Posts by Patrikios

Quote from kochiekoch

Years ago, when I was riding bicycle for transportation, I got caught in a thunderstorm. I quick ducked into a bus shelter with transparent plexiglass walls and top; so, I got to see the whole storm from my protective refuge. AWESOME and unforgettable! 😃

kochiekoch

Thanks for sharing your unanticipated experience in nature. I have discovered a way to experience being in nature’s storms (up to 20 mph), by using a WeatherPod.

I have a smaller one that I can put up on my balcony in a couple minutes. During winter months and rainy days, it is a great way to stay outside, and in touch with nature. This way, in most weather, I can experience “the genuine astonishment and delight that come from seeing the natural world clearly”.

Quote from Cassius

So the third article that will come will address Epicurus' advocary for "minlmal parts" of the atom. After reading what Claude has compiled I think I finally see the issue and how indeed Epicurus did make significant advances beyond Democritus on that part of atomism.

Cassius ,

Are you using an account on Claude (Anthropic) of Groc (xAI) for these articles? I’ve seen you mention both. If you give the same docs, guidelines & prompts to both, how different are the results?

Thanks for sharing your process.

Cassius

It is going to take us humans several hours to wade through this AI generated defense against Intelligent Design. However, I notice that this defense appears to conflate intelligent design with divine providence. So, having an intelligent design requires having an ongoing divine providence operator??

I don’t know how the eternal cosmos natural operations “began”, but I have clear evidence that there is no active divinity controlling my life, or tallying rewards or punishments in an afterlife.

Can the two issues of the how the “laws of nature” were established (designer), vs a divine providence ongoing operator?

Thanks for trying to clarify.

Quote from Cassius

This week will focus on the ending of Section 8.

Our text will come from
Cicero - Academic Questions - Yonge We'll likely stick with Yonge primarily, but we'll also refer to the Rackam translation here:

Cassius

These two links are broken (404 Error).

Is this topic related to the thread on Motion?

Thread

Is Motion One Of The Three Eternal Properties of Atoms? I.E. Are The Three Properties Shape, Size, and MOTION?

This topic was also discussed in a recent zoom meeting. The answer appears debatable, and I see that Sedley's article "Epicurean Anti-Reductionism" has this to say (see especially footnote 29):

epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/6143/

Here is the translation from Demetrius Lacon cited on page 306:



epicureanfriends.com/wcf/attachment/6144/

Cassius

March 26, 2026 at 10:20 AM

Quote from Cassius

1 Timothy 5-6: But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.

From a naturalist or Epicurean standpoint, the widow who studies nature, cultivates reason, builds friendships, and finds peace through understanding the world around her is living with extraordinary richness and intentionality. Calling that “dead” does seem not just wrong, but almost perverse. The Epicurean widow arguably has more honest courage — she faces mortality, uncertainty, and the indifference of nature without flinching, and finds joy anyway!

Quote from Martin

I agree with the answer from Grok. There is one caveat which I mentioned in one of our Zoom calls. That mass (or energy) produces a gravitational field and curves spacetime is only one of three possibilities and assumes that mass and space exist independently (dualism) but affect each other. The other possibilities are that mass creates space (monism) and that space creates mass (monism). Each of the three possibilities is compatible with observations and the currently best models to explain the observations. Choosing one over the other three possibilities is rather belief akin to religion than knowledge at this time. In practice, publications typically imply dualism like in the quote from Grok.

Thanks Martin and Cassius for your explanations.

Here is how Claude AI helps explain.

Quote

Would the object move on its own in “the void”?
If placed perfectly isolated from all other matter, with zero initial velocity, the object would remain stationary. Gravity is a relational phenomenon — it describes the interaction between masses. A lone object has no “other mass” to attract or be attracted by, so no net gravitational force acts on it. Its own gravitational field exists as a potential, but potential without another mass to interact with produces no movement. So yes, gravity is an inherent potential for interaction that only manifests as force through the presence of another mass.

Is this what “inertial mass” means?
Not quite — this is an important distinction. There are actually two related but conceptually separate properties at play here:
• Gravitational mass is what you’re describing — the property that causes objects to attract one another and be attracted. It’s the “charge” of gravity, analogous to electric charge.
• Inertial mass is resistance to acceleration from any force — it’s the “stubbornness” of matter against changes in motion, regardless of what’s causing that change.

The remarkable and somewhat mysterious fact is that these two quantities are always exactly equal (the equivalence principle), which Einstein built general relativity upon. But they’re conceptually distinct. Your isolated object would have inertial mass even in a universe with no other matter, whereas its gravitational interaction would be zero.

