Does the immaterial exist?

[philN]

Where do thoughts fit into the scheme of the material and immaterial?

It could be argued that the chemical reaction producing the thought is material, but the actual thought, the image that we see is immaterial, is it not?

 

[Blackmarch]

If you are interested, the quotes were taken from here.

I think that Randall makes a really good point here. When we speak of immaterial things, we are referring to conceptual things, but do these things exist in and of themselves? We can speak of logic, and we know that logic exists, but is there a material thing that we call logic? Another example is the concept of a horse (or any other "thing"). When we talk of horses, we know what we are talking about because we can visualize what we are speaking of. This image in our mind is the concept by which we judge the "horseness" of all things. If the thing (we perceive) compares well to the concept, we can call that thing a horse. But does this "concept of horse" actually exist? To take this idea one more step, let us apply it to God. We all have a concept of God, but does God actually exist? How can we say "that which is immaterial exists"?

I don't want to dwell on just the "God" part of my question. I really just want to know how we all deal with conpeptualization of the immaterial and its existence. We can even take it farther than conceptualization and ask "how do we know that anything we perceive is not merely a conceptualization?".

Doubt it's immaterial, maybe supermaterial... good question. Dark matter maybe?

 

[David Gould]

Where do thoughts fit into the scheme of the material and immaterial?

It could be argued that the chemical reaction producing the thought is material, but the actual thought, the image that we see is immaterial, is it not?

Given that the chemical reaction is the thought I would have to disagree.

 

[Danhalen]

Doubt it's immaterial, maybe supermaterial... good question. Dark matter maybe?

How would you define "supermaterial"?

 

[Blackmarch]

How would you define "supermaterial"?

Super material is almost as misleading (sorry)... but as one was thinking on what a spirit would be composed of, so this is purely conjectural. For now this would probably be the best; a substance once it is organised/formed will not come undone, or at least undone naturally.

Immaterial has a connotation of something that does not exist, which isd why this one suggested supermaterial, although that is misleading as well.

 

[Lifesaver]

Yes, of course immaterial things exist. A thought is, necessarily, immaterial, or it wouldn't be a thought but the object of the thought itself (the house, and not the idea of a house).

Man comes to the knowledge of immaterial things by the use of his reason. At first, he is impacted by sense-experience. But he is able to, from sense-experiences, to make the abstraction and deal with the immaterial concepts.
We only think of numbers because we have lived and saw things in many different quantities, and realized that quantity is a thing. Now, we speak of a number, we don't mean a quantity of anything, even though in the material world there is only quantity of something. Further proof of this abstraction is that there are no such things as two equals in the material world, only similar objects, and yet, when think of a number, we think of quantities of equal entities.

A similar process happens when we, from many individuals, reach the universal form, that which makes them what they are. So when I speak of "a duck", a man does not ask "what duck? This or that one?" but is able to think of a species that is neither of the individual ducks he know, but of which the individuals are members of.

There is also the fact that a material body cannot want or think anything. A rock, a piece of cloth or a piece of flesh do not think about anything; they do not want anything. To even use such actions when referring to a strictly physical entity is absurd, and denotes a deep confusion in the speaker. To be able to want or think an individual must have a soul, which is the subject of such immaterial actions.

 

[Randall McNally]

Interesting question. It is commonly taken for granted that electrons exist, but no one can see one, and even though we can detect their effects, it is not determined that they are particles or are waves. A "duality" is postulated. As for the quarks that particle physicists have enumerated, they are even more elusive than electrons. Yet the physicists set down that they, too, exist. And then there are photons -- massless particles of energy.

These things appear pretty "immaterial", yet there are strong scientific claims made for their "existance", so, it seems we have to concede that the immaterial exists, or that these things don't.

That's not a very good argument. At least, when I say something exists materially, I mean in part or whole that it is composed of matter and/or energy. And since quarks are ostensibly matter and photons are ostensibly energy...?