Materialism

[webolife]

Since the first time you presented TT on this forum, and I essentially agreed with it [largely], this is the first post we've essentially agreed [largely]. Is this a sign of things to come? OK, probably not...

Still a point of contention:
Alton said:
Non-material existence is a contradiction in terms. You (or someone) will undoubtedly accuse me of "word-mongering" or something, but the onus is on you to make what you are saying clear and unambiguous.

Non material existence is only a contradiction in your terms, you word-mongerer you...
But not everything is clear and unambiguous, especially in philosophy of science... Here I agree with you that definitions are extremely important, but just being able to define something doesn't create that thing's "identity"... it is what it is after all, regardless of what we think about it. So things we have a hard time defining don't necessarily not exist because of this, any more than things we "can" define, as you believe you've done with rope/chains, necessarily realizing their existence. Either there are rope/chains or there aren't. You or Bill G defining them doesn't create them from nothing.
Perhaps you are of the opinion that the mind is contained in the brain. Certainly the switches that operate it may be found there, as well as throughout the body. Scientists may come to a common"mind" about something that is now "contained" in both their brains... or maybe it's written in a book or demonstrated on video. But I dare you to "materialize" a thought, or to deny its existence, one or the other.

[altonhare]

Since the first time you presented TT on this forum, and I essentially agreed with it [largely], this is the first post we've essentially agreed [largely]. Is this a sign of things to come? OK, probably not...

I'd venture to say that the only reason we disagree so much is one of our overaching similarities, embodied in your signature.

When there are no more disagreements thinking has died .

Still a point of contention:
Alton said:
Non-material existence is a contradiction in terms. You (or someone) will undoubtedly accuse me of "word-mongering" or something, but the onus is on you to make what you are saying clear and unambiguous.

Non material existence is only a contradiction in your terms, you word-mongerer you...
But not everything is clear and unambiguous, especially in philosophy of science... Here I agree with you that definitions are extremely important, but just being able to define something doesn't create that thing's "identity"... it is what it is after all, regardless of what we think about it.

Incidentally, technically we don't "define" objects. We just point to them. We define concepts in terms of objects.

Also, everything IS clear and unambiguous in science. This is because science is defined as a collection of rational (logical, unambiguous) explanations. An explanation that is not clear and unambiguous yet is not scientific. It's just a bare kernel of an idea, a hunch, an intuition, a lead, etc. It motivates you to think harder, experiment more, etc. to flesh your explanation out into a fully scientific (logical, unambiguous) explanation.

I do not, and have never claimed to, appeal to a "primacy of definitions", i.e. defining X somehow grants X identity. X had identity before I pointed to it or defined it.

However if *you* are going to communicate what is in *your* head to someone *else*, definitions are a minimum requirement. If *you* don't provide definitions, I have to provide my own! And then you just end up saying something I've said or thought before, and I learn nothing new. We all just regurgitate the same thoughts over and over, not learning anything from each other, because when Amy says X John thinks Y and when John says Y Amy thinks Z. And superficially X, Y, and Z may seem exactly the same! But when you get down to the nitty gritty and reduce language to its essentials, the difference between X, Y, and Z is made clear.

You may have the greatest theory ever in your head, but if you cannot communicate it to another it dies with you. Consistency is a minimum requirement because not every string of symbols is a valid representation of reality, but only those strings of symbols with physical referents. Consistency is an *objective* criterion. It does not care about what you observed or how anyone interprets things.

So it is what it is, but until you can point to 'it' I have no idea what you're talking about.

So things we have a hard time defining don't necessarily not exist because of this, any more than things we "can" define, as you believe you've done with rope/chains, necessarily realizing their existence.

I do not claim the chain exists. I ask you to assume it exists for the purposes of the ensuing explanation. Whether any individual, at the end, believe it exists and explains the phenomena described is up to them. The evidence I present is meant to persuade you. There is no way to prove the chain exists. There is no way to prove that a photon exists either. We never prove an entity exists, we either point to it (observe it), or we imagine/depict it and assume it exists.

So no, I do not bring about the chain's existence purely by thinking about them. But I can communicate my theory rationally because I can point to a model of the chain so you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Either there are rope/chains or there aren't.

Absolutely!

You or Bill G defining them doesn't create them from nothing.

Whew, good thing we didn't claim this.

We assume the proposed entity exists for the purposes of the theory/explanation. Whether our respective beliefs are Right or Wrong is based on if the proposed entity and the ensuing explanation match exactly with what actually happened. It has nothing to do with opinion or "evidence". If we say it happened 'this' way and it really did happen 'this' way, we are Right even if everyone else in the world says,"Them tracks look like particles to us!"

Similarly, if what we said does not match exactly what happened, we are Wrong even if everyone in the world says,"DUH! We've never seen a single quark! It's gotta be a rope!"

Perhaps you are of the opinion that the mind is contained in the brain. Certainly the switches that operate it may be found there, as well as throughout the body. Scientists may come to a common"mind" about something that is now "contained" in both their brains... or maybe it's written in a book or demonstrated on video. But I dare you to "materialize" a thought, or to deny its existence, one or the other.

I do not deny that I am conscious, or that I think.

Materialize: to acquire form/shape where there previously was none. To form out of nothing. To make something from nothing. To grant shape to that which has none.

I'm sorry, I cannot perform such a feat of magic. I cannot even imagine how God might cut out a chunk of 'nothing' and transform it into 'something'.

[webolife]

Are you saying you can't materialize a thought, or that because it is immaterial, it doesn't exist?
Just saying "thought" is a "concept", not an object, does not make it any less real...

