The game of semantics that is the "immaterial object"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-03-2014, 09:21 PM
The game of semantics that is the "immaterial object"
I'm a little frustrated with a poster I'm arguing with that tries to seem intelligent by stating my claim, which was that "immaterial objects cannot interact with material objects," was a baseless assertion. Ironically, their position must be based on one of their own: that there is such a thing as an immaterial object. The whole concept collapses in on itself because the definition of what we say exists basically excludes the possibility of something (I can't use the term 'material' because it's contradictory from the start aha) have the attribute of being immaterial. Aside from waves, which doesn't quite apply in context to his claim because of the whole wave particle duality business. I mean we "can" say that waves are an immaterial object but then we'll have people mystifying the actions of waves or making claims about things that are neither waves nor particles/matter anyway.

Going into why this is so becomes this tiring ass game of semantics, because physical evidence in itself makes the immaterial concept material! Any quick and easy explanations any of you guys can offer? And if you don't think I'm right feel free to point out my own mistakes Tongue

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 10:42 PM
RE: The game of semantics that is the "immaterial object"
It seems to me that a physical mind contemplating the concept of immaterialism is very much something material interacting with the immaterial. A physical mind contemplating anything at all is the material interacting with the immaterial. I would say that the universe is more immaterial than material, in fact, since anything material within it will have an infinite number of immaterial properties. A material pebble will have the immaterial properties of being rough, grey, cold, of little monetary value, hurtful inside an occupied shoe, and useful as a metaphor in a philosophical discussion, among unlimited other immaterial characteristics. The meaning of this very post is immaterial, if the post itself has material existence, which considering the medium is debatable. Thus not only is the universe more immaterial than material, its immaterial aspects are what matter, not the material itself. That there's a pebble doesn't matter; that it bugs the hell out of the mind whose foot it irritates matters a great deal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2014, 07:38 AM
RE: The game of semantics that is the "immaterial object"
Quote:It seems to me that a physical mind contemplating the concept of immaterialism is very much something material interacting with the immaterial. A physical mind contemplating anything at all is the material interacting with the immaterial. I would say that the universe is more immaterial than material, in fact, since anything material within it will have an infinite number of immaterial properties. A material pebble will have the immaterial properties of being rough, grey, cold, of little monetary value, hurtful inside an occupied shoe, and useful as a metaphor in a philosophical discussion, among unlimited other immaterial characteristics. The meaning of this very post is immaterial, if the post itself has material existence, which considering the medium is debatable. Thus not only is the universe more immaterial than material, its immaterial aspects are what matter, not the material itself. That there's a pebble doesn't matter; that it bugs the hell out of the mind whose foot it irritates matters a great deal.


I find a rather large problem in not seeing how something immaterial isn't synonymous with "nothing" There are indeed an infinite amount of nothing in the universe. The immaterial characteristics you describe are concepts like anything else, the word cold is symbolic for the information of cold in our brains. If I imagine an image in my brain, the image was created by neurons firing in my head. Imagined things are all the corroborations of neurons firing. You seem to make use of a very light definition of immaterial with the idea of imagined concepts being immaterial, in a very technical look at imagination it's all very material. just like the existence of the post, in a very technical sense of course it exists. The image on my screen is material, and the while the text you'll see right now is information being held by this particular part of the internet, right now these words rest in my computer. To again say this is what you mean by immaterial seems to be a very metaphorical sense of the word because everything you described, except for "nothingness" which is obviously "limitless" in it's own metaphorical way, has a causal relationship with material interactions.

We could say that the information we get from our eyes are immaterial, too. The sounds we hear are also immaterial. I'd rather not, though, because it gives people the wrong idea about the immaterial, I think. This is why we use the term conceptual. With immaterial, people can now use this very metaphorical sense of the word to argue for the supernatural and whatnot.

It's only a debate if both parties are willing to let each other's opinions change their own.
If you aren't willing to change in light of learning more about what you fight for, what the hell are you doing expecting the other party to want to change?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2014, 11:34 PM
RE: The game of semantics that is the "immaterial object"
Well, I obviously haven't been able to decode from your posts what your definition of material/immaterial is. The definition I apply when using the term material/immaterial does NOT ascribe the property of "nothingness" to either state, since either state very much influences/interacts with either state to produce other states, either material or immaterial, and all that action I cannot regard as "nothing". My definition of nothing is pretty basic: an absolute absence of anything. But perhaps your definition of nothing permits some types of non-nothingness to seep in at the edges.

While the word cold is a symbol used by physical minds to give meaning to a non-material state, the presence of a mind to grasp that meaning is not necessary; a pebble can be cold or hot without any mind around to know about it at all. The pebble is material; its states are not. Not by the definition I'm familiar with. But elaborate on yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: