Does the immaterial exist?

[Danhalen]

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

Do you believe that there are material and immaterial aspects to the cosmos?

Herein lies a massive amount of semantic confusion. There are "things" that "exist" immaterially in the sense that we can talk about them meaningfully. Logic, physics, mathematics, etc., but they all seem to have in common the quality of being descriptive. They lack the capacity to "act" in noticeable ways, as is commonly claimed about the supernatural.

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?".

 

[David Gould]

It seems logical to assume that concepts arise from things, rather than the other way around. I disagree that there is nothing we can point to when talk about concepts, by the way: concepts refer to things and relationships between things. Logic is all about the relationships between things. So are concepts like scientific theories. The concept of justice, for example, arises from the relationship between actions done by humans.

There is nothing that exists that is immaterial. Even the concept that you hold in your mind is a particular set of physical relationships within the brain.

Concepts that relate to imaginary things are interesting examples that might run counter to my perspective on this. However, an imaginary animal, such as a unicorn, is a composite of things we can detect - horses and animals with horns. God, too, is a composite: a construct built to 'explain' the unexplainable.

 

[Danhalen]

It seems logical to assume that concepts arise from things, rather than the other way around.

I am confused. Is this your stance or the opposite? I do believe that concepts arise from things. If there were no things, then there would be nothing to conceptualize about.

I disagree that there is nothing we can point to when talk about concepts, by the way: concepts refer to things and relationships between things. Logic is all about the relationships between things. So are concepts like scientific theories. The concept of justice, for example, arises from the relationship between actions done by humans.

Well said, and easily understood. Would I be correct in stating that 4 is a concept that relates to a grouping of like objects?

There is nothing that exists that is immaterial. Even the concept that you hold in your mind is a particular set of physical relationships within the brain.

I am trying to move beyond the biochemical reaction, and looking for the result of that biochemical reaction. The perception of the thought process itself is a result of a chemical reaction, but what is the result? The concept of the color red is easy to visualize. We know that red is a specific wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum interacting with the optic nerve and then interpreted by the neurons in our brain. What is the experience of red (qualia, anyone?)?

Concepts that relate to imaginary things are interesting examples that might run counter to my perspective on this. However, an imaginary animal, such as a unicorn, is a composite of things we can detect - horses and animals with horns. God, too, is a composite: a construct built to 'explain' the unexplainable.

I agree on both accounts, yet I believe that some would differ with us on the concept of God.

 

[David Gould]

I am confused. Is this your stance or the opposite? I do believe that concepts arise from things. If there were no things, then there would be nothing to conceptualize about.

This is my position, yes.

Well said, and easily understood. Would I be correct in stating that 4 is a concept that relates to a grouping of like objects?

Yes, that is how I see it.

I am trying to move beyond the biochemical reaction, and looking for the result of that biochemical reaction. The perception of the thought process itself is a result of a chemical reaction, but what is the result? The concept of the color red is easy to visualize. We know that red is a specific wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum interacting with the optic nerve and then interpreted by the neurons in our brain. What is the experience of red (qualia, anyone?)?

Qualia are the detection and pattern recognition engine of the brain detecting and recognising itself.

Think of it this way: light of a certain wavelentgh strikes our retina. This triggers a series of events within the brain. These events are detected by the brain. We become aware of the detection of light of a certain frequency. We call this awareness qualia. In a sense, qualia are illusions. The red we experience is simply a translation of many chemical events within the brain into a more manageable form. Pain is the same. And love. And joy. And so on and so forth.

I agree on both accounts, yet I believe that some would differ with us on the concept of God.

Of course. But even if God is not imaginary, the concept that people hold of him is one that they have built from things they have seen and heard - the bible, the universe, the arguments of others, personal experiences and so on and so forth.

 

[Gerry Hunter]

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.

The whole question revolves around the meanings of "material" and "existance", each of which can be obvious, in some cases, and very far from obvious, in others.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[DrGather]

"how do we know that anything we perceive is not merely a conceptualization?".

You want the long answer? OKay... here we go.

*Clears Throat

"We don't!"

Well that was fun!

 

[TScott]

It seems logical to assume that concepts arise from things, rather than the other way around.

Really? When we build a car, did it start as a car or a concept? A house? A can opener? I suppose you could say that the concept of a car arose from the desire to go somewhere faster than walking, but that is a concept too, isn't it?

