~ What if it were possible to die? ~

[Arising_uk]

So how do you deal with the idea that the Physics and Chemistry you misuse does not consider Hydrogen the basic element?

I am familiar with the periodic table, name the 'element' that comes before hydrogen, that has less than one valance electron.

"hydrogen is the lightest element and its monatomic form (H1) is the most abundant chemical substance, constituting roughly 75% of the Universe's baryonic mass."

--wikipedia--

Okay, if we're going to be philosophical about this.

Bill is arguing that there is an unbroken chain of events that leads from Hydrogen to us which he says is 'Hydrogen thinking'. Ignoring the obvious objection that there appears to be a vast amount of hydrogen that doesn't 'think' and how would he explain that, his basic premise is based upon the idea of Hydrogen being the simplest element, now 'element' comes from philosophy and its idea is the simplest most basic entity and we now think that this is not the case, before hydrogen atoms even formed there are a the smaller particles, leptons, hadrons, et al, which presumably are more basic than the large hydrogen atom. So he is choosing an arbitrary starting point and as we can see from his last post its because he's read some Ouspensky and is just regurgitating his and Gurdjieff's ideas. So yes, I agree with you, I should have been clearer and in Physics Hydrogen is the simplest element but we're on a philosophy forum and I await his reply as to why he chose such a point as his start, given that he's using Physics and Chemistry for his 'metaphysics'.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


I still maintain my position.

The premise has not been assaulted.



I appreciate the fact that you have attempted to better understand where I am.



You have a position that is constructed for you and you seem to be comfortable.



We are alive. We NEVER experience death. We have an eternity here.



In life, everything is not as it seems...







..............................................................................................







.

[Arising_uk]

.
I still maintain my position.

The premise has not been assaulted.

Bill, given the way you think nothing would assault anything you've decided to believe, its why I think you not suited to philosophy. To maintain your position you'd have to give some justifications or at least some way for others to test what you say other than 'just take my word for it'. This is why I think you a budding gnu.

I appreciate the fact that you have attempted to better understand where I am.

I'd like to say that where you are is around about 18th century philosophy but since you've not read any I'd say you were pretty much the product of the dippy 60's based upon 50's esoterics. Either way I just think you an acolyte poorly trying to fill his masters boots.

You have a position that is constructed for you and you seem to be comfortable.

Nope, I have a position I've constructed from what I studied and experienced.

We are alive. We NEVER experience death. We have an eternity here.

True, we are alive. True, we only experience dying not death, which must puzzle you as you don't think we die. True, life can be an eternity if you wish it so but you'll be dying at the end.

In life, everything is not as it seems...

Theres not really this noun called 'life'. Its a verb in effect. Personally I think you don't understand what it seems so I find it difficult to accept that you think you understand what its not.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



As I said...it's a philosophical concept.


Perhaps a bit too esoteric for here at the Philosophy Now Forums but do not feel bad that you do not understand this.


I have devoted the arc of my life, to a large extent, in the pursuit of truth. The fruits don't always completely translate...


I understand you.




......................................................................


......................Understanding at times comes as quick as lightning but it is ALWAYS in the company of a threatening sky.





.

[Arising_uk]

As I said...it's a philosophical concept.

More specifically its a metaphysical one.

Perhaps a bit too esoteric for here at the Philosophy Now Forums but do not feel bad that you do not understand this.

Nope, its a bit passe for a philosophy forum as its already been said better in the history of philosophy but then you don't read so you'd not know this. Why not try a 'New Age' forum.

I have devoted the arc of my life, to a large extent, in the pursuit of truth. The fruits don't always completely translate...

Then you've not understood truth.

I understand you.

No, you don't.

......................Understanding at times comes as quick as lightning but it is ALWAYS in the company of a threatening sky.

Deeeeeep....

[SpheresOfBalance]

So how do you deal with the idea that the Physics and Chemistry you misuse does not consider Hydrogen the basic element?

I am familiar with the periodic table, name the 'element' that comes before hydrogen, that has less than one valance electron.

"hydrogen is the lightest element and its monatomic form (H1) is the most abundant chemical substance, constituting roughly 75% of the Universe's baryonic mass."

--wikipedia--

Okay, if we're going to be philosophical about this.

Bill is arguing that there is an unbroken chain of events that leads from Hydrogen to us which he says is 'Hydrogen thinking'. Ignoring the obvious objection that there appears to be a vast amount of hydrogen that doesn't 'think' and how would he explain that, his basic premise is based upon the idea of Hydrogen being the simplest element, now 'element' comes from philosophy and its idea is the simplest most basic entity and we now think that this is not the case, before hydrogen atoms even formed there are a the smaller particles, leptons, hadrons, et al, which presumably are more basic than the large hydrogen atom. So he is choosing an arbitrary starting point and as we can see from his last post its because he's read some Ouspensky and is just regurgitating his and Gurdjieff's ideas. So yes, I agree with you, I should have been clearer and in Physics Hydrogen is the simplest element but we're on a philosophy forum and I await his reply as to why he chose such a point as his start, given that he's using Physics and Chemistry for his 'metaphysics'.

The specifics are not as important as the body of the concept, this is what you miss, as it's possibility/probability is all that matters, as witnessed in the vision of one universe.

