Re: Re: My theory
Originally posted by Raithere
Originally posted by hobbes
Your expressing this opinion as fact. Please don't try to teach me.
What has lead you to the conclusions that you state as fact here?
(its really as much conjecture as anything i've said)
I will give you that these are all only models… all such concepts are. However, the most accurate models to date are those that have moved away from the atomic structure. You'll need to do more than simply propose that the currently favored models are dead wrong… do you any evidence or argument to support this proposition?
You need to do more then just quote the most popular scientific theories of the time. At one time we even thought the world was flat. Do you have any evidence or arguments to support your claims? As the most popular current scientific beliefs it should be easy to provide such proof. You have yet to do so.
More to the point, even the atomic models included energy…
how do you have a universe without energy?
You did not understand what I was saying it seems.
There is energy it just doesn't exist as itself but only as the movement of mass and there is such movement in atoms.
In addition your statement "Which means you can't convert energy to mass and back if energy is only the movement of mass." is demonstrably incorrect. Fission creates a loss of mass which directly converted to energy. E=MC^2.
If energy only exist as the velocity/movement of matter then that means energy can not exist on its own which means energy and mass can not be converted back and forth.
As far as things like nuclear power and bombs that is the release of said movement within the atoms of the material in question.
Its like popping a balloon. While the air is in the balloon it is contained and seems solid. When you pop the balloon the random movement of air within the balloon forces itself out as the pressure out side the balloon is so much less. Does that mean the matter/air within the balloon was converted to energy? No its just that that mass was released. Something like a atomic bomb is the same. You are causing a chain reaction that "pops" all the atoms around it thereby popping more atoms and so on.
Well in theory part of there soul would exist and develop outside of the exoskeleton of the nervous system which means a soul development with a unusual nature compared to others. But not necessarily deformed.
Okay.
Here's another question: At what point during life do these soul particles begin to attach? Also, is one particle enough for a soul?
How many are required before a being can be said to have a soul?
How many cells equal a person? Does one cell equal a person?
Do a bunch of them? When does a person become a person while in the womb? When fertilization happens?
Find the answers to these questions and you will find the answer to your own questions concerning how many particles equal a soul.
There are three basic kinds of intelligence.
Information is what/one dimensional- building blocks.
cunning is how/2d- Adding those building blocks together to create advanced items.
wisdom is why/3d- Is being more then the sum of your parts.
I can follow your logic here but I'm wondering if you can use it to explain anything other than this particular concept…
Yes I can.
silicon=knowledge.
circuit board=cunning.
computer=wisdom
alot of silicon does not necessarily equal a computer. Neither does a pile of circuit boards.
Ones thoughts affect ones self and soul not ones actions.
Again, how? How does thought change the pattern of "soul particles" that have adhered themselves to one's nervous system?
If they adhere to ones nerves system that means there affected by the nerves system forming itself in the same shape as that pattern.
Ones thoughts affect the pattern of nerves in there brain which affects there soul
The point is something having massive amounts of data doesn't automatically make it complex.
It depends on what is done with the data. An interactive system will be more complex the more data it has. Consider a tank with one atom in it… not much going on and very simple. Then consider a tank with a million atoms in it… it is inherently a more complex system.
Also… according to your model of intelligence, raw data are the building blocks of higher intelligence. Wouldn't it fit then that the more raw data one has the more cunning and wisdom one has? After all, if I have 1 raw data I cannot build any cunning or wisdom. If I have 9 raw data I can build 3 wisdoms.
Which is more advanced? a 10 tons of sand or one crystal glass swan?
The point is that while you need some knowledge to make cunning and wisdom. A whole bunch of it doesn't necessarily add up to cunning or wisdom. Sometimes it can be counterproductive.
Which is stronger? A sword made of stainless steel. Or a sword twice the size as the one i mentioned earlier made with a mix of stainless steel and aluminum or gold?
Blacksmiths hammer out the air and work out the impurities in there metal mix when trying to make a weapon such as a sword. Even air is rigorously beaten out of the mix.
Why? because they know more metal isn't necessarily better its all about the quality and purity of the metal.
You need some metal to make a sword and some sand to make a crystal glass swan. More doesn't necessarily mean a better sword or a better swan.
One more analogy. Is 10 gigabyes of data that is random ones and zeros more advanced then even the smallest of programs?
Some information can be destructive. With both computers and souls.
Can you provide any example of how information, itself, is destructive?
~Raithere [/B]
I did already,
A computer virus. It is information that destroys other information.
heres another one. Information to a city that everyone needs to evactuae is good. Information that they need to evacuate because a swarm of terrible mutants that are going to torture and kill everyone is bad because of the mass panic it would cause which would ultimately make it harder to get everyone out.
(ok so the analogy is a little outlandish. You get what I mean though right?)