Concepts that relate to imaginary things are interesting examples that might run counter to my perspective on this. However, an imaginary animal, such as a unicorn, is a composite of things we can detect - horses and animals with horns. God, too, is a composite: a construct built to 'explain' the unexplainable.

Perhaps, but like other concepts, truly immaterial concepts, affect the material world in many ways and sometimes profoundly. Isn't that what is really at the root of what "existence" is? As the man said mathematics certainly exists, heck even imaginary numbers exist, if they didn't many of the electonic marvels we take for granted wouldn't exist either.

 

[David Gould]

Really? When we build a car, did it start as a car or a concept? A house? A can opener? I suppose you could say that the concept of a car arose from the desire to go somewhere faster than walking, but that is a concept too, isn't it?

As you point out, that concept had to arise from something else - something physical. When we are born, we hold not concepts. We only begin to develop concepts after interaction with the world. Thus, concepts arise from the physical, and not the other way around.

Perhaps, but like other concepts, truly immaterial concepts, affect the material world in many ways and sometimes profoundly. Isn't that what is really at the root of what "existence" is? As the man said mathematics certainly exists, heck even imaginary numbers exist, if they didn't many of the electonic marvels we take for granted wouldn't exist either.

Imaginery numbers describe the relationship between other numbers. These numbers describe the relationship between physical things. Concepts are not immaterial. They all depend upon the material world and arise from material interactions. (Indeed, if they were immaterial it is hard to see how they could have an effect on the material world. Isn't the immaterial unable to affect the material by definition?)

 

[Danhalen]

Qualia are the detection and pattern recognition engine of the brain detecting and recognising itself.

While I agree with this position, there are some philosophers that have posited that qualia must exist (and are real things) in order to experience "red".

Think of it this way: light of a certain wavelentgh strikes our retina. This triggers a series of events within the brain. These events are detected by the brain. We become aware of the detection of light of a certain frequency. We call this awareness qualia. In a sense, qualia are illusions. The red we experience is simply a translation of many chemical events within the brain into a more manageable form. Pain is the same. And love. And joy. And so on and so forth.

Since the awareness is (in a sense) an illusion, the case could be made that all things are (in a sense) an illusion. Therefore, nothing can be said to be "real" or even exist (in a sense). Basically (and I agree with what I am about to posit) we can give anyone the experience of any known thing if we can know how to manipulate the biochemical/bioelectrical reactions within the brain. In essence, we can never know if we are "plugged in to the matrix" or if our experience is real. Pragmatically, I opt for the belief that what I experience is real, but I never kid myself with the delusion of ever being able to really know.

 

[David Gould]

While I agree with this position, there are some philosophers that have posited that qualia must exist (and are real things) in order to experience "red".

Oh, I know there are. There are also philosophers that insist we have free will.

Since the awareness is (in a sense) an illusion, the case could be made that all things are (in a sense) an illusion. Therefore, nothing can be said to be "real" or even exist (in a sense). Basically (and I agree with what I am about to posit) we can give anyone the experience of any known thing if we can know how to manipulate the biochemical/bioelectrical reactions within the brain. In essence, we can never know if we are "plugged in to the matrix" or if our experience is real. Pragmatically, I opt for the belief that what I experience is real, but I never kid myself with the delusion of ever being able to really know.

We can never know. This does not matter, though. As to illusions, consciousness is a grand illusion. So is free will. So is the self. Some illusions we can readily dispense with; others are more difficult to deal with.

 

[Danhalen]

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.

I get where you are coming from, yet I believe that these things can be measured quantifiably.

The whole question revolves around the meanings of "material" and "existance", each of which can be obvious, in some cases, and very far from obvious, in others.

Yes, it seems that this is truly the crux of the matter. I think that we could actually drop the "material" question and get right to the "exist" question. "To exist" is a meaning that has eluded me for a long time. I have asked many people, and none have been able to verify existence. We take existence as an axiom of being i suppose.

