More Denton: A new book (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, March 13, 2016, 13:49 (3177 days ago) @ David Turell

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:-STRASSLER: “The term “pure energy” is a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage.”-DAVID: 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.-I am well aware that you have your own ideas. I am merely pointing out that Strassler has explained some of the confusion and that he regards your concept of ”pure” energy as a mix of poetry, shorthand and garbage. We needn't argue about it, as it does not affect the discussion below.-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.
DAVID: 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.-I don't know why you keep bringing Darwin and/or Nagel into the discussion. We know that nobody can explain consciousness (even Dawkins acknowledges that it is a mystery). If one explanation for the existence of consciousness is an unknown form of consciousness that has existed throughout eternity, we might just as well argue that consciousness can be explained by an unknown combination of energy and matter which occurred at an unknown moment during eternity.-DAVID: 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?-The confusion is entirely your own. I don't know how often I have said that I can accept eternal energy and matter as a first cause. And I have NEVER said that the source of life and consciousness is not unknown! The source of both is unknown (or is that what you meant to say?). Nor do I accept that they “might just” exist - you are quoting the objection I raise to your assumption of an eternal consciousness with NO source. See above for my alternative of "becoming", though I do not “accept” that either. I am an agnostic. As for my theory about intelligent organisms, it relates to how evolution works. The source of that intelligence remains unknown, but might be your God.