Display More

So as I understand, the constant movement of the smallest indivisible particle (Epicurean atoms) creates the potential for movement by the compound object, but does not mean that all material objects just move without interaction with some relative force from another object. When compound objects do move, it is because of these invisible, natural forces arising between objects, not some divine unnatural force.

Quote from Cassius

The issue is that the atoms possess within themselves the power of movement and don't wait on gods or outside forces of any kind to bestow it on them.
…
An atom has mass—mostly from its protons and neutrons in the nucleus, plus a tiny contribution from electrons and binding energies—so it sources gravity just like a planet or star does, only vastly weaker

Cassius , Martin, thanks for a fascinating discussion on causes of motion.
If I do the thought experiment of placing an object (e.g. 10kg weight) in the void outside of the earth’s gravity, would the object move on its own? Or would that object’s inherent “gravity” attribute cause it to move, or could it just stay where it was placed in space (if placed with no external movement force)? In other words, is “gravity” an inherent potential for movement, but it requires interaction with the gravity potential of another object to cause movement? The gravity field of a second object could be considered an “outside force” acting on the first object (10kg weight).

Is this potential for movement what is meant by "inertial mass?

To clarify this very broad statement (or outside forces of any kind), could we say that movement of objects only occurs because of the natural, inherent properties of objects (matter) and the interactions of those objects, even at great distances apart through unseen natural phenomena. Such movements are not caused by gods or any non-natural force.

Quote from ReiWolfWoman

What do you think Epicurus would have thought of going to the moon?

Epicurus taught us to study Nature, day & night. How else can a human on earth study the nature of the moon, without going there in order to verify the assumptions made from the observations of our senses here on earth.

In his Letter to Pythocles, Epicurus wrote in a way that allowed (encouraged?) deeper study of the celestial phenomena, looking for natural explanations, not based on divine gods.

Quote

We will then complete our writing and grant all you ask. Many others besides you will find these reasonings useful, and especially those who have but recently made acquaintance with the true story of nature and those who are attached to pursuits which go deeper than any part of ordinary education.

…

For in the study of nature we must not conform to empty assumptions and arbitrary laws, but follow the promptings of the facts; for our life has no need now of unreason and false opinion; our one need is untroubled existence

Kalosyni ,

Thanks for bringing this article & author to our attention.

Cassius , Joshua ,

Would you see doing a podcast interview with JoEllen DeLucia? The public interview of her is interesting. Maybe she would be able to release a copy of her article in the future outside the Scottish journal paywall.

Quote

Quote from Cassius

The virus is the idea that "proof" or "proving something" requires omniscience, omniscience, and omnipresence -- an unhuman an inhuman level of "certainty" that is impossible by definition for a human to reach. This mind virus has destroyed the ability of many people to think that anything can be "proven" or anything can be "known" or that anything can be "real" if it fails to meet such an impossible standard.

Quote from TauPhi

In that case I think almost all of us are safe. I literally don't know anyone who thinks that proving something requires omniscience, omniscience, and omnipresence. Proofs, knowledge and reality are very much within a grasp and abilities of most people.

TauPhi , I do appreciate the interactive dialog on this thread topic, especially some of your thoughtful questions. I think you greatly underestimate the breadth & depth of these mind viruses; especially in the current USA. Unfortunately, I do know many people who fit that description.

My own mother, who was raised as a nice, prim & proper Presbyterian, took her 6 children to church every Sunday, as she sang in the Protestant Chapel choir (my father was 20 years in US military). In her fifties she got the evangelical mind virus very bad. Despite her pride in sending a son to study engineering at Georgia Tech, and living over 50 years in Rocket City USA; she began to assert that our planet was only 6,000 years old, and humans did not evolve from apes; but created from dust exactly as described in Genesis. Of course she was effective in inculcating that virus into the minds & lives of her 4 youngest teenage children. She has passed on, but that virus is still fully operational in the minds & lives of my 3 living siblings.

“Proofs, knowledge and reality” have virtually no way of getting past this deeply set mind virus at the kernel level. I have tried.😤

So, I KNOW the TRUTH of the negative effects on a life of wellbeing for those infected with these types of omniscient and omnipresent mind viruses. So let’s nor discuss whether MOST people are not so infected; but move forward into how better we can demonstrate in our lives, what we can KNOW about Epicurean TRUTHs, which remove/prevent such mind viruses.

