other than atoms, is the universe made of?

What do you think a neutron star is made of?

Several trillion neutrinos will pass through your body in the time it takes you to read this.

The universe also contains isolated protons, neutrons, various mesons, photons.

And then of course there is dark matter, which masses many times more than the atomic matter in the universe.

So no, it is not true that "everything in the universe is made of atoms". It is truer to say that "A small fraction of the mass in the universe consists of atoms".

William Hyde

[jillery]

I do. This happens when the poster's computer's time is out of sync.
Most computers on the internet sync to a time server, so I suspect
Bill did something to throw it out of whack.

I'm surprised GG sequences them correctly. As GG exists in its own
world, perhaps they sequence based on when they receive a post, not
the time in the headers.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

Sure you are.

[jillery]

GIYF

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Contents>

Most of the matter in our universe is not baryonic matter, but is dark
matter. Most of what makes up the universe is not matter but dark
energy.

[Joe Cummings]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 20:42:28 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perceptions?

Herre's old Bill with his familiar rant about perceptions being the
only reality

Let's see the source of his argument - it's 250-odd years old, and it
was put forward b Bishop Berkeley.

Here's an example of the argument

"It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that
houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an
existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the
understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever
this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find
in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive
it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned
objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive
besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant
that any one of these or any combination of them should exist
unperceived?"

I'm sure Bill would be the first to acknowledge his debt to Berkeley.

Now I want Bill - and others if they are interested - to do a little
experiment: make yourself comfortable, close you eyes and think of an
object, let's say a tree if there are any nearby. Now open your eyes
and look at the tree. Is your thought or imagining of the tree the
same as your perception of the tree? If not, what's the difference?
Would Bill agree that our perceptions and our ideas are two different
things?

Have metaphysical fun,


Joe Cummings

[RonO]

Some of us are more there than others.

[RonO]

On 1/5/2017 1:12 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> On 1/4/2017 7:47 PM, Bill wrote:
>> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space; less than
>> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of atoms it
>> must follow that reality is mostly empty space. Yet we
>> perceive it as having substance. Whatever we experience isn't
>> really there which probably means that our perception is all
>> there really is.
>
> If we experience something as having substance, then even if that
> particular experience is illusory, there must be actual substance
> somewhere. Otherwise, where does the idea of "having substance" come from?
>
> It's the rope and snake problem. Ropes are real and snakes are real, but
> mistaking a rope for a snake is illusion.

My guess is that Bill's take on reality stems from his creationist
denial that what we do know doesn't matter because we don't know
everything. To Bill even though there is some substance (electrons can
power your iPhone and protons as cosmic rays can streak through your
body laying a path of ionizing radiation in its wake) that because of
all that isn't there, what is there doesn't matter.

Ron Okimoto

[John Bode]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:54:58 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:
> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space; less than
> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of atoms it
> must follow that reality is mostly empty space.

Yup.

> Yet we
> perceive it as having substance.

Yup. Operative word being "mostly".

A single link of chain mail is mostly hole and weighs about a gram, if that.
A shirt of chain mail is still mostly hole, but it weighs on the order of
10 kg or so. The parts of the chain mail that *aren't* hole have real
substance, and if you put enough links together the not-hole parts start
to get heavy.

If the links are made small enough, then from a distance we will perceive
that shirt as being made of a "solid" material, not a distinct chain of
individual links.

Same with atoms. The not-empty-space parts of an atom add up when you put
enough of them together. Since atoms are so tiny, it takes on the order of
10^23 of them to make up gram-scale amounts of anything, which means

Whatever we experience isn't
> really there which probably means that our perception is all
> there really is.

is a non sequitur. You're trying to claim that ~1% is equal to 0. 1% of
10^23 is 10^21, which sure as hell ain't 0. It's the same situation with
the chain mail, just on a radically finer scale. We can't see indivual
atoms; we can only see *very large* collections of atoms. 1% of *very
large* is enough for us to perceive.

If our perception is all there is, then what happens when we stop perceiving
(i.e., when we die)? Do things cease to exist if you're not there to
look at them?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 12:12:35 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>On 1/4/2017 7:47 PM, Bill wrote:
>> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space; less than
>> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of atoms it

>> must follow that reality is mostly empty space. Yet we
>> perceive it as having substance. Whatever we experience isn't

>> really there which probably means that our perception is all
>> there really is.
>

>If we experience something as having substance, then even if that
>particular experience is illusory, there must be actual substance
>somewhere. Otherwise, where does the idea of "having substance" come from?

That implies that whatever we can imagine must by definition
have physical reality somewhere. You might want to
reconsider that.

>It's the rope and snake problem. Ropes are real and snakes are real, but
>mistaking a rope for a snake is illusion.

....as is mistaking a snake for a rope. The latter, however,
might have consequences much more serious than the former.

>> This observation fits both the materialism of the sciences
>> and and what each of us knows intuitively. Alas, our
>> philosophies always take precedence forcing the obvious to
>> become controversial.
>>
>> Bill
>
>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bill]

Perception is something than connects one instant of time to
other instants in time. It creates a kind of structure that
can be perceived. Inanimate matter cannot perceive and
cannot, therefore, comprehend structure. Without perception
there is no structure.

Things will exist but there will be nothing to be aware of
the things themselves nor any possible structure. Perception
creates what it perceives which means that it is something
in addition to and different than what is perceived.

