The making of western morality

[Dutch Uncle]

Perry is mentally ill. I don't care what he thinks.

Agreed on Perry. Why do you dislike theists?

 

[Hume]

Agreed on Perry. Why do you dislike theists?

I don't. I like arguing ideas, not personalities.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't. I like arguing ideas, not personalities.

What "idea" are you arguing?

I like analyzing personalities. It's a hobby.

 

[Hume]

What "idea" are you arguing?

I like analyzing personalities. It's a hobby.

Look at my posts.

 

[Daylight63]

Your diverting from the topic.
I never claimed to know all the mechanistic processes that went into building a human being from physical material.

Your claimed you had a really good idea of how human moral conscience arises from atomic material

Nope. You are unable to understand the question you asked.

You ask where consciousness resides in a quark. That's the exact same thing as asking what aspect of the quark will make something wet (having the property to spontaneously spread on another surface)?

 

[Daylight63]

DNA is not a carbon atom.

See! Even INTO THE NIGHT "gets it"! You can't tell what a carbon atom will be part of just by looking at it.

Just like you can't point to a quark and ask where "consciousness" arises from the quark.

Maybe you can explain it to Cypress.

 

[Daylight63]

Everyone has known since fourth grade that atomic matter manifests as solids, gases, fluids.

Let me explain "wetness" to you from a scientific perspective.

When you put a droplet of a fluid on a solid surface it doesn't always spread spontaneously. This is what "wetting" is. It is related to the SURFACE ENERGY of the solid surface as well as the surface tension of the fluid.

The equation that describes wetting is called the Young Equation. It tells you what the contact angle of a fluid on a surface will be (if it "wets" the surface the contact angle will be <90. If it does not it will be >90). The equation requires you know characteristics of both the SOLID and the FLUID. It's basically just the balance between three vectors.

Water will wet a wood surface. But mercury will not! You can't take a water molecule and find anything on the molecule itself that defines whether it will wet or not. It is an "emergent property" of the larger fluid in contact with a specific surface.

Back to getting angry and insulting rather than just discussing the topic?

No. Why is it so important for you to know my mental state? You seem a bit obsessed. I know you want to pick a fight but I'm not in the mood.

I just want to discuss the topic. I wish you had more science so you could understand the points I'm raising.

We have well established physical and thermodynamic explanations for the properties of fluids, solids, and gasses, and can relate them experimentally to pressure, temperature, atomic structure and atomic properties.

Yeah but you should know some of them so you can understand my point.

I thought you were a PhD in chemistry?

Not at all. Never said I was.

H2O is a dipolar molecule, which makes it something like a universal solvent which readily reacts or dissolves solid matter. Metallic bonds in something like mercury are completely different that the chemical bonds in H20, and I have no idea why you expected liquid mercury to behave like liquid water. We have excellent atomic theories for the fluid behavior of atomic matter.

Water will not wet a teflon surface.

Your thread diversion has been answered ad naseum.

How? If you don't even know what wetting is in chemistry and that's critical to understanding my point I don't know how you could claim to answer it.

What we're left with is the fact nobody really knows how to explain conscience or consciousness at the level of basic science, physics and chemistry.

They aren't as in the dark as you would like them to be. You just don't like or understand when science pokes its head in.

That's cool. You're an armchair philosopher and you don't like too many guidelines on your flights of fancy.

 

[Daylight63]

Perry is mentally ill. I don't care what he thinks.

Who is?

 

[Hume]

Who is?

^^Stalker

 

[Daylight63]

I hoped under this new Daylight user name he could simply respond to opinions without getting agitated and angry. He was doing pretty well for a couple of months.

New Daylight name? I don't know who you think I am. I have no other names on here. You can't even do that can you????

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Look at my posts.

All I see is you bitching a lot, ma'am.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

New Daylight name? I don't know who you think I am. I have no other names on here. You can't even do that can you????

^^^
More proof Perry's elevators don't reach the penthouse.

