Don’t know much or anything of the proper terms for what follows.

If say the earth spinning and orbiting the sun, and moon around the earth and so on I described as a ‘geometry of forces’/GOF (crude likely I know but bear with me), and this involves a composite of non-material forces and materials (not sure where light fits into that), what would be the extent GOF contributes to both life emerging and life evolving.

What I am considering is that something like gravity, a non-material ‘force’, is everywhere and always has been. Nothing of the composite of ontogeny and phylogeny exists without a profound influence of gravity.

To jump to the point, abruptly (not that it’ll matter because it’s likely a bit crazy anyway) – if the activities of the human brain were to be fully mapped to the point of being near a complete explanation, would gravity and the lessons over time from GOF feature in the explanation of the workings of the brain.

I am suggesting GOF inbeds order in living structures.

Further of the craziness, is it possible GOF may be involved in consciousness. That somehow the non-material and material interactions promoted the higher faculties, combinatorially, that the experience of the force mentioned required some abstract process in addition basic sense feeling for material things.

May I ask what you mean by the terms “material” and “non-material”?

Gravity for example is not a material thing. And I know matter is made up of things involving forces, but they seem somewhat different to gravity.

The question more so is to do with if you modeled the full workings of the human mind, fully explained it, would that involve in-part an explanation of the history of the organism (phyl and ont’) and embedment of order from what I described as GOF.

And I know matter is made up of things involving forces,

Hmmmm… I’d say forces describe the way things interact, not what they’re made of.

>Hmmmm… I’d say forces describe the way things interact, not what they’re made of

That’s true but shifts the interesting thing to “interact”.

The point is something like gravity exists, it’s invisible, intangible one could say, yet it is the most pervasise and solid ‘compass’ you could hope for.

So my point is, if the mind were comprehensively modeled, will that in-part involve GOF, the history of as applies to evolving organisms and their ontogeny, and further consciousness and what makes it possible.

transition said:

>Hmmmm… I’d say forces describe the way things interact, not what they’re made of

That’s true but shifts the interesting thing to “interact”.

The point is something like gravity exists, it’s invisible, intangible one could say, yet it is the most pervasise and solid ‘compass’ you could hope for.

So my point is, if the mind were comprehensively modeled, will that in-part involve GOF, the history of as applies to evolving organisms and their ontogeny, and further consciousness and what makes it possible.

i know those words, yet your post makes no sense.

Start from something like biology exists before the learned subject existed. Like you had a biology before the word, or word-concept existed.

Consider in a similar way geometry existed before the learned subject existed.

Consider the workings (physics and physical forces involved) of the earth you stand on and the solar system you live within (and similarly of your ancestors and life more broadly you descended from) to involve physical constants and variations. Imagine planet earth’s orbiting the sun and it spinning around an axis etc to be something like clockwork (like ‘mechanisms’ perhaps). The orbits and rotations provide energy gradients courtesy of solar radiation cycles.

Now consider things like gravity, spinning, axis relation to the sun and such things have a geometry about them. Crudely put like the geometry in mechanical mechanism.

The question is of the likelihood something of this ‘geometry of forces’ producing ordering structure, in organic things being what I’m interested in.

The question is of the proposition of completely modeling the human mind, would it require in-part something of the geometry of forces at work through bio-history (and perhaps of that previous) to make it complete.

Consider an onion…

Now consider things like gravity, spinning, axis relation to the sun and such things have a geometry about them.
——————————————

Rest your mind, Geometry is just a co-incidence.

Apparently.

>…..Geometry is just a co-incidence.

Gravity too?

Gravity too?
———————

Well yes now you mention it….

If the big bang was perfect… And all matter was equally spread…

Nothing would have happened.

So the inflict of gravity and its observable effects are only because matter wasn’t displaced equally.

Ergo if the Universe was perfect… Gravity would have no co-incidence, to co-inside with and that.

Mr Ironic, not dulling my pick.

What’s the minimum required to call something ‘geometry’, the essence, perhaps I can start there.

maybe a point, and line

the essence, perhaps I can start there.

maybe a point, and line
——————————————-

Yeah I’m not sure you are talking to the correct persona…

That being said, points and lines are human constructs which may or may not be co-insidious.

The essence, I presume, is your belief in it…

Which starts another progression of thought…

Is being conscious a proponent of being conscious…

Really now. does this enhance or retard the proponent?

….

Give us an idea how you stand up, vertical, and as stable as you do.

transition said:

Give us an idea how you stand up, vertical, and as stable as you do.

drink slowly…..

Riff-in-Thyme said:

transition said:

Give us an idea how you stand up, vertical, and as stable as you do.

drink slowly…..

I concur.

No-one would deny that those aspects of nature studied by physics obviously have an essential relationship with and influence on those aspects of nature studied by biology. But you seem to ascribe this to “immaterial” factors, which doesn’t seem to mean anything. When physicists talk of mass and gravity etc, they’re using fairly precisely defined terms to represent empirical phenomena whose nature and relationships are described mathematically. The mathematical (including geometric) descriptions don’t somehow convert empirical phenomena into unphysical stuff.

Bubblecar said:

No-one would deny that those aspects of nature studied by physics obviously have an essential relationship with and influence on those aspects of nature studied by biology. But you seem to ascribe this to “immaterial” factors, which doesn’t seem to mean anything. When physicists talk of mass and gravity etc, they’re using fairly precisely defined terms to represent empirical phenomena whose nature and relationships are described mathematically. The mathematical (including geometric) descriptions don’t somehow convert empirical phenomena into unphysical stuff.

mandelbrot?