Bill

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 12:12:35 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>
>>On 1/4/2017 7:47 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space; less
>>> than 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made
>>> of atoms it must follow that reality is mostly empty
>>> space. Yet we perceive it as having substance. Whatever
>>> we experience isn't really there which probably means
>>> that our perception is all there really is.
>>
>>If we experience something as having substance, then even
>>if that particular experience is illusory, there must be
>>actual substance somewhere. Otherwise, where does the idea
>>of "having substance" come from?
>
> That implies that whatever we can imagine must by
> definition have physical reality somewhere. You might want
> to reconsider that.

What is implied is that the concept of substance is derived
from what we perceive. These are conceptual artifacts, each
reinforcing the other. It seem obvious that perception is a
kind of glue that holds the appearance of substance
together.

Because of hundreds of generations of taking things at face
value, it's unlikely we're going to go back to square one
and re-think it all.

[Bill]

You suppose that not slavishly accepting the cable TV
version of science makes one a Creationist. How very simple.
As I've mentioned before, simple solutions for simple minds.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

First there's not much science to be had on cable TV that it can be
slavishly accepted. Shubin's Your Inner Fish and The Brain with David
Eagleman stand as rarefied exceptions. Kuhn's Closer to Truth isn't exactly
science but it's engrossing and on public TV.

Second you're not presenting any edifying alternatives. Listening to Kuhn
interview Deepak on anything has about the same effect.

[Bill Rogers]

You complain a lot about "cable TV versions" of science. I agree with you; they are often sensationalistic and completely detached from the scientific process of figuring things out. If you'd like to spend some time with a different, non-"cable TV" sort of science, I highly recommend the Coursera course "The Science of the Solar System." It's taught by Mike Brown from CalTech (one of the guys responsible for getting Pluto demoted). It covers things like water on Mars, the moons of the giant planets, formation of the solar system, etc. And it does so while showing you the actual data on which conclusions are based and it highlights all the uncertainties and ambiguities in the data and the approaches you can take to resolve them. You can take the course and do the assignments, or just watch the video lectures. You'll never look at the night sky in the same way again, and you'll get a much more realistic idea of how science gets done than you would from cable tv. And it's free. Here's the link..

https://www.coursera.org/learn/solar-system/home/welcome

[jillery]

The above is an excellent recommendation. Coursera offers many
others, some of which have previously been cited in T.O.

[Joe Cummings]

I'm a little concerned that there hasn't been any response from Bill
to my invitation to do a little experiment.

I just wonder if his perception mechanism is faulty? If it is, how can
he repair it?

If it isn't, then I'm still waiting for a reply - I'd go as far as to
say I'm waiting to "perceive" a reply.

Have sensory fun,

Joe Cummings

[Kalkidas]

No, Ron's just incapable of letting go of any opportunity to bash
"creationists". It's nothing personal. He doesn't even know you're a
person, or what a person is for that matter.

[jillery]

Ok, I'll bite; how do *you* "know" Bill is a person? Don't be
insulted that I don't wait for an intelligent reply from you.

[jillery]

On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 17:51:26 +0100, Joe Cummings

My perception is Bill is busy posting pithy non sequiturs. Of course,
that perception might be due to my religious beliefs, but I claim his
posts are naturalistic evidence in support of it.

[Bill]

What I know is that no one knows as much as they pretend to
know. Most current knowledge is secondhand, adherence to
tradition and established biases. I've pointed some of my
reasons for this skepticism and all I get back are snarky
dismissals because I'm skeptical that ignore the reasons.
Your post is a good example.

Bill

[Bill]

Your experiment is juvenile. You believe a tree is real
because you perceive it. I believe the perception i the only
reality.

Bill

[Joe Cummings]

"Juvenile?"

Well, how come Bill can't show the weaknesses in the experiment?
In case he "misperceived" the argument, I'll repeat it:

Are our perceptions and our ideas the same, or two different things?

Remember, we"re here to help you.


Have caring fun,


Joe Cummings

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 22:07:49 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 12:12:35 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
>>
>>>On 1/4/2017 7:47 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space; less
>>>> than 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made
>>>> of atoms it must follow that reality is mostly empty
>>>> space. Yet we perceive it as having substance. Whatever
>>>> we experience isn't really there which probably means
>>>> that our perception is all there really is.
>>>
>>>If we experience something as having substance, then even
>>>if that particular experience is illusory, there must be
>>>actual substance somewhere. Otherwise, where does the idea
>>>of "having substance" come from?

>> That implies that whatever we can imagine must by
>> definition have physical reality somewhere. You might want
>> to reconsider that.

>What is implied is that the concept of substance is derived
>from what we perceive.

Correct. And if I had referred to "the concept of
substance", rather than substance with a physical reality,
it would even be relevant. But I didn't.

> These are conceptual artifacts, each
>reinforcing the other. It seem obvious that perception is a
>kind of glue that holds the appearance of substance
>together.
>
>Because of hundreds of generations of taking things at face
>value, it's unlikely we're going to go back to square one
>and re-think it all.

....which has nothing to do with my post.

>>>It's the rope and snake problem. Ropes are real and snakes
>>>are real, but mistaking a rope for a snake is illusion.
>>
>> ....as is mistaking a snake for a rope. The latter,
>> however, might have consequences much more serious than
>> the former.
>>
>>>> This observation fits both the materialism of the
>>>> sciences and and what each of us knows intuitively.
>>>> Alas, our philosophies always take precedence forcing
>>>> the obvious to become controversial.
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 03:44:42 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

<snip to the point>

>Your experiment is juvenile. You believe a tree is real
>because you perceive it. I believe the perception i the only
>reality.

