What does "Sense of Life" mean?

[tjohnson]

Actually a PET scan only shows brain waves. To use your standard, you only presume these waves are related to thinking since the actual thinking does not show up.

How does a PET scan show "brain waves"? What do you mean by brain wave?

[BaalChatzaf]

Actually a PET scan only shows brain waves. To use your standard, you only presume these waves are related to thinking since the actual thinking does not show up.

How does a PET scan show "brain waves"? What do you mean by brain wave?

A PET scan picks up positron concentrations in the blood. A radioactive trace element is injected and the trace elements concentrate in those areas of the brain where there is increased neurological activity. What it comes down to is that the blood goes where the thinking is going on and it shows up on the scan. It can be seen in real time, so in a sense one can see himself thinking.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

In a sense!!???

You mean like something a mind would imagine?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

If you want to play brainwaves, go here (for a very brief introduction). If you want a toy to play with, go here. It's free for a month. After that there is some nagware added before you can use it if you do not register. Al least it used to be that way.

Michael

[UncleJim]

Does you're thinking show up on a scan? No! Then you're brain does not think - Right?

Sure your brain does specific kinds of things. Some of these are explained as being done by its mind function.

Actually "thinking" does show up as increased blood flow or metabolism at certain sites in the brain, if I am not mistaken. It is physically impossible for any activity attributed to "the mind" to not occur in the brain.

When it became obvious that the human brain functions significantly differently from any other brain that created a need for a new word to designate that fact. That word is - mind.

[tjohnson]

When it became obvious that the human brain functions significantly differently from any other brain that created a need for a new word to designate that fact. That word is - mind.

I use the word 'mind' all the time. What's on your mind? But I know it's only an expression and there is no physical thing called "the mind". One could easily say "what do you think?" instead. This statement doesn't imply existence of an object, "a mind", but rather a process which, of course, occurs in the brain.

[UncleJim]

What does "Sense of Life" mean. And assuming it is meaningful, can it be determined objectively to the extent that there will be agreement among independent witnesses as to what it is?

Or is it merely a subjective judgment on the way someone lives, thinks, expresses him/her self?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Try this experiment.

Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence.

The existence of Life is independent of consciousness.

What you may instead be asking is "what emotion is naturally associated with knowing that life exists?." Or it may have to do with "is another acting properly with respect to what life is."

[BaalChatzaf]

Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence.

The baby (if it is alive) will piss in your hand. The rock won't.

In addition to which the baby is 70 percent water and the rock is not.

Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that, that difference exists? We sense its existence.

The baby (if it is alive) will piss in your hand. The rock won't.

In addition to which the baby is 70 percent water and the rock is not.

Next question?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I didn't ask a question. I made a statement. See the blue highlight above. Do you agree with that statement or not?

[BaalChatzaf]

Try this experiment.

Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence.

A more accurate way of telling whether something is alive is to look, listen, smell, feel and prod. That is why we have senses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

Try this experiment.

Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence.

A more accurate way of telling whether something is alive is to look, listen, smell, feel and prod. That is why we have senses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

See the blue highlight above. That's what I said!

Your origional question was: "What does "Sense of Life" mean. And assuming it is meaningful, can it be determined objectively to the extent that there will be agreement among independent witnesses as to what it is?"

"Agreement" has nothing at all to do with determining whether or not someone knows what they are talking about.

[BaalChatzaf]

Try this experiment.

Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence.

A more accurate way of telling whether something is alive is to look, listen, smell, feel and prod. That is why we have senses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

See the blue highlight above. That's what I said!

Your origional question was: "What does "Sense of Life" mean. And assuming it is meaningful, can it be determined objectively to the extent that there will be agreement among independent witnesses as to what it is?"

"Agreement" has nothing at all to do with determining whether or not someone knows what they are talking about.

