I don't go with Craig on the 'answer' - but we don't know what matter or energy is - we construct notions of such in the present including the notion some 'stuff' is older than us. Whitehead's 'occasions of experience' perhaps. We sidestep a lot of ontology with method. If you waft a bit of lead carbonate in a test tube in a Bunsen flame for a while it will turn yellow. That is, on Earth in normal lab conditions. You could check this out if arsed. A blind man would need a sighter he could trust. If I draw two line on a flip chart, one slightly shorter than the other and get a collaborator to point to the short one and say it is the longest - most will follow the lie and point to the wrong one. A ruler becomes the arbiter. Much of science is about keeping cheating slackers and dumb sheep behaviour out. Particles are just accounting devices and theories accounting systems. Science likes to mark to what it posits as reality - unlike banks. What that reality is - fuck knows - but just hold the top of this Leiden Jar Nom - the shock will only be nominal (or Nominal's?). Make me a radio based on some goon's ideas about health giving crystals - or try Wireless World (I was once an addict). Tropical fish realism works - but this doesn't negate what Craig has to say and neither does it not working for me. Locke left room for something more speculative than the empirical.
On 26 Nov, 18:49, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > The way that it makes sense to me is that energy is only the experience of > matter interacting with matter, and matter is only experience divorced from > any given participant. To you, your life is images, feelings, thoughts. To > me is it a body or brain - materials having an effect on other materials in > the world. > > Our idea of energy and information are the two greatest obstacles to our > understanding. We have objectified them as existential pseudo-substances, > but I think that the reality is that energy and information are nothing but > arbitrarily depersonalized sensory-motor experience. Information is sensory > input, energy is motor output, each of which define and constrain each > other.. Period. > > > > > > > > On Monday, November 26, 2012 1:36:54 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > > I have a "teasing" question for the both of you....Socrates and > > Archytas....are Energy and Matter (interchangeable and mutable as they may > > be)... both "physical"... or are they just "conceptual"....same question > > put differently ... are Energy and Matter an "idea" or are they an actual > > "real" thing?....Sometimes I think "scientists" get lost in their > > "abstractions"..... of formulas and mathematics...theories and > > hypotheses....Me... I think that Energy and Matter are Objective, actually > > "there" and "real"....but I'm just a lowly lay-person.... > > > On Saturday, September 8, 2012 11:16:00 AM UTC-4, socr...@bezeqint.netwrote: > > >> Our Modern Scientific Philosophy. > >> =. > >> The simplest atom hydrogen consists of electron and proton. > >> Question. > >> Where did electron and proton come from? > >> Answer. > >> Electron and proton came from big bang. > >> Question. > >> Where the did big bang come from? > >> Answer. > >> The big bang was created when all electrons and protons > >> and all another particles were pressed into a singular point. > >> ==.. > >> If you don’t believe in such philosophy – you are an ignorant man. > >> =. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