Please clarify that, since it seems to assert that unless we
perceive something it doesn't exist; i.e., there is no
reality independent of our perceptions. Is that really a
claim you wish to make? And defend?

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 03:44:42 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip to the point>
>
>>Your experiment is juvenile. You believe a tree is real
>>because you perceive it. I believe the perception i the
>>only reality.
>
> Please clarify that, since it seems to assert that unless
> we perceive something it doesn't exist; i.e., there is no
> reality independent of our perceptions. Is that really a
> claim you wish to make? And defend?

Without perception, the actual existence of anything is
unknown which is the same as non-existent. This obvious fact
should be enough to prove that perception is the sine qua
non of reality.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

So by your reckoning extant coelacanth suddenly popped into existence in
1938 and Jupiter's moons in 1609? Human perception is powerful stuff. Germs
never caused disease until they were discovered to cause disease. Human
ancestors didn't exist until they were discovered by their descendants.
Alvarez single handedly eradicated the dinosaur. Your post didn't exist
until I read it. BTW my perception somehow caused your Knode implementation
in virtualized Fedora to timestamp itself much earlier than expected. This
is fun.

[jillery]

Are you Kalkidas? If not, my post can't possibly be a snarky
dismissal of your posts.

And your snarky dismissals disqualify you from complaining about my
alleged snarky dismissals.

[eridanus]

El jueves, 5 de enero de 2017, 18:54:58 (UTC), Bill escribió:
> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space; less than
> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of atoms it
> must follow that reality is mostly empty space. Yet we
> perceive it as having substance. Whatever we experience isn't
> really there which probably means that our perception is all
> there really is.
>

> This observation fits both the materialism of the sciences
> and and what each of us knows intuitively. Alas, our
> philosophies always take precedence forcing the obvious to
> become controversial.
>
> Bill

the example you present about the atom and the empty space is a little
fallacious philosophically in regard to our senses. Our senses, the sense
of touch mostly finds a formidable barrier at a great distance from
the atomic nucleus. It is the barrier of the electrons and its electric
field that put a limit to our sense of touch. Both the atoms of our hand
and the atoms whatever material we pretend to touch is protected by a barrier
of negative electric charges. This puts a limit to the closeness of our
sense of touch, even put a limit for the closeness between any piece of
material, except those known a while later, the neutron by example, or the
neutrino, or some atom that can be thrown out the nucleus like an atom of
helium. The atom of helium passes throw the barrier of electrons because
it has a very strong kinetic energy and has a 2 positive charges. Why an
atom kicks out a part of itself like a nucleus of Helium is not well
understood yet. Or this is what my idea. Any radioactive material can
suddenly shoot out a small part of itself, a neutron, a proton, or other
part, like a neutrino or an atom of Helium. But I am not sure that exist
any certainty to explain the instability of some atomic nucleus.

The mere existence of the "dark matter" presents a challenge to our
understanding about what is a void between the atoms. How can we say there
it is a void between an atom and the next or between the circle or electrons
and the nucleus? We had not yet a clear concept of gravity in regard to some inter-galactic distances. Our concept of gravity comes naturally from
our experience of the solar system. If we were able to ignore the particle
of Higgs for a time, we could focuse on a different concept of gravity.
When I had read something about gravitons, it looks like the idea is not yet
very crisp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Standard_Model_Higgs

eri

[eridanus]

El jueves, 5 de enero de 2017, 20:39:59 (UTC), *Hemidactylus* escribió:

> Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space; less than
> > 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of atoms it
> > must follow that reality is mostly empty space. Yet we
> > perceive it as having substance. Whatever we experience isn't
> > really there which probably means that our perception is all
> > there really is.
> >
> > This observation fits both the materialism of the sciences
> > and and what each of us knows intuitively. Alas, our
> > philosophies always take precedence forcing the obvious to
> > become controversial.
> >

> "We" are a fable cobbled by our brain. Our sense of reality is projected
> umwelt, but there's an objective reality to be had. Don't mistake the map
> for territory. Stuff existed before us and will exist when we depart. Other
> species see things differently. They just don't navel gaze about it and
> construct gibberish infested epistemic systems full of bullshit. One needs
> a set of cerebral hemispheres, a narcissistic bias, words, and sufficient
> spare time to do that.

reality is something. But our thinking is a product of some previous
speeches we had heard over facts. This explains both the resistance of
religious people to accept an exclusive material world devoid of supernatural
wonders and gods.

Our thinking is the result of some speeches we had heard or we ourselves can
make in rare occasions. This explain as well how science can easily fall
in some theoretical errors that stops the cart. Sometimes, science seems
frozen in some theoretical error impossible to debunk or nobody is brave
enough to debunk.
These errors are the equivalent of the dogmas of a religion.

eri

[eridanus]

El jueves, 5 de enero de 2017, 20:55:00 (UTC), Bill escribió:

> What you mean, then, is that you don't think about stuff
> because you believe you already have the answers. This is the
> kind of intellectual conservatism that made the industrial
> revolution impossible for earlier generations.
>
> Bill

the industrial revolution was not the result of some theoretical
thinking cooked in Cambridge. The industrial revolution come out
when the British (or rather the English) were getting problems to
make charcoal. Forest had been exterminated slowly, and in some
moment to make charcoal has a prohibited price. As coal was already
known they experimented using coal instead of charcoal. But coal had
to much oil and impurities. So, someone decided to cook coal in a
similar manners as the firewood was cooked to make charcoal. Then,
this was not result of some theoretical thinking cooked in Cambridge.
The worries of those academics were a several light-years distance
of making cheaper iron.