Quote from Kalosyni

I think that the Epicurean needs to spend time contemplating the truth of the cessation of the senses and the mind. And, also needs to focus intently on living life to the fullest by making good and joyful choices - and in a way "make heaven on earth".

Kalosyni ,

I just love the way you add the soft touch reminder that this Epicurean work comes down to living a life of wellbeing as fully as possible within the environment and circumstances we find ourselves!❤️

Maybe we can discuss on a future Eikas Zoom, or Sunday session.

Quote from m.dango

Maybe worth its own thread if it would make for interesting discussion.

The body transfer illusion is where the brain creates an experience of another body or limb being their own. Perhaps this potentially falls into the category of anticipation rather than sensation?

m.dango ,

Thanks for your elaboration. I agree this could be a deeper discussion.

My basic biology understanding is that our brain holds a “body map” somewhere in our somatosensory cortex.

A summary from ClaudeAI opens an interesting discussion on senses & perception.

Quote

What the quote [from m.dango] is really pointing to is that body ownership is a construction, not a given. The brain doesn’t have direct access to physical reality — it runs a predictive model, and that model can be fooled when multisensory signals are manipulated coherently. The illusion works because the brain follows a simple rule: if visual and tactile input are temporally correlated and spatially plausible, update the body map to include that object.

Does this mean the senses are not wrong, but the brain can be easily fooled?

Quote from Cassius

Epicurus would attack this as precisely the kind of empty abstraction the Canon cannot support. What sensation, prolepsis, or feeling gives you essence as a thing separable from an actually existing entity?

Cassius , I appreciate you bringing us this Epicurean defense of nature-based reality.

It might be helpful to add a link from the first mention of “Canon”, as most of the Epicurus’s responses mention it. When I tracked down this link and read it; these defense arguments (trust nature more than dialectic constructs ) made these responses more fully understood.
https://astro.epicureanfriends.com/02-key-sources/canonics_analysis/

correct link: https://epicurustoday.com/02-key-sources/canonics_analysis/

Thanks for all you post to keep us reading & thinking & applying!

Quote from Cassius

that the "atoms" of our current forms could in fact be reunited in exactly their same positions over the course of infinite time and space.

Cassius

I don’t see how ‘emergence’ plays out in recreating the same exact experience when it is a different time or place. I also don’t see it as a question of “past lives” from a previous time.

Those reunited “atoms” never caught the same fish in the same river as I did in my youth. I still do not see how that recombination of exactly the same types of molecules and compounds could occur in the exact same physical place at the exact same “time” with the exact same cosmic positioning of every star!

Since our human bodies are built & filled through our senses with terabytes of such complex environmental data every day of our life, and influenced by unique gravitational and electromagnetic fields, as well as the positions of other cosmic bodies; I have a very hard time conceiving of the possibility of such exact recreation of any animal with all of the same time-place experiences.

That is how I KNOW that I will only live one life, in answer to the title question.

Quote from LAMAR__44

Now, if the soul is just a combination of atoms, and this combination is a finite combination, that I don’t see why the combination cannot arise given infinite matter, infinite time, and infinite space. It seems very likely that at some point, matter will be arranged somewhere, at some time in the universe, where it’s identical to my brain

LAMAR__44

Interesting question of how would we know. To “know” something requires a brain with memory. Our brains contain volatile memory, with neuron cells. But when the blood flow stops, the brain’s power supply (oxygen, glucose) are cut off. Neurons begin dying within 4-6 minutes. Once that occurs, the memories are gone, and the underlying substrate is destroyed, never to be re-built again with exactly the same physical neuron cells, which will never have the same set of lifelong experiences to reproduce the same memories.

So, those are the natural facts which Epicurus taught us to study. If a few human atoms from a dead body re-formed to make a “soul”, I see no way that it could fulfill the same function as the original, with no memory.

How would you explain a new person with the same soul AND memory?

Quote

Their failures, he says, are caused by themselves — selves which are not identical with their constituent atoms (2-3). Some of their actions and attitudes are not caused by their atomic nature but by certain acquired states, or “ developments ” (ἀπογεγεννημένα, a key term in the entire book; 6-9). These special acquired states are the source of their behavioural autonomy (15-18), and immediately exert an influence on their atoms * (18-19).

Cassius

So, are theses “certain acquired states” describing each individual person/animal unique makeup or personality; or does this also include consideration of a person’s attitude, emotional state, or focused intentions?

Joshua ,

Thanks to you and Cassius for this excellent episode (327).