People do make mistakes. The best way to eliminate error is through independent witness. That is why scientific protocol demands experiments be reproduced by independent parties. Cross checking eliminates many errors.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

People do make mistakes. The best way to eliminate error is through independent witness. That is why scientific protocol demands experiments be reproduced by independent parties. Cross checking eliminates many errors.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What do you mean by "error"? How do we know when an "error" has occurred? When what we say contradicts reality!

It's not the "cross checking" which eliminates errors - it's reality. Reality is the final arbiter.

[BaalChatzaf]

People do make mistakes. The best way to eliminate error is through independent witness. That is why scientific protocol demands experiments be reproduced by independent parties. Cross checking eliminates many errors.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What do you mean by "error"? How do we know when an "error" has occurred? When what we say contradicts reality!

It's not the "cross checking" which eliminates errors - it's reality. Reality is the final arbiter.

To measure is to know. How do you think we know anything about the world? We look. We measure.

Let me guess. You do NOT do any kind of scientific work for a living. Did I get that right?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

People do make mistakes. The best way to eliminate error is through independent witness. That is why scientific protocol demands experiments be reproduced by independent parties. Cross checking eliminates many errors.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What do you mean by "error"? How do we know when an "error" has occurred? When what we say contradicts reality!

It's not the "cross checking" which eliminates errors - it's reality. Reality is the final arbiter.

To measure is to know. How do you think we know anything about the world? We look. We measure.

Let me guess. You do NOT do any kind of scientific work for a living. Did I get that right?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why does being characterized as a 'scientist' matter? I'm a degreed mechanical engineer from MSU and retired from GMC dept. of manufacturing engineering.

You have it backward. To know is to be able to measure. Whether or not the measurement is of any value, is another issue. The value of the measurement is determined by that which is known to exist; not by the method used to do the measuring.

If the resultant of a measurement is wrong; then used anyway, one will experience unexpected consequences.

[BaalChatzaf]

You have it backward. To know is to be able to measure. Whether or not the measurement is of any value, is another issue. The value of the measurement is determined by that which is known to exist; not by the method used to do the measuring.

If the resultant of a measurement is wrong; then used anyway, one will experience unexpected consequences.

Really? How do you know how long your bookshelf is? Answer: You measure it.

How do you know how much money there is in your wallet? Answer: You look in your wallet and count what is there.

Look/feel , measure, compare, contrast. That is how we come to know stuff. We also learn from listening, tasting and smelling but vision/touch are the major senses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

You have it backward. To know is to be able to measure. Whether or not the measurement is of any value, is another issue. The value of the measurement is determined by that which is known to exist; not by the method used to do the measuring.

If the resultant of a measurement is wrong; then used anyway, one will experience unexpected consequences.

Really? How do you know how long your bookshelf is? Answer: You measure it.

How do you know how much money there is in your wallet? Answer: You look in your wallet and count what is there.

Look/feel , measure, compare, contrast. That is how we come to know stuff. We also learn from listening, tasting and smelling but vision/touch are the major senses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Can you measure the length of your bookshelf if you don't know that it has a length which can be measured? No!

You must first know that something exists prior to being able to measure what it is.

[Wolf DeVoon]

On measurement of moral character and knowing that it exists, see this excellent Interfluidity blog post on JP Morgan the man (not the firm). Bad protection drove out good, with three buckets of evidence totalling about $2 trillion: wannabe triple A, no-buyer-for triple A, and BS-on-a-stick.

W.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[tjohnson]

Can you measure the length of your bookshelf if you don't know that it has a length which can be measured? No!

No, no, no. The bookshelf does not have a length, what it has is enough rigidity and permanence that we are able to measure it and select a number which we call it's 'length'.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Can you measure the length of your bookshelf if you don't know that it has a length which can be measured? No!

No, no, no. The bookshelf does not have a length, what it has is enough rigidity and permanence that we are able to measure it and select a number which we call it's 'length'.