Once they learn to make cheaper iron, a lot of things came after. But
the main reason for these technological novelties was the cheaper iron
for the thinking capabilities of the Cambridge luminaries were at a great
distance from the crude realities of life and economy.
Once the iron become cheaper, it was possible to invent steam machines
and make works cheaper than using human power. Commerce was behind the
need to improve machines, and also the need to win wars. For the iron
(steel) was an important basic material instrument to win wars. The main
driver of industrialization were thus wars. The wars were pushed forward
by the economic crisis of capitalism. All this was at a great distance
from the thinking of the academics of Cambridge.

My argument that theories were far off the mark of materialism is easy
to see, if we read the great problems the educated people have to
understand energy and work. The previous arguments of philosophy were
like impassable barriers to understand the concept of energy. It took nearly
a century and some sort of blacksmith like James Watt to start developing
the idea of power taking as reference the power of a horse. A horse was
pulling some wight in a well, how fast could be raise some weight to some
hight per second. This sort of theoretical questions were out of the reach
of the academics of Cambridge.
You only can think about the story of marine chronometer.
The wiki says on this,

In 1714, the British government offered a longitude prize for a method of
determining longitude at sea, with the awards ranging from £10,000 to £20,000
(£2 million to £4 million in 2017 terms) depending on accuracy. John Harrison,
a Yorkshire carpenter, submitted a project in 1730, and in 1735 completed a
clock based on a pair of counter-oscillating weighted beams connected by
springs whose motion was not influenced by gravity or the motion of a ship.

In other part the wikipedia says,
John Harrison (3 April [O.S. 24 March] 1693 – 24 March 1776) was a self-
educated English carpenter and clockmaker who invented the marine chronometer, a long-sought after device for solving the "longitude problem".

Then, academics of Cambridge could not make the damn chronometer, but a modest
carpenter of a village was able to do it. This is the reason I have to scorn
the academic ways of thinking. They are too religious, too attached to dogmas.
To cryogenic ways of thinking.

Then, it is not the official theoretical thinking that makes the science go
forward, but some modest people working that confront a strong opposition
to new ideas.

eri

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 05:31:46 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 03:44:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> <snip to the point>
>>
>>>Your experiment is juvenile. You believe a tree is real
>>>because you perceive it. I believe the perception i the
>>>only reality.
>>
>> Please clarify that, since it seems to assert that unless
>> we perceive something it doesn't exist; i.e., there is no
>> reality independent of our perceptions. Is that really a
>> claim you wish to make? And defend?
>
>Without perception, the actual existence of anything is
>unknown which is the same as non-existent.

That merely confirms what I suspected your assertion meant,
that reality depends on our perception. And that assertion
is obviously incorrect, since it demands that the universe
didn't exist until we were there to perceive it. And
"unknown" is definitely *not* the same as "non-existent";
examples abound.

> This obvious fact
>should be enough to prove that perception is the sine qua
>non of reality.

It's no more an "objective fact" than any other personal
belief without evidence. You're not talking about objective
reality, which existed before we existed and which will
exist after we are extinct. It's more closely related to the
belief of every juvenile, that the universe revolves around
him/her and that when he/she ceases to exist the world ends.
Self-centered at best, solipsist at worst.

[Joe Cummings]

So what we get from this is that for Bill, it isn't possible to make
a distinction between an idea and a perception.

Hm. some problem here:

As far as Bill's concerned, he has no proof, other than his
perception, that I exist.

But wait a minute; by that very same argument, I have no other proof,
other than my perception, that Bill exists.

Worrying. What's the situation? What are the possibilities?
Well, there are at least four;

From a naturalist point of view Bill and I could be seen as two
individuals communicating over the net.

From Bill's point of view, he doesn't know if I exist.

For me, adopting Bill's argument, I don't know if Bill exists.

From the point of view of anyone reading this thread, and adopting
Bill's argument, they would not know if either of us existed.

I said at least four possibilities; there is a fifth.

I wonder if Bill can see it?

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[*Hemidactylus*]

Careful there. Berkeley's nerdier disciples the solipsistic riddle with a
centralized agent. His name was Smith and he wore sunglasses. We are
batteries.

[Bill]

You're not even trying.
I did not limit existence to my perception of it so we can
discard that frivolous objection. My point is the existence
of perception itself, the possibility of perceiving. Without
perception, nothing exists simply because there is no size
or scale or duration. Once there is perception things emerge
to be perceived and thought about. Your sophomoric quibbles
suggest your intent is to deliberately misunderstand.

Bill

[Joe Cummings]

You are not very consistent, Bill.

Here's what you said in your original posting on Jan. 5th.

"Whatever we experience isn't
really there which probably means that our perception is all
there really is."

I'll leave it as an exercise for you to show your two statements to
be true at the same time.

Have freshman fun

Joe Cummings

[*Hemidactylus*]

Joe has already shown your internal incoherence. My point now is why you
are stuck at esse est percepi. We do have quite elaborate cortices you
"know" and are capable of forming concepts and testing resultant deductions
against the world to see what sticks. And we can improve our perceptual
capacities using instrumentation. Microscopes and telescopes come to mind.
Elsewise multicellularity was precluded until we facilitated it with the
concept of the cell doctrine. Hell cell membranes were downright impossible
until someone figured out the lipid bilayer.