>No-one would deny that those aspects of nature studied by physics obviously have an essential relationship with and influence on those aspects of nature studied by biology. But you seem to ascribe this to “immaterial” factors, which doesn’t seem to mean anything. When physicists talk of mass and gravity etc, they’re using fairly precisely defined terms to represent empirical phenomena whose nature and relationships are described mathematically. The mathematical (including geometric) descriptions don’t somehow convert empirical phenomena into unphysical stuff”

In fact I’m not much more than chucking around an idea car.

There is no question the order (structures and their relationships) in and of organisms in ways are representative of non-organic material (including energy like the sun) relationships that make up an environment.

All I’m doing it contemplating how all those happened upon events contributing to the emergence and evolution of life (including consciousness) came to arrive at, for example of humans we do intuitive math and physics of sorts.

What I am proposing is that basic forces are ‘teacher’ of sorts, and that something like gravity, orbit geometries and kinetic energy and such provide ‘lessons’, as does the experience of the human body-vehicle evolved within (and ‘of’) the physics of the world.

Now, the throught experiment I’m putting forward is via way of a question.

If you modelled the complete workings of the human mind – came near a full explanation – would it involve something of the history of experience of the physical forces with which individual (ontogeny – expression of a lifetime) and history of ancestors (phylogeny). experienced.

Point being would a fully explanatory ‘model’ have to involve an explanation of abiogenesis?

>If you modelled the complete workings of the human mind – came near a full explanation – would it involve something of the history of experience of the physical forces with which individual (ontogeny – expression of a lifetime) and history of ancestors (phylogeny). experienced.

Point being would a fully explanatory ‘model’ have to involve an explanation of abiogenesis?<

Depends on how complete a picture you want to build :)

I’d imagine a big fat book on the subject would want to begin from the very beginning.

bedtime thought. how to rephrase the OP question…

is consciousness the dominant equilibrium of the universe? The minds of this world have found a use for every element that exists. Oceans of water and many of the elements that we make use of are only stable in this seemingly unlikely environment we inhabit. Long story short, is the universe a bubble in a dream?

>is consciousness the dominant equilibrium of the universe? The minds of this world have found a use for every element that exists. Oceans of water and many of the elements that we make use of are only stable in this seemingly unlikely environment we inhabit. Long story short, is the universe a bubble in a dream?”

No, more I’m saying the physical forces around us, the constants and those cyclic (and more) are ‘teacher’ involved in the emergence and evolution of life here on earth. Order is conveyed by favourable circumstances. I am saying the math (computation more broadly) we do has an origin in some type of physical geometry that predates life. That this is made possible by referencing to a force or forces that are not material things, but physically real.

transition said:

>is consciousness the dominant equilibrium of the universe? The minds of this world have found a use for every element that exists. Oceans of water and many of the elements that we make use of are only stable in this seemingly unlikely environment we inhabit. Long story short, is the universe a bubble in a dream?”

No, more I’m saying the physical forces around us, the constants and those cyclic (and more) are ‘teacher’ involved in the emergence and evolution of life here on earth. Order is conveyed by favourable circumstances. I am saying the math (computation more broadly) we do has an origin in some type of physical geometry that predates life. That this is made possible by referencing to a force or forces that are not material things, but physically real.

:) I like your thinking..

If I am right, and this has also influenced and shaped the human social instincts/faculties(which involve ‘computation’), and our perceptions and conceptions of ‘temporality’ I’ll call it are also strongly influenced by this, then our understanding of time will also be strongly influenced by such things. Or, ‘time’ as conceived will strongly influence the ‘now’ felt to be acting upon us. This would make the trip back to the order derived from the geometry of forces (understanding it) no straightforward task.

Some crazy thoughts is all.

transition said:

Some crazy thoughts is all.

did you get a zoning permit for that?

>did you get a zoning permit for that?

Yeah it is a bit like that, this ‘modern’ world.

transition said:

>did you get a zoning permit for that?

Yeah it is a bit like that, this ‘modern’ world.

at least we haven’t developed a genetic predisposition to goose-stepping stiff armed salutes

transition said:

>is consciousness the dominant equilibrium of the universe? The minds of this world have found a use for every element that exists. Oceans of water and many of the elements that we make use of are only stable in this seemingly unlikely environment we inhabit. Long story short, is the universe a bubble in a dream?”

No, more I’m saying the physical forces around us, the constants and those cyclic (and more) are ‘teacher’ involved in the emergence and evolution of life here on earth. Order is conveyed by favourable circumstances. I am saying the math (computation more broadly) we do has an origin in some type of physical geometry that predates life. That this is made possible by referencing to a force or forces that are not material things, but physically real.

I have a fair idea of what you are questioning. It just isn’t easy trying to describe the organic mandelbrot of the universe

>The mathematical (including geometric) descriptions don’t somehow convert empirical phenomena into unphysical stuff”

The relationship of geometries of the physical world involve material matter that are manipulable and physical forces that are otherwise and substantially different. The otherwise and relationship with the former require an abstract ‘fill’ computation to work with, or something analogue. The relationship of the two can be said to involve ‘physical mechanisms’, so I can’t see why over time these physical relational mechanisms can’t generate ‘fill’ computation mechanisms.

One of the most simple starting points to considering it is what goes into standing up. You make corrections for balance around the force of gravity, it provides a solid reference. This involves ‘forces’ and geometry. We may tend to focus on the material things involved, but I would say the physical force of gravity (for example) being not a material and other then a manipulable thing to be important to being able to do that at all.

It’s like that being other-than-material as I indicate and being involved in the relationship with material things may be of which springs something interesting.

That the most ‘solid’ reference is not materially solid at all is worth a thought IMO.