 

[Cypress]

Let me explain "wetness" to you from a scientific perspective.

When you put a droplet of a fluid on a solid surface it doesn't always spread spontaneously. This is what "wetting" is. It is related to the SURFACE ENERGY of the solid surface as well as the surface tension of the fluid.

The equation that describes wetting is called the Young Equation. It tells you what the contact angle of a fluid on a surface will be (if it "wets" the surface the contact angle will be <90. If it does not it will be >90). The equation requires you know characteristics of both the SOLID and the FLUID. It's basically just the balance between three vectors.

Water will wet a wood surface. But mercury will not! You can't take a water molecule and find anything on the molecule itself that defines whether it will wet or not. It is an "emergent property" of the larger fluid in contact with a specific surface.




No. Why is it so important for you to know my mental state? You seem a bit obsessed. I know you want to pick a fight but I'm not in the mood.

I just want to discuss the topic. I wish you had more science so you could understand the points I'm raising.






Yeah but you should know some of them so you can understand my point.



Not at all. Never said I was.



Water will not wet a teflon surface.




How? If you don't even know what wetting is in chemistry and that's critical to understanding my point I don't know how you could claim to answer it.



They aren't as in the dark as you would like them to be. You just don't like or understand when science pokes its head in.

That's cool. You're an armchair philosopher and you don't like too many guidelines on your flights of fancy.

Nothing mysterious here. Why are you making a big deal of it? We have known about fluid dynamics for over 100 years, and we have robust phyiscal, chemical, and thermodynamic explanations for fluid properties and behavior. Which we don't for consciousness.

I am not befuddled that liquids have various fluid dynamic properties based on atomic properties. Was this something you thought was mysterious and befuddling?

This is a diversion which has nothing to do with morality.

 

[Cypress]

New Daylight name? I don't know who you think I am. I have no other names on here. You can't even do that can you????

You're Perry the PhD.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nothing mysterious here. Why are you making a big deal of it? We have known about fluid dynamics for over 100 years, and we have robust phyiscal, chemical, and thermodynamic explanations for fluid properties and behavior. Which we don't for consciousness.

I am not befuddled that liquids have various fluid dynamic properties based on atomic properties. Was this something you thought was mysterious and befuddling?

This is a diversion which has nothing to do with morality.

He's mentally ill. It's irrational to try to be rational with an irrational person.

 

[Cypress]

He's mentally ill. It's irrational to try to be rational with an irrational person.

Something odd is happening, chap! The thread diversion doesn't make any sense. We have long had robust scientific explanations for the physical behavior of liquids at the level of chemistry and atomic matter. We do not have robust scientific explanations for conscience.

I do not know why he thinks fluid dynamics is so befuddling and mysterious.

 

[Cypress]

The feeling of wetness is a subjective qualia our mind creates internally from sense data. Wetness is only epistemological knowledge. We have no idea what water molecules feel like to a bacteria, algae, rocks, or fish.

That is qualitatively and radically different from the phenomenology of consciousness.

Google AI has the same interpretation of "wetness" that I had, despite Perry's attempt to link it to some jargon from a chemistry textbook.

Google AI: The "wetness" of water is considered an emergent property, meaning that it is a characteristic that arises from the interaction of many water molecules together, and cannot be understood by examining a single water molecule alone; essentially, "wetness" only becomes apparent when a large number of water molecules are interacting with a surface, creating the sensation of wetness.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Something odd is happening, chap! The thread diversion doesn't make any sense. We have long had robust scientific explanations for the physical behavior of liquids at the level of chemistry and atomic matter. We do not have robust scientific explanations for conscience.

I do not know why he thinks fluid dynamics is so befuddling and mysterious.

Who knows? Again, he's irrational when he's in this phase.

 

[Hume]

All I see is you bitching a lot, ma'am.

Two posts and you already pissed me off at your hate trolling. Goodbye, asshole.

 

[Hume]

You're Perry the PhD.

That stalker truly is nuts.