Is that what you're surreptitiously smuggling into the discussion, that
thought precedes all? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God."

[jillery]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 12:27:05 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Neither are you, even though you said you would.

>I did not limit existence to my perception of it so we can
>discard that frivolous objection. My point is the existence
>of perception itself, the possibility of perceiving. Without
>perception, nothing exists simply because there is no size
>or scale or duration. Once there is perception things emerge
>to be perceived and thought about. Your sophomoric quibbles
>suggest your intent is to deliberately misunderstand.

Joe Cumming uses his personal preception as an example of peoples'
perceptions generally. His argument above isn't based on his unique
perceptions.

[Joe Cummings]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 12:27:05 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll give Bill another day or so to see if he can come up with the
fifth possibility, and then if he can't, I'll enlighten him.

And I'll do it withour asking for a donation. Unlike creationist
pastors, I'll do it free of charge

Have relevatory fun,


Jor Cummings

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 20:42:28 -0600, Bill
> <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>William Hyde wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 1:54:58 PM UTC-5, Bill

>>> wrote:
>>>> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space;
>>>

>>> In physics textbooks written about 1910, maybe, when
>>> electrons were thought to be tiny particles. And sadly
>>> in much popular literature for decades after.
>>>

>>> less than
>>>> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of
>>>> atoms
>>>

>>> That is certainly untrue. Most of the matter in the
>>> universe is not made of atoms"
>>
>>
>>Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
>>
>>or,especially, "More than 99.94% of an atom's mass is in
>>the nucleus."
>>
>>"An atom is the smallest constituent unit of ordinary
>>matter that has the properties of a chemical element.[1]
>>Every solid, liquid, gas, and plasma is composed of
>>neutral or ionized atoms. Atoms are very small; typical
>>sizes are around 100 picometers (a ten-billionth of a
>>meter, in the short scale).
>>
>>What, other than atoms, is the universe made of?
>>
>>Bill
>

> GIYF
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Contents>
>
> Most of the matter in our universe is not baryonic matter,
> but is dark
> matter. Most of what makes up the universe is not matter
> but dark energy.

Here we veer off into conjecture, as expected. Dark matter
exists only as calculations about why the measured mass of
galaxies don't fit theory. Dark matter has not been observed
except as an ad hoc place holder. I'm sure you can correct
me on this ...

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 12:27:05 -0600, the following appeared

Really? Elsethread you stated "Without perception, the

actual existence of anything is unknown which is the same as

non-existent". How do you reconcile that assertion with your
statement above?

> My point is the existence
>of perception itself, the possibility of perceiving. Without
>perception, nothing exists simply because there is no size
>or scale or duration. Once there is perception things emerge
>to be perceived and thought about. Your sophomoric quibbles
>suggest your intent is to deliberately misunderstand.

And your semi-solipsistic maunderings suggest you have no
idea what you really think.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2017 10:43:30 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Bill seems to have retreated to other threads into which he
can inject sophomoric "philosophy". No surprise.

[jillery]

Nope. You did that starting from your first post.

>Dark matter
>exists only as calculations about why the measured mass of
>galaxies don't fit theory. Dark matter has not been observed
>except as an ad hoc place holder. I'm sure you can correct
>me on this ...

Since you know everything already, I'm sure nobody can correct you.

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:

> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 3:55:00 PM UTC-5, Bill
> wrote:
>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:

>>
>> > Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> We are told that an atom is about 99% empty space;

>> >> less
>> than
>> >> 1% has actual existence. Since everything is made of
>> >> atoms

>> it
>> >> must follow that reality is mostly empty space. Yet we

>> >> perceive it as having substance. Whatever we

>> >> experience
>> isn't
>> >> really there which probably means that our perception
>> >> is
>> all
>> >> there really is.
>> >>

> Why should he think about stuff? You've already said that
> our conclusions are determined by what we wanted to
> believe before we started thinking about it anyway.

Is there an example of why this is false?

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

You mean examples of cases in which evidence convinces someone that what they wanted to believe is not true?

Jeez, I can think of so many examples. Lots of physicists who wanted the Higgs boson not to be found or to be found to have a very different mass then predicted, because that would have opened up all sorts of new physics. But they were convinced by the evidence when it was found, even if they were disappointed.

In my own case, when I was a kid, one theory about Venus was that it was covered by a warm, planet-wide ocean, and might support abundant life. I loved the idea. That did not make me doggedly resist the evidence that later came out that Venus was hot, dry, and wrapped in clouds of sulphuric acid.

Or in a more recent case, just a few years ago before I retired I did a study of anti-malarial drug resistance in Cambodia. I hoped to find the first evidence of clinical resistance to Malarone. It would have made a big splash and been a boost to my career. But the data showed that Malarone still worked just fine. There was no resistance. That's what the data said. OK.

Most scientists I know are quite willing to change their minds in the face of evidence. Some, myself included, actually enjoy being proven to have been wrong.

