You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

What is the wind *made* from?

Changeling March 21, 2021 at 02:00 9575 views 28 comments
Is it made of something physical or not?

Comments (28)

Sir2u March 21, 2021 at 02:26 #512850
Wind is not made from anything. It is the name of a movement of the air.
BC March 21, 2021 at 03:55 #512868
air moves when energy is imparted to it. Heat (more energy or less energy, depending) is the primary energy involved. There is also the force of gravity and the rotation of the planet. A hot desert imparts heat to the air above it, causing it to rise. air more distant from the rising warm air moves in to take its place. Cold air is heavier than warm air and tends to sink. By such mechanism air moves, becoming wind -- or maybe just a breeze.
Changeling March 21, 2021 at 06:26 #512887
Reply to Sir2u Reply to Bitter Crank
I can't find any information about air particles :chin: at least online.
jorndoe March 21, 2021 at 06:34 #512889
Quoting The Opposite
I can't find any information about air particles :chin: at least online.


How about Nitrogen, Oxygen, water, and pollution?

Atmosphere of Earth

Wind is moving air. :D So, I guess it's "made from" air and motion?
Changeling March 21, 2021 at 07:10 #512893
Reply to jorndoe but is wind similar to waves in the ocean (the water rising and falling to get out of the way of passing energy), and that neither of them exist?
TheMadFool March 21, 2021 at 07:27 #512894
Quoting The Opposite
Is it made of something physical or not?


The consensus seems to be that what can be perceived through our senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch) is regarded as physical/material. The way it is with perception and reality is that it ain't necessary that all the senses be activated to determine whether something is material/physical or not. So, we're happy to conclude that a microwave in our kitchen is material/physical even if we can't smell/taste the microwave because we can see it, feel it with our fingers, and hear it too. Similarly, a woman's perfume is considered physical even though no one in faer right mind ever tastes it; that we can see it inside a bottle, hear it slosh around, and can feel it on our skin is enough to infer that perfume is material/physical.

Contrast the above rule of thumb for deciding the material/physical nature of things perceived through the senses with hallucinations. One simple test to determine whether what one is seeing with one's eyes is a hallucination or not would be to engage the other senses. We could for example try and touch whatever it is that we're seeing and if the result is negative i.e. we can't touch that which we're seeing, the chances are high that what we're seeing is a visual hallucination. A similar argument could be made for hallucinations in other sensory modalities - tactile hallucinations, auditory hallucinations, gustatory hallucinations, etc. One way, ergo, of ruling out hallucinations (perception without stimuli) is to bring into service senses other than the one whose perception is in question.

Now, wind is felt by our integumentary sensors and even heard by our ears but no, it can't be seen or tasted or smelt i.e. wind excites only a part of our total sensory apparatus (skin and ears) and the other senses can't be pressed into service for they don't pick up anything. How do you know then whether wind is something material/physical and not a hallucination? Of course it's true that the physical effects of wind are well-documented: trees sometimes grow along the direction the wind blows, we can see objects like paper, plastic cups, sand, moving with the wind, geologists have studied wind erosion, to name a few. So, wind can't be a hallucination as it has an effect on objects that can be observed and confirmed, something that would've been impossible if wind were a hallucination.

Last but not the least, I recall watching a horror flick where a ghost, a spirit, "touches" a living person and the latter "feels" it on her hand but, intriguingly, can't see (or smell or taste) anything. As far as our sensory system is concerned, there's no difference at all between wind and a ghostly "touch".
Changeling March 21, 2021 at 07:54 #512899
Reply to TheMadFool I once saw the spirit of a man in a rock in the Philippines, just out of the corner of my eye. Have you ever experienced anything like that?
fishfry March 21, 2021 at 08:00 #512900
Quoting The Opposite
Is it made of something physical or not?


Must be one of those "emergent" properties I keep hearing about. I think emergence is a murky concept and doesn't answer any of the questions people think it does. But wind is emergent. If you look at air molecules you can't see that they'd make wind. If you look at the air in a room you can't see that it would make wind. But when it moves a little, it's a breeze. When it moves a lot, it's wind. When it moves a lot a lot, it's a gale.

Interesting that air has a different name depending on how fast it's moving. For example a car that moves is a moving car. There's not a different name for it.

