More Denton: A new book (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, March 12, 2016, 15:20 (3178 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Clearly, then, most of what you define as energy can also be defined as matter, and the others he calls “force particles”. As for “pure” energy:-
> “The term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.”-Strassler, as you state, is a favorite of mine. I can use his science explanations of a very complex area as a starting point for my own conclusions. He admits the definitions are controversial when discussing the particles. He is a lumper not a splitter in viewing this. Note they are sized in electron-volts, pure energy, not height and weight. And quark-gluon plasmas, pure energy, appear very briefly at the LHC.-> 
> dhw: However, we are really being sidetracked here, and it's my fault for dragging you into technicalities. If your God exists, you believe that he is some kind of eternal, pure, conscious energy, and that he turned his own conscious energy into what we now recognize as matter, regardless of definitions.-Yes. 'Energy is eternal' is my starting point.-> dhw: But even if we accept a first cause of “pure” energy, it makes just as much/little sense to say that this energy unconsciously turned itself into “matter”, and this process itself engendered consciousness, though we don't know at what point energy/matter became conscious. We are back to the fact that “being” conscious is no more of a solution to the mystery than “becoming” conscious.-Yes, there is much we do not 'know', but we do know consciousness exists, and Darwin does not explain it. Thus Nagel. My thought remains that it always existed as a part of eternal energy, the best current answer to the problem. A rocky planet cannot be the inventor of life and consciousness without help.
> 
> Dhw: Teleology simply denotes purpose, not one person's idea of one particular purpose.-> DAVID: Agreed. I use it for explanation, do you?
> 
> dhw: Or evolution is driven by intelligent organisms whose purpose is to survive and/or improve (as opposed to it being driven by a computer programme whose purpose is to produce humans).-Your thoughts above about consciousness above make your theory about intelligent organisms confusing. The source of neither is unknown in your view. You simply accept they might just exist? No first cause?