Well, and here's an example of that. For a while I worked on development of a malaria vaccine. We were using DNA vaccines and one possible advantage was that one could combine antigens and immunize against many targets at the same time. With protein vaccines you sometimes get interference between antigens, where an immune response to one antigen in a mixture goes along with a much diminished immune response to another one in the mix. We thought, on the basis of too few experiments, that such was not the case for DNA vaccines. And so for years we went around boosting the modular nature of DNA vaccines and how the responses to individual targets in a "cocktail" of such vaccines were independent and didn't effect each other. Then we did a bigger and better experiment and found that, in fact, there were all sorts of interactions between antigens in the "cocktails," which we had missed because the specific combinations we'd tried in our early experiments just, by luck, didn't happen to interact. Few papers I've published gave me as much pleasure as this one, which proved that we'd been wrong and which contradicted things I'd been spouting off at conferences for several years already. You vastly overestimate the rigidity of scientists, perhaps because you get all your ideas about them from TV.


>
> Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

For the atheists and the Christians yes.

https://youtu.be/91DSNL1BEeY

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 15:34:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

So you don't, and choose to ignore the contradictory
statements you made and again run away? OK.

[Bill]

The paragraph above makes my point. You seem to believe that
misunderstanding offers you some benefit.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:54:06 -0600, the following appeared

Still waiting for you to address this point...

>>>> My point is the existence
>>>>of perception itself, the possibility of perceiving.
>>>>Without perception, nothing exists simply because there
>>>>is no size or scale or duration. Once there is perception
>>>>things emerge to be perceived and thought about. Your
>>>>sophomoric quibbles suggest your intent is to
>>>>deliberately misunderstand.
>
>The paragraph above makes my point. You seem to believe that
>misunderstanding offers you some benefit.

Exactly how does this paragraph resolve your contradictory
statements below:

"I did not limit existence to my perception of it"

"Without perception, the actual existence of anything is
unknown which is the same as non-existent"

[Bill]

Had you read the context of those statements, you would see
that they are consistent. On the other hand, if had read
(and comprehended) those statements, you would have to
provide a relevant response. It's much easier to pretend to
misunderstand so you can misrepresent concepts you don't
like. Then again you might really be as intellectually
challenged as you appear.

Bill

[jillery]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:41:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Since Bill's reply suggests he's not interested in actually answering
your question, my impression is he wasn't referring to *his*
perception in particular, but to perceptions in general.

An irony here is you seem to have misread Bill's comments in exactly
the same way Bill misread Joe Cumming's comments. I pointed out
Bill's misread here:

<nki57c5tc44e0gukt...@4ax.com>

which of course Bill conveniently ignored.

[Bill]

My comments related to the point I was making, Joe Cumming's
comments did not.

Bill

[jillery]

Joe Cumming's comments absolutely related to the point he was making.
More to the point, his point was related to your point. Too bad for
you that your point isn't related to anybody else's point.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:43:37 -0600, the following appeared

I did. They aren't. Two such clear-cut statements don't
require "context" to understand.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:42:42 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Of course he did. Here's what you wrote:

"Joe Cumming uses his personal perception as an example of

peoples' perceptions generally. His argument above isn't
based on his unique perceptions."

While I agree with that comment, I fail to see how it
rescues Bill's statements from being contradictory, since
I'd assume he considers his personal perceptions to be
representative of those of people in general, and reduce to
"what we perceive determines reality". Not "reality for me",
but objective reality. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I
read his comments.

[jillery]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:08:35 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I don't claim or imply that my comment "rescues Bill's statement from
being contradictory". Instead, I referred to Bill's expressed
objection, that Joe's comments are somehow based on Joe's personal
perception. By explicitly noting Bill's logical error, his objection
becomes moot, and so any contradiction based on his objection. So the
discussion can focus on Bill's primary claim, that perceptions
determine existence. That claim is bizarre enough without digressing
into irrelevant asides.

[*Hemidactylus*]

To twist his claim back upon himself Bill is mostly not here. Empty space.
From the OP: "Whatever we experience isn't really there which probably
means that our perception is all there really is." Therefore his argument
isn't really there so I can ignore it. What merit has our buddy Bill when
he pulls the floor out from beneath his own feet?

We as Kant held impose our own laws upon reality but that's OK because we
have ways of subjecting those fallible viewpoints to scrutiny. And pure
reason results in antinomies but as Popper digressed via Hegelian bullshit
that dialectic synthesis was guano. Contradiction is in our head.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:07:24 -0500, the following appeared

OK; thanks for clarifying.

[eridanus]

Think that a dog or a cat can also perceive the world around.
What makes different the human perception to the perception of a cat
or an elephant, or a lion? The main difference is how the animals
react at watching some significant stimuli. I lion can see something
to eat, it has to decide if it can be caught or not. A person walking
in the savanna must calculate in the lion is at a good distance, and if
there is any bush nearby where a lion could be awaiting for you have
some snack food.
What makes civilized humans different to animals when watching some
concrete stimuli? We tend to make a speech. A religious person soon
starts to make a sermon about a god creator doing this or that. He is
totally convinced his sermon is best that can be said before some
concrete stimulus.
But what is really this shit? We are only speaking! We are telling some
shit or other. Is it any deep? It is deep we were programmed to believe
this thinking is deep. But other persons can say you are simply telling
nonsense.

All the building of religious faith is founded on two principles.
1) some things written in a holy book, like the Vedas or the Koran are
holy and the words of good. Koran is the words of god as dictated by
an angel to prophet Mohammad. We cannot dispute this assertion. The Koran
contains the words of god, indirectly by the mediation of an angel. This
is indisputable.
What sort of speech can you make to prove this is wrong? You cannot.
Can you prove the Vedas is a falsification and a swindle? You cannot.

Then, what happens with your reasoning power? You are impotent to prove
this is a fraud.

Then, from where can take so much certainty that you are a rational man?