This is a very timely episode for helping people make some sense of a world in turmoil, with much re-framing of reality.

This first section appears to describe a worldview not too far from Epicurus, but then needs an Epicurean interpretation.

Quote

And they say that the parts of the world are all the things which exist in it, and which are maintained by sentient nature; in which perfect reason is placed, which is also everlasting: for that there is nothing more powerful which can be the cause of its dissolution. And this power they call the soul of the world, and also its intellect and perfect wisdom.

My understanding of sentient nature, would start by seeing how a seed contains within itself the atomic structure that guides its growth. An animal's body contains the atomic arrangements that produce its instincts. This is intelligence, yes—but we can clarify that it is the intelligence of matter itself, not of some external cosmic mind.

This is where I see the split Epicurus took from the philosophers who wanted to make “Nature” into an active force of an external cosmic mind specifically targeting humans.

I am also wondering how the root Latin around watching over everything.

Quote

And they call it God, a providence watching over everything subject to its dominion

This appears to my understanding as a key differential from our Epicurean gods, whose sentient nature has no concern for “watching over everything”. The gods of which Epicurus speaks exist as guides to the best, optimal life a human can live. That guidance is to study and learn how nature operates; learn its rules; and then use nature’s examples to live our best life.

So, is there some root Latin that makes this “watching over everything” such an active tense, vs the simple, passive knowing that everything in the universe operates according to its own sentient nature?

Quote from Cassius

Natural but Not Necessary Desires

The second category—natural but not necessary—covers desires that arise from our nature but whose specific fulfillment is not required for well-being. The desire for pleasant food, for sexual gratification, for aesthetic enjoyment, for variety and richness in experience—these are genuine desires rooted in human nature and entirely appropriate. They are natural in that they are not fantasies invented by culture or social pressure; but generally they are not necessary in that the specific objects of these desires can be varied, and their absence does not cause the deep pain that the absence of food or shelter would cause.

Cassius

Here is likely one of the few points that we may not see the terminology and human biological processes in the same way. So, with great respect I question the blanket categorization implied by this statement.

When you use the term “sexual gratification” as natural, but not necessary, it casts a pejorative shade over the natural exercise of our human reproductive system whose healthy maintenance does necessarily involve appropriate regular activity for a healthy life. I would open discussion on whether some level of sexual orgasm constitutes necessary healthy function, and does not fit your statement “whose specific fulfillment is not required for well-being”.

Here is just one of many studies supporting a natural & necessary viewpoint, on at least a subset of the broader “sexual gratification” terminology.

Quote

In humans, longer periods of sexual abstinence were associated with increased sperm DNA damage and oxidative stress, along with reduced sperm motility and viability.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2026-03-2…-animal-kingdom

So, we are made with natural sexual desires, and we learn appropriate ways to manage those desires in order to lead a pleasant life (according to PD5). As you stated “generally they are not necessary”; so the implications cited in the WHO study, may fall in the ‘not generally’ cases.

Also, many people raised in traditional religious households are also taught how unnecessary our natural feelings related to “sex” are and should be denied in all cases. So, isn’t the maintenance of a healthy body a necessary condition for a life of wellbeing?

If this topic has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, please advise.

Quote from Cassius

further the condemnation of Socrates and Plato for deprecating the study of natural philosophy

Cassius

Here is another view of how humans have devolved in some of our senses and prolepsis abilities, due to Socrates turn away from observing nature, especially observing it deeply. Since Epicurus saw himself as a healer, the Socratic/Platonic turning away from a deeper understanding of nature’s healing processes, would have horrified Epicurus.

See how a modern psychotherapist, who has studied ‘nature’s healing processes’ up close, describes what many of us civilized humans have lost.

Quote

In Western society, there is an overvaluation of the conscious, analytical mind and, with it, an atrophy of dozens of senses and abilities. Sojourns to the Amazon and the Serengeti have reminded me of the many skills that indigenous people have not forgotten—abilities that guide them safely through life’s inevitable challenges. I have met shamans who can look into another person’s body with their mind’s eye to diagnosis an illness, Hadza Bushmen who can “wire” messages long distances without the use of a cell phone or a letter, and Native Americans who can smell approaching changes in the weather. It is in the quiet of Nature that shamans can listen with their hearts, skin, eyes, and noses as well as their ears—a synesthetic talent that today is largely disbelieved or simply unknown outside of indigenous cultures.

[Awakening the Healing Soul, by Geral Blanchard]