Tragic really, your faith in subjectivism. The bookshelf has countable, finite, unchanging molecules -- length at mean temp/press. Here, son, chew on some more size, height, and depth in dollars and cents:

New York Times:

“You get to where people can’t trade with each other,” said James L. Melcher, president of Balestra Capital, a hedge fund based in New York. “If the Fed hadn’t acted this morning and Bear did default on its obligations, then that could have triggered a very widespread panic and potentially a collapse of the financial system." Already, investors are considering whether another firm might face financial problems. The price for insuring Lehman Brothers’ debt jumped to $478 per $10,000 in bonds on Friday afternoon, from $385 in the morning, according to Thomson Financial.

AP via Globe & Mail:

Federal Reserve officials likely were worried about a domino effect if Bear Stearns were to fall into bankruptcy, leaving other companies who have lent money to the investment bank in the lurch. That could cause a chain reaction, potentially threatening the financial system. Indeed, fears have grown that other financial firms could be at risk. "It's the cockroach theory: There's never [just] one," said Joan McCullough, an analyst with East Shore Partners Inc. in New York.

;)

[tjohnson]

The bookshelf has countable, finite, unchanging molecules -- length at mean temp/press.

No it doesn't.

[BaalChatzaf]

Can you measure the length of your bookshelf if you don't know that it has a length which can be measured? No!

No, no, no. The bookshelf does not have a length, what it has is enough rigidity and permanence that we are able to measure it and select a number which we call it's 'length'.

Tragic really, your faith in subjectivism. The bookshelf has countable, finite, unchanging molecules -- length at mean temp/press. Here, son, chew on some more size, height, and depth in dollars and cents:

The quantum states of the electron in the molecules are constantly changing. This is because the material of the bookshelf is heated by radiation and conduction from the surrounding region of space. Not only that, but molecules of the air occasionally bind onto the material of the bookshelf and atoms from the bookshelf occasionally fly off. So the number of molecules and their quantum states is constantly changing.

However, the changes are small enough so that a bookshelf has sufficiently rigidity to be measured by either a light signal or a sufficiently rigid measuring stick.A length with small variance can be measured. Matter is in constant motion. Even at (so-called) absolute zero there is motion (Google zero point energy).

If you want to learn some physics (and you do need the lessons) you can get the best free physics book ever published at

http://www.motionmountain.net/

This book is a labor of love and for those who are not professionally involved in physics the mathematical level is reasonably manageable.

Christopher Schiller, the author, dedicates an entire section to the fact that nothing anywhere is fully at rest. Furthermore the levels of action are quantified. There does not exist an infinitesimally small but non-zero level of action (measured as work x time). Which is why everything thing is jiggling.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

If you want to learn some physics (and you do need the lessons) Ba'al Chatzaf

No. The 'jiggling' physical universe is rigid and Newtonian enough for my purposes. A few half-microns one way or the other doesn't bother me or Intel or anyone else who has to build, grow food, fly aircraft, keep the lights on -- and you know it. Argument from intimidation doesn't work on Objectivists.

[BaalChatzaf]

If you want to learn some physics (and you do need the lessons) Ba'al Chatzaf

No. The 'jiggling' physical universe is rigid and Newtonian enough for my purposes. A few half-microns one way or the other doesn't bother me or Intel or anyone else who has to build, grow food, fly aircraft, keep the lights on -- and you know it. Argument from intimidation doesn't work on Objectivists.

Newtonian Physics is not correct. It is Galilean Invariant and this has been empirically falsified. Newtonian Physics works when velocities and speeds are small compared to that of light and masses are not great. Newtonian Physics is fine for building bridges and sending probes to the outer parts of the solar system. Newtonian physics is false for describing atoms, does not address electromagnetic fields and does not correctly describe and predict gravitation.

The falsification of Newtonian physics is not intimidation. It is Fact.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

Newtonian Physics is fine for building bridges and sending probes to the outer parts of the solar system.

Har de har har. Like you don't think bridges or communication satellites are important. Note also that probing Pluto is foremost in your manner of thought and expression. Lastly, let's discuss whether Einstein failed. Practical technologists built the atomic weapons you covet, doc.

You know what? - I have to quit this. Arguing with you goes nowhere and does nothing. Never has.