You are not rational. You only know to make speeches, sermons. You are
a liar like all the rest.

What happens with science, then? In science we also make speeches, or
sermons about this set of elements or other set. We know that a theory
looks good, or it is nice. Or it gave us "a sense of knowing". But at
the same time, we know that a theory, anyone can be wrong. Thus, theories
are provisionally certain, till we know things better. When new data or
theories are invented, we can erase the former explanation and say, this we were saying the last year was wrong. Now the real thing is Theory M or
Theory J.
We are slowly but surely changing our books of science. You only need
to read a book of 18th, 19th or 20th century, to see how the scientific
narrative had been changing. Our faith in science comes because we see
the science is slowly changing. And this is a virtue the religions have not.

All reasoning is provisional, it is a one day flower. We believe in science
reasoning, because we know that in 50 or 100, or 200 hundred years would
change in a significant way. This is the power of science. For its errors
cannot last one thousand years or two, or other certitudes.

In science we are only certain of our uncertainties.

Read this shit.

eri

[eridanus]

You are right. Bill, so far this questions of dark energy and dark
matter look rather something metaphysical. We can say some shit or
other, but it is like speaking of metaphysics. Those questions
are too far off in space, specially the one related to the dark
energy. What is rather miraculous is that humans, only a handful
of them, had been able to detect something as to make an speech
about dark energy. But what shit is this? We have not frigging
idea.

The same can be said about the dark matter. What is it? Who fucking
knows? Someone can come out with a story about the angel Gabriel told
him something about dark matter. But are going to believe this? Only
if he is threating to slitting your throat off. Then you convert. It is
a form of reasoning. If you read the OT can see a lot references to this
procedure.

eri

[Joe Cummings]

I'm posting this for the second time. I oriiginally posted it on Jan.
14th.

Sorry for any cock-ups.

On Mon, 09 Jan 2017 15:24:19 +0100, Joe Cummings
<joecummin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 12:27:05 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>I'll give Bill another day or so to see if he can come up with the
>fifth possibility, and then if he can't, I'll enlighten him.
>
>And I'll do it withour asking for a donation. Unlike creationist
>pastors, I'll do it free of charge
>
>Have relevatory fun,
>
>
>Jor Cummings

I didn't expect Bill to come up with any type of answer to my
invitation , so it wasn't a surprise.

If you look at all of Bill's postings, and there are many, the thread
that runs through them is an assiduous refusal to engage in any
continuous discussion. He mainly uses an attempt at a put-down, as,
for example in his posting of Jan 6th. in answer to my invitation to
do a little experiment - to decide if there was a difference between
our perception and our idea of a thing:

>Your experiment is juvenile. You believe a tree is real
>because you perceive it. I believe the perception i the only
>reality.

or this in reply to my pursuit of the question (Jan 8th).:

>You're not even trying.
>I did not limit existence to my perception of it so we can
>discard that frivolous objection.
> My point is the existence
>of perception itself, the possibility of perceiving. Without
>perception, nothing exists simply because there is no size
>or scale or duration. Once there is perception things emerge
>to be perceived and thought about. Your sophomoric quibbles
>suggest your intent is to deliberately misunderstand.

Now, ever willing to help a lame dog over a stile, I' m going to give
Bill some of the ideas of George Berkeley in the hope that he'll use
them to produce better arguments.

The problem that Berkeley had was the accusation that if his
arguments were right, then there was nothing that existed except my
mind: the world, other people, even God himself were only ideas in my
mind. This is known in the trade as solipsism.

Berkeley, however, was a devout Christian; could he rescue God? His
answer was to say that God was the source of all our perceptions. What
we see, hear, etc;, are the manifestations of the deity.

I like Hemidactylus's identification of God being called Smith and
wearing sunglasses.

Berkeley's ideas were subject to some levity. I'm now going to bore
the pants of everybody by quoting two pieces of doggerel which nicely
sum up the position.

"God in the Quad

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."

That's it for the moment, let's see if a chastened Bill will now try
to put forward more intelligible and intelligent arguments


Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Bill]

Joe Cummings wrote:

...

> If you look at all of Bill's postings, and there are many,
> the thread that runs through them is an assiduous refusal
> to engage in any
> continuous discussion.

My hope was that an interesting discussion might ensue.
Instead I have become the topic of the discussion.

Bill

[jillery]

My impression is that's your intent. Of course, I could be wrong.

And your computer's clock is still out of whack.

[Joe Cummings]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 12:27:49 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Bill is the subject of discussion from the very first post that he
sends - just like everybody else.

But that doesn't even begin to answer the points raised.

We expect better from you , Bill.

Come on, now.


Joe Cummings

[Jonathan]

Not sure who I'm responding to, but if something
has a measurable...effect on other things, it exists.

Otherwise to assert something which does not exist
can have a measurable effect is to assert some kind
of God as the source.

>>>> For me, adopting Bill's argument, I don't know if Bill
>>>> exists.
>>>>
>>>> From the point of view of anyone reading this thread, and
>>>> adopting
>>>> Bill's argument, they would not know if either of us
>>>> existed.
>>>>
>>>> I said at least four possibilities; there is a fifth.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if Bill can see it?
>>>>
>>>> Have fun,
>>>>
>>>> Joe Cummings
>>>
>>> You're not even trying.
>>> I did not limit existence to my perception of it so we can
>>> discard that frivolous objection. My point is the existence
>>> of perception itself, the possibility of perceiving. Without
>>> perception, nothing exists simply because there is no size
>>> or scale or duration. Once there is perception things emerge
>>> to be perceived and thought about. Your sophomoric quibbles
>>> suggest your intent is to deliberately misunderstand.
>>>

Pretty confusing way of saying of course the Earth exists
even if humans did not. But it's important to keep in mind
our perception has tangible effects on Earth, so you
can't separate the two when trying to predict the future.