 

[God Child]

The unseen things are noticed by the seen things. Gravity, pressure, etc. exist and are noticed by things sensed with the senses. I don't know much about psychology, but i don't think the "brainwaves" are the cause or what makes us think, but rather our thoughts cause the "brainwaves". Is there a difference between existance and being alive? I think there is, a rock exists and yet is not alive. I don't think the question is "Does God exist" because the things we see in existence like gravity logic etc are not alive and do indeed exist because we have noticed them through things sensed and as i see it their existence is dependant on "material" existence, would gravity etc. exist if there were no things gravity could have an effect on? would logic (as i see it logic is the "pattern" of truth) exist if there were no truth? The other things we see seem to be dependant on the exisance of something else gravity to matter, logic to truth etc. But Is God dependant on material existance or the existence of other things if God were the one to create them in the first place? so the question i think is rather, is God alive? It would be hard to compare other things in "existence" which are not alive (being unseen) to something that is alive and unseen because these other things are dependant on the existence of something else and God is not if He were the one to create them in the first place.

 

[Danhalen]

It would be hard to compare other things in "existence" which are not alive (being unseen) to something that is alive and unseen because these other things are dependant on the existence of something else and God is not if He were the one to create them in the first place.

Do things only exist because we perceive them (to exist)? If not, then the rock exists regardless of anything else. Therefore the rock is not contingent on anything to exist. If so, God did not exist before He created us (in order to perceive Him). Are things relative to their existence, or is existence relative to other things?

 

[God Child]

I said unseen things are dependant on the existence of other "things", not seen things. Things do not exist because we have noticed them to exist, the existence of a rock is dependant on the existence of matter, yet now we go to "where did matter come from?" and i say "if this came from that, where did that come from?"

 

[Gerry Hunter]

Yes, it seems that this is truly the crux of the matter. I think that we could actually drop the "material" question and get right to the "exist" question. "To exist" is a meaning that has eluded me for a long time. I have asked many people, and none have been able to verify existence. We take existence as an axiom of being i suppose.

It seems we pretty well have to take it as axiomatic. Otherwise, we end up in absurdity.

After all, if I take it as axiomatic that I do not exist, then neither can the axiom I just formulated. It just keeps spiraling inward and inward until it disappears up its own ... well, you know.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Danhalen]

I said unseen things are dependant on the existence of other "things", not seen things. Things do not exist because we have noticed them to exist, the existence of a rock is dependant on the existence of matter, yet now we go to "where did matter come from?" and i say "if this came from that, where did that come from?"

This does not lead you into an infinite regress of "where did that come from"? Where do you arbitrarily draw your line, and why do you draw it there?

 

[Danhalen]

It seems we pretty well have to take it as axiomatic.

I like how you think. It seems that we must just accept the axiom, but for some reason, I can not (but I do). I want to know. To accept has never been good enough for me.

 

[God Child]

Perhaps, i was questioning evolution as i understand it, To me something cannot come from nothing, everything we make is made from something else. now are we moving towards evolution vs creation? ill see you in the forum friend

 

[Danhalen]

Perhaps, i was questioning evolution as i understand it, To me something cannot come from nothing, everything we make is made from something else. now are we moving towards evolution vs creation? ill see you in the forum friend

Actually, I was not even thinking of evolution. I was thinking of anything. You say that everything must have a something from whence it came from. Therefore, everything must have a contingency. If everything has a contingency, where does the line of contingency end? It clearly ends in infinity (if you follow your own logic).

For the record, evolution does not deal with what came before life. When speaking of evolution, you are only concerning your self with pre-existing life.

 

[Gerry Hunter]

I like how you think. It seems that we must just accept the axiom, but for some reason, I can not (but I do). I want to know. To accept has never been good enough for me.

To "merely" accept is not a good thing. But when one runs up against the limits of logic -- and they do exist -- there can be little choice.

Mathematics provides an interesting example. For centuries, mathematicians tried to prove that Euclid's fifth axiom, in his geometry, was not an axiom at all, but a theorem that could be proven from the other 4 axioms. This 5th axiom stated that given a straight line, and a point not on the line, one and only one line could be drawn through the point that was parallel to the given line. Efforts got nowhere, and ceased when it was discovered that substituting different axioms that stated respectively that NO parallel lines, or an INFINITE NUMBER of parallel lines could be drawn through the point, also produced geometries as fully consistent as Euclid's. Not only that, these geometries had applications in the physical world. Here, not merely accepting proved to be a good thing.

But Kurt Godel, in the early 1900's, proved these two theorems:

In any consistent formalization of mathematics that is sufficiently strong to define the concept of natural numbers, one can construct a statement that can be neither proved nor disproved within that system.
and
No consistent system can be used to prove its own consistency.

So logical constructs have their limitations, and there's no use driving one's self crazy when one encounters these limitations.

Blessings,

Gerry