Well this is a puzzler alright.
TheMadFool March 21, 2021 at 08:06 #512904
Quoting The Opposite
I once saw the spirit of a man in a rock in the Philippines, just out of the corner of my eye. Have you ever experienced anything like that?


For better or worse, I feel I lack the "ability" to see supernatural phenomena - I just don't have it in me, you know, that particular mindset that I suppose makes a person susceptible to experiences of such kind. I'm a skeptic with a capital S and it probably affects my mind in ways that prevent it from appreciating the very possibility of the supernatural let alone actually experiencing it.
Pfhorrest March 21, 2021 at 10:50 #512932
Quoting The Opposite
is wind similar to waves in the ocean (the water rising and falling to get out of the way of passing energy), and that neither of them exist


When you really get down to the physical bottom of things, everything is like waves in the ocean, patterns of energy density propagating through media (the media at the bottom here being quantum fields, and all other media being themselves already patterns in those fields).

So if wind and waves don't exist, then by extension nothing exists.

But things exist, thus so does wind.
counterpunch March 21, 2021 at 11:30 #512938
Differences of air pressure cause air to move from high pressure regions toward low pressure regions, creating further pressure differentials. The key scientific instrument is the barometer.
frank March 21, 2021 at 11:59 #512945
Quoting The Opposite
Is it made of something physical or not?


Wind is made of smaller winds, which in turn are made of smaller ones and so on ad infinitum. Some say this makes no sense, but to let understanding stop at what can not be understood is a high attainment.
baker March 21, 2021 at 12:12 #512947
Reply to The Opposite Some ancient peoples thought of it as an element, not further analyzable, e.g. here from Pali:

dh?tu:
Element; property, impersonal condition. The four physical elements or properties are earth (solidity), water (liquidity), wind (motion), and fire (heat). The six elements include the above four plus space and consciousness.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html
Mww March 21, 2021 at 13:58 #512972
Reply to Sir2u

The truth of that will be overshadowed by the effort required to direct anybody to it.
Banno March 21, 2021 at 20:07 #513133
Beans.
Pfhorrest March 21, 2021 at 20:10 #513136
Quoting Banno
Beans.


And broccoli, and... I remember there were two others in an old joke about the "four winds", but I can't find that joke on Google to refresh my memory.
jgill March 21, 2021 at 21:49 #513183
Quoting The Opposite
but is wind similar to waves in the ocean


What happens at the altitude of the jet stream is highly influential on surface winds. There are wave patterns at that level, so that, for instance, a trough generates unsettled weather at the surface, with low pressure systems appearing. It's complicated trying to predict the behavior of the jet stream. Or it was many years ago when I was a meteorologist.
unenlightened March 21, 2021 at 22:48 #513221
Applied philosophy.
Sir2u March 22, 2021 at 03:12 #513357
Quoting Mww
The truth of that will be overshadowed by the effort required to direct anybody to it.


Can you explain a bit better please.
Changeling March 22, 2021 at 04:59 #513374
Reply to frank so you reduce everything to infinity rather than fundamental particles?
Banno March 22, 2021 at 06:02 #513383
Reply to unenlightened ...and other forms of flatus.
Changeling March 22, 2021 at 06:36 #513389
Reply to Pfhorrest are you a follower of quantum field theory?
Pfhorrest March 22, 2021 at 06:37 #513390
I don't know what you mean by "follower", but I know about the theory, yes.
Changeling March 22, 2021 at 06:42 #513391
Reply to Pfhorrest what do you know about it?
Pfhorrest March 22, 2021 at 08:21 #513405
It would be quite a lot of typing to state everything I know about quantum field theory. Do you have a more specific question, or want a broad overview of it?
Mww March 22, 2021 at 14:42 #513461
Reply to Sir2u

Just agreeing with you. However we each come to our conclusions doesn't matter all that much.
frank March 22, 2021 at 15:14 #513470
Quoting The Opposite
so you reduce everything to infinity rather than fundamental particles


You can't beat fundamental particles for conceivability. Maybe little vibrating strings or

*drumroll*

consciousness packets. Little monads. Little blobs of awareness. Think about it.

Daniel March 22, 2021 at 17:05 #513499
Reply to The Opposite https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/wind/