And science is mostly about predicting.

The basic problem is that this question tries
to compare apples and oranges, reality and
our perception of it.

There can be no resolution as until both can
be dealt with using a common frame of reference.

So the question should be how to deal with both
our environment and our perception of it in
a...single...or compatible scientific method?

Right now we do not, we separate physical and living
realities into countless disciplines each with their
own unique models and lingo.

By shifting to an effects based science, such as
complexity science, that problem vanishes as
all the causes, physical, living or perceptions
are reflected in the output side or effects.

And more importantly, whether something is
made of atoms, mostly empty space, rocks,
ideas or emotions, or nothing at all, becomes
entirely irrelevant. A common mathematical model
can return valid conclusions...regardless

But this requires shifting to a subjective based
model which most here refuse to embrace.

[Joe Cummings]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:30:07 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is a classical illustration of Bill's technique - or absence
thereof:
I'd attemped tto get Bill to develop his ideas on perception, by
referring to Berkeley's ideas.

The answer from Bill was to ignore all I'd said and to claim that he
was a victim.

The funny thing, of course, is that he isn't the only reader of his
posts. Everyone can read them and see Bill's inconsistency - they
aren't just for Bill's enjoyment.

It would be interesting to see if anyone
a)understands what he's saying, and/or
b)agrees with him.

It's really difficult to take him seriously.



Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Earle Jones27]

*
Bill is missing something that many folks here have: The discipline of
education.

I don't mean that he has not gone to many classrooms. He may have.

But posters here such as Steve Carlip, RS Norman, John Harshman, etc.
radiate competence based on the discipline – mental discipline – that
comes from their understanding of science.

earle
*

[jillery]

Attributes are rarely either/or, not entirely one or the other. My
impression is it would be more accurate to say the posters you mention
exercise mental discipline more often.

[Bill]

Joe Cummings wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:30:07 -0600, Bill
> <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Joe Cummings wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>> If you look at all of Bill's postings, and there are
>>> many, the thread that runs through them is an assiduous
>>> refusal to engage in any
>>> continuous discussion.
>>
>>My hope was that an interesting discussion might ensue.
>>Instead I have become the topic of the discussion.
>>
>>Bill
> This is a classical illustration of Bill's technique - or
> absence thereof:
> I'd attemped tto get Bill to develop his ideas on
> perception, by referring to Berkeley's ideas.
>

Berkeley's ideas aren't relevant.

Bill

[Bill]

It may be that their (your) understanding of science is
flawed, leaving it open to alternatives. You assume that
your indoctrination is correct but maybe it's only because
it's the only kind you been exposed to.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joe Cummings wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 18:30:07 -0600, Bill
>> <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Cummings wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> If you look at all of Bill's postings, and there are
>>>> many, the thread that runs through them is an assiduous
>>>> refusal to engage in any
>>>> continuous discussion.
>>>
>>> My hope was that an interesting discussion might ensue.
>>> Instead I have become the topic of the discussion.
>>>
>>> Bill
>> This is a classical illustration of Bill's technique - or
>> absence thereof:
>> I'd attemped tto get Bill to develop his ideas on
>> perception, by referring to Berkeley's ideas.
>>
>
> Berkeley's ideas aren't relevant.
>

Really? Your argument seems from my perception to boil down to
esse=percipi. Since I perceive thus and derive my meaning it must be true.
Your challenge would be to refute me from within the self-contained bubble
you are creating. Your stance hamstrings itself. You effectively become a
one trick pony.

Soon I predict a force of nature shall return from seasonal break to
present itself here that will eclipse you unless you open your mind and
diversify your subject matter.

At least you fixed your clock. Thanks.

[Bill]

I have tried to convey the idea that the realty we humans
perceive is only real to us. The reality in which this
perception occurs is real to the extent that we perceive it.

The perception is real, but only to us. The larger reality
is only known as it relates to us in a context defined by
us. Perception is, fundamentally, a break with the
underlying reality, creating something new.

>
> Soon I predict a force of nature shall return from
> seasonal break to present itself here that will eclipse
> you unless you open your mind and diversify your subject
> matter.
>
> At least you fixed your clock. Thanks.

I'm running linux in a virtualbox instance under Windows 10.
It works well but the linux clock tries to auto update - I
think it's fixed, but who knows ...

Bill

[Joe Cummings]

Really?

Then I cordially invite Bill to itemise the differences between him
and Berkeley - just so that readers can be clear on Bill's position.

Have deniable fun,

Joie Cummings

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:40:52 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

If that's what you've been trying to convey I can only say
that you've been singularly inept at the conveyance.
Statements such as "Without perception, the actual existence
of anything is unknown which is the same as non-existent",
which assert that non-perception equals non-existence, do
not support your latest claim.

>> Soon I predict a force of nature shall return from
>> seasonal break to present itself here that will eclipse
>> you unless you open your mind and diversify your subject
>> matter.
>>
>> At least you fixed your clock. Thanks.
>
>I'm running linux in a virtualbox instance under Windows 10.
>It works well but the linux clock tries to auto update - I
>think it's fixed, but who knows ...
>
>Bill