[Arising_uk]

The specifics are not as important as the body of the concept, ...

This on a philosophy forum!

this is what you miss, as it's possibility/probability is all that matters, as witnessed in the vision of one universe.

Really, so this 'one universe' can be selected at an arbitrary starting point and exclude a whole chunk of its development can it? Especially ironic since it ignores the Physics and Chemistry it bases its thought upon.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The specifics are not as important as the body of the concept, ...

This on a philosophy forum!
As if it matters where it is. I see that what's important here, is that he has a concept. Who is to say that he is finished with it's development. Does it have to be? Who says? You??? How long has philosophy been in the "works" anyway?
I see the possibility of more, contained in a chemical, than man is currently able to see, especially on the quantum level. Such that both sides are full of conjecture. So what's the truth? Flip a coin.

this is what you miss, as it's possibility/probability is all that matters, as witnessed in the vision of one universe.

Really, so this 'one universe' can be selected at an arbitrary starting point and exclude a whole chunk of its development can it? Especially ironic since it ignores the Physics and Chemistry it bases its thought upon.
Was not life on planet earth an arbitrary starting point. You forget to look at the accepted conventional truth of things. Hydrogen was the first chemical element, is that an arbitrary starting point, it was the first of something new, never seen before. Is it not true that life on planet earth started as chemical soup.

The problem I see in talking of things so long ago, is that one cannot possibly know, with certainty. Sure some 'guess's' are more informed than others, but that does not necessarily bear on their accuracy.

[Hjarloprillar]

"You forget to look at the accepted conventional truth of things"

I use the one freedom i have . to work things out for myself.
Conventional truth is that which does not get you stoned to death.
Tell that to Einstein. When he flipped conventional truth out the window.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"You forget to look at the accepted conventional truth of things"

I use the one freedom i have . to work things out for myself.
Conventional truth is that which does not get you stoned to death.
Tell that to Einstein. When he flipped conventional truth out the window.

Yet, he added to it, or so, many believe.

[artisticsolution]

So what's the truth? Flip a coin.[/color]

But isn't getting to the truth more than just flipping a coin?

Okay...so I take your point that we may never be able to know all truth, however, shouldn't we at least try by making informed decisions instead of flipping a coin?

For example, why even say 42+88=130 if we could get to the answer by flip of the coin?

[SpheresOfBalance]

So what's the truth? Flip a coin.[/color]

But isn't getting to the truth more than just flipping a coin?

Okay...so I take your point that we may never be able to know all truth, however, shouldn't we at least try by making informed decisions instead of flipping a coin?

For example, why even say 42+88=130 if we could get to the answer by flip of the coin?

Actually, by saying, "So what's the truth? Flip a coin." I was making comment on the current state of our knowledge as to the particular subject that was at hand, so as to say neither side of the argument was necessarily right or wrong, as, at this time, it's a coin toss.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






Along those same lines...

Our intellect functions in a clear defined way; yes/no, up/down, black/white, positive/negative...either/or.

We live in a multidimensional continuum.



Meaning that intellectually, if there is a black there must also exist an opposite...white, and ALL the shades of grey in-between.


So, ANY thing that we can state as true must also, by definition, in another framework, be equally false.


If we try hard enough, we could make the argument that up is down...black is white...etc.












...............................................................






.

[Hjarloprillar]

"You forget to look at the accepted conventional truth of things"

I use the one freedom i have . to work things out for myself.
Conventional truth is that which does not get you stoned to death.
Tell that to Einstein. When he flipped conventional truth out the window.

Yet, he added to it, or so, many believe.

Trade a 2 0f clubs ? i would. unless i had 2

[Arising_uk]

As if it matters where it is. I see that what's important here, is that he has a concept. Who is to say that he is finished with it's development. Does it have to be? Who says? You??? ...

I wasn't talking about Bills 'pass the bong' concept. I was talking about your assertion that the specifics of a concept don't matter in philosophy.

... How long has philosophy been in the "works" anyway? ...

About 2000 odd years and in that time its come to many conclusions and decisions about whats meaningless and pointless to talk about, Bill's 'concept' is one of them.

I see the possibility of more, contained in a chemical, than man is currently able to see, especially on the quantum level. Such that both sides are full of conjecture. So what's the truth? Flip a coin.

I hear more metaphysical nonsense with respect to physics and chemistry and especially with respect to philosophy. You can pretty much always tell when the words "quantum level" appear.

Was not life on planet earth an arbitrary starting point. You forget to look at the accepted conventional truth of things. Hydrogen was the first chemical element, is that an arbitrary starting point, it was the first of something new, never seen before. Is it not true that life on planet earth started as chemical soup.

That and comets and asteroids but what does this have to do with the idea that hydrogen 'thinks'?

Bills 'concept' abuses the term 'thinking' and he, and you I guess, want such ideas as you wish to have some greater purpose for 'life'.

The problem I see in talking of things so long ago, is that one cannot possibly know, with certainty. Sure some 'guess's' are more informed than others, but that does not necessarily bear on their accuracy.

And most guesses of this sort shouldn't even be entertained as having any meaning, philosophically that is. Nice when toking the bong but nonsense per se.