-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is There More to Atheism than Lack of Belief?
- Thread starter Ana the Ist
- Start date
Yes but specifically I do not pretend to know exactly how it works, just that I don't think anything other than material is involved.
And so, there would be no proper distinction between physical processes and other processes.
Upvote
0
Not yet.
I am saying that I think that with enough understanding of how the system runs now, you could build one out of different yet analogous materials, where there is a subject that "feels" (yet is artificial).
And at this point, ideas are going to be understood entirely as material things.
I disagree with Neagle or other modern dualist thinkers that there is something special about consciousness, or that subjectivity implies something non-material, or a different sort of "stuff".
Complex, difficult or even obtuse, does not non-physical make.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You would have to show me why I am wrong rather than just asserting it.
I do not think they are made of anything other than material. I also think defining things from our perspective as "thinkers" (those beings that do not experience the nuts and bolts of our thoughts) can get us into problems metaphysically because we start thinking of things like "imagination and thoughts" as non-physical processes.
How do you suppose Imaginations and thoughts come into being? What are they made of? How do they persist? How do they interact with material?
The simplest answer is the most likely here, that they are part of the material system.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
When a computer engages in computation, is computation material? If not, what is it?
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
The dictionary defines it as
Matter | Define Matter at Dictionary.com
I believe #2 and #3 are the ones that pertain to matter as we are discussing it.
2. physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3. something that occupies space.
Since thoughts and imagination are not a solid, liquid, gas and they do not take up any space, they are not material
Ken
Upvote
0
So the process of a stone rolling down a hill is not a physical process.
Neither is the carbon cycle or nitrogen cycle.
Weather is not a physical process.
Interesting how we can get such ridiculous results when we so narrowly define things.
The answer to your question is though that it is that consciousness requires all of the states of matter as it is dispersed throughout a hugely complex network of interrelating physical things, and thus is at it's core a material system.
Do go on continuing to quote the dull acceptance of centuries out of date metaphysics from the dictionary though. It's quite the compelling argument.
Definition #2 of course asserts as a premise "incorporeal substances" (whatever those are), so I just throw it right out in the trash bin where it belongs if I take a materialist approach.
That matter is distinct from say, energy Definition #3 seems quite contentious as a philosophical statement given that matter and energy are known to be interchangeable....
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Just because something is a part of a physical process doesn't make it material. In your scenerio, the stone is the material, and the rolling down the hill is the action of the stone.
Nitrogen is a gas thus it is material.
Weather is not, but rain, snow, etc; that is material.
Where are you getting this information? I mean are we supposed to just discard the dictionary definitions and go with yours?
K
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I was really looking to a reply for this:
When a computer engages in computation, is computation material? If not, what is it?
But your reply is also interesting. Apparently, you typed your reply without moving your fingers, since actions do not take up space.
Actions do take up space, since it is entities that act. That's what an action is, not something abstract. That means that the computation that a computer performs is material, since it is a material process.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
"Stones" are groups of atoms, they "take up space" because they are made of particles that exclude each other from space via magnetic fields.
The distinction you are making between matter, potential energy, and kinetic isn't really appropriate. It is all made from the same stuff.
The nitrogen cycle is a cyclical process of nitrogen in the environment without which life on earth would be impossible.
You would like to say this is not a material thing but then, what is it made of?
You are a collection of cycling compounds too.
Is your body not material because you are composed of cycling compounds in a process that has an end point?
Is your consciousness non-material because it exists as a complex set of interactions of material things?
The weather is a process of those components not the components themselves.
Weather is not made of water but something water does, how it effects other things.
I am telling you that your dictionary contains some metaphysical propositions that are not entirely agreeable even if they are widely accepted (How you get a definition in the dictionary is to use a term a certain way).
You should question dictionary definitions when they come from a specific metaphysical schema rather than taking it for gospel.
The dictionary comes from common usage, and in common usage Idealism is perfectly valid and energy and matter are different things.
Quoting a dictionary this way is an appeal to popularity. So, you are attempting to settle a metaphysical disagreement by appealing to the "well it's widely accepted enough to appear as a definition in the dictionary" approach.
So, to the average person matter and energy are distinguishable, made from different stuff, even if that non material stuff isn't a really well thought out idea.
But then you have to throw old ideas like this one out:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Action
My actions don't take up space, but I do. If what you said were true, me plus action would take up more space than me without any action. My fingers take up the same amount of space typing that they do when they aren't doing anything at all.
Ken
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Action of...?
No, that's not a valid conclusion.
When your body moves, you take more space than when standing still, because we are considering the space you take up over time, not in snapshots of time. The only way that actions such as typing don't take up more space if it you eliminate time from consideration. But time is precisely relevant to the issue of action.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
How much time? a second? A minute? An Hour? day? How much time? In 10 minutes I will be in a different room taking up space there; does that count when considering the amount of space I am taking up right now?
Next week I will be taking up space in another state. Am I taking up space there now? Where are you getting this stuff?Eidao said:
Ken
Upvote
0
Similar threads