[altonhare]

Are you saying you can't materialize a thought, or that because it is immaterial, it doesn't exist?
Just saying "thought" is a "concept", not an object, does not make it any less real...

I can't materialize a thought because to do so would render the thought not a thought! It would be attempting to give shape to that which has none!

[junglelord]

thoughts materialize all the time. We make them into real life objects, called art and science...also some dodo.

[Plasmatic]

How are thoughts immaterial? Ive never seen a consciousness disconnected from a physical entity.Damage the brain sufficiently and all signs of consciousness disappear.

[altonhare]

How are thoughts immaterial? Ive never seen a consciousness disconnected from a physical entity.Damage the brain sufficiently and all signs of consciousness disappear.

Material: Shape
Immaterial: Shapeless

A brain has shape, a human has shape. Being material, i.e. qualifying as entities, they can perform actions such as thinking.

Thinking is the action of one or more entity(ies), not an entity itself. In order for actions of entities to be performed we need... *drumroll* an entity performing the action.

[Plasmatic]

Of course you know Im aware of dynamic interaction of entities. But I think we're back to "the issue of exist" specifically as it reates to parts, and units as relates to entities.[which weve been discussing elsewere...] My response was to the notion of some that consciousness is some disconnected "spritual" quality that exists independent of material entities....

[omni-tom]

does a wave frequency exist in your brain waves as the thoughts occur? does a radio station "on the air" exist?

[Plasmatic]

does a wave frequency exist in your brain waves as the thoughts occur? does a radio station "on the air" exist?

Whom are you asking?

[omni-tom]

alton i suppose, unless you would say no to either, I would ask why?

Thoughts don't seem physical, yet we can manipulate them at will and consciously bring them into physical being,

They are most like "potentials", though only partially realized, it takes our expenditure of energy to manifest them physically, existing nontheless

[altonhare]

does a wave frequency exist in your brain waves as the thoughts occur? does a radio station "on the air" exist?

What exactly is this "wave frequency" you speak of?

What in the world do you mean by asking if a radio station "on the air" exists?

[bdw000]

My 2 cents on the idea of "immaterial": his is sort of tangential to what is said above.

I would suggest the allowance of something that I call the "non-physical." The following is just speculation (no claim to certainty here).

That does not mean that it literally has no physical parts. But obviously, we normally do not detect it with the physical senses. That's why I CALL it "non-physical."

But inability to detect something does not necessarily mean that said something has no physical parts. For instance, generally speaking, we do not see the air around us. But it is there.

Some have postulated that this non-physical realm is made up of matter, just a whole lot less of it. For instance, many people have claimed to be able to "leave their body" at night. That "psychic" body may only weigh a few ounces as opposed to the 100 to 200 pounds of the average physical body. It may not be matter like a stone or a cup of coffee, but it is matter nonetheless. But like the air, it's density is so low that we just don't see it. It makes sense that a body a thousand times less dense than normal matter can "walk through walls."

There may not be SCIENTIFIC evidence for the psychic realm, but there is still evidence of a sort: it is called EXPERIENCE. Too many people claim to have "psychic experiences" (no, I am not one of them) to dismiss them out of hand. If scientific evidence is DEFINED as only that which pertains to the usual, everyday level (or density) of physical matter, then if there is a level (or density) of matter that falls below the defined threshold, it will be ignored, intentionally, by the DEFINITION of scientific evidence. Sort of like if in some digital circuit, a "1" is defined as anything above 5 volts, and anything less than 5 volts is a "0." 4 volts is as real is 5 volts, we just defined 5 volts as a "1." We could just as easily have defined 4 volts as a "1."

Also, this is similar to how our eyes only detect CERTAIN frequencies of radiation. Our eyes can not detect the entire (known) EM spectrum, but this does not mean that the rest of the spectrum does not exist. Just as we have APPLIED science to the detection of the rest of the EM spectrum, who knows what could be "found" if we actually APPLIED science to the detection of the so-called non-physical realm? I don't mean using our current instruments, I mean finding OTHER, NEW, ways to try and detect a much less dense part of the "matter spectrum." We did not find the other parts of the EM spectrum by squinting our eyes and trying really hard to see what we could not see before. We had to find new, previously unknown ways of detecting that spectrum.

If all (current) scientific instruments (including our physical bodies) are DESIGNED to detect only above a certain threshold of "matter density," then to claim that the psychic realm (what I call "non-physical") does not exist because our science cannot detect it is sort of like saying that since you cannot hear the color of the tree over there, it has no color. You are pretending that your instruments can detect something they were not designed to detect.

Do not be surprised if you cannot see distant galaxies by pointing a microphone towards the sky.

I am reminded of the old joke, "when the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail." We should not pretend that all our tools can detect everyting in the universe. Maybe they do, but maybe they don't. How would you know?

[Plasmatic]

If all (current) scientific instruments (including our physical bodies) are DESIGNED to detect only above a certain threshold of "matter density," then to claim that the psychic realm (what I call "non-physical") does not exist because our science cannot detect it is sort of like saying that since you cannot hear the color of the tree over there, it has no color. You are pretending that your instruments can detect something they were not designed to detect.

The thing is BDW,all "evidence" relates to sensory data. One can only experience existence through the senses. So one cannot posit the existence of something one has not experienced "evidence" for. I also think undetectable is a better fit for your concept you described,as opposed to "unphysical".Even low density matter is "physical".

[Plasmatic]

Also the phenomenon [ESP etc.]you mentioned would still have to be causally related to the identity of the entities possessing them.