What is Physical?

[com7fy8]

I think what is physical is what our bodies can sense. What is physical can be measured in comparison to other physical things. But no matter how much people know, they still can not understand what they know, enough to predict the weather and control medical things.

And they certainly can not understand a personality so they can know how to help people with personality problems.

This is because control of things comes from deeper than what is physical. God is the One really in control, by means of His ways, and the Bible says God's ways are "past finding out", in Romans 11:33. So, I understand that humans can not understand things like weather and the human body, because God's ways "un-figure-outable" are operating in His physical creation.

"And there is sin in the mix: how we are out of touch with God, and so we miss out on how we could benefit from things." We could so benefit, by loving, instead of trying to control; I mean how we can try to control, in order to get pleasures which are only physical.

Ones claiming to be scientists say that electrons move very fast around an atom's nucleus and do not come together and stay together with the positive protons of the nucleus; but scientists also say that positive and negative charges to attract to each other. Plus, an electron is so very lighter than a proton, so that you would "think" it would not have enough weight with momentum to stay away from the nucleus; yet, it can, they say, keep flying around the nucleus. And now ones even say an electron does at times move through the nucleus and then goes out into orbit, again! So, if this is really so, then where does it's energy with such a sort of independence really come from? I consider that God has things working, like this, all the time. He is this "fast", in managing and multi-tasking even with every electron, in His all-control.

And He is not answering to physical laws that would make things predictable.

He has even physical things working in His ways which are "past finding out".

"God is love," we have, in 1 John 4:8&16. And love is personal, not physical . . . not controllable and predictable. Love is spiritual, then, not physical.

But some number of people are into only what their bodies can have them experiencing; they are into using their bodies to feel pleasures. So, they want physical things to be predictable so they can know how to control them for the pleasures they want; they want to think things physical can be understood and predictable and under their selfish control. They even want humans to have set personalities with emotions which are physically caused, so they can be controlled by physical means.

Because selfish people try to use each other, for pleasures, instead of being personal and "tenderhearted" (Ephesians 4:32, 1 Peter 3:8-9) in caring and sharing with one another. And in seeking only physical experiences and the highs of their pleasure experiences, this can get lonely and boring, enough never being enough.

So they develop their ideas and beliefs not according to reality but according to their wishful seeking of pleasures and the security to get it.

Therefore, they even put people into categories with identities which are connected to pleasures that humans seek. For only one example, we see how there are categories of "male" and "female", which are sexual identities > connected to how sexual sensations can give such pleasure, and connected with how female bodies and male bodies can have other specialized abilities and ways of giving pleasure. People try to make all "men" alike and all "women" alike, more or less so they can know how to predict and control each other for what they want for pleasure . . . instead of learning how to get to know each unique individual and find out how to do loving good for each one.

In a system of oppression, then, ones are not first interested in finding out how to love each person; but they seek to know how to control and use "men" and "women" as groups. They also want to think that emotions and feelings are physical, and not from a spiritual source > they want to believe that emotions come from a physical cause . . . so they can be controlled by physical means, instead of finding out how to love each person.

And because ones are impersonal, like this, they miss out on love, as they try to use people, even trying to control them as whole groups of "men", "women", "gays", "bipolars", "children", unfun "fundies", and "atheists". But if you are busy with loving any and all people; you will not fit easily into any category, nor will selfish people be able to lure and hook you with their bait which selfish people bite.

So, we need to learn how to love > "'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

 

[Resha Caner]

It would be clearer if you could SHOW me material and immaterial the way you show me open and closed.

Per my definitions, I can. But I suspect you have some ideas of your own about what immaterial means. We need to be sure not to add your ideas to my idea ... at least not without mutual agreement.

I'll expand on that below in reply to Paradoxum's comments.

Why wouldn't we like to accept a definition. I could accept a definition of fairies, but not think they are real.

Yes, but let's work through a few issues here and maybe my statement will be clearer. In the same venue as our discussion here we have terms like "miracle", which most take to mean a suspension of physical law. Most definitions of miracle create some kind of contradiction such as a miracle is when the impossible happens. That's just nonsense. I use C.S. Lewis' definition of miracle, which is God's intervention in the material world, not a suspension of physical law. IOW, it is the application of power beyond our abilities, but in concert with physical laws and not something that is impossible.

As such, my definition is asking you to say: this is possible.

Next, we have things like faeries ... or I prefer to use Pegasus as an example - winged horses. You would probably accept that a winged horse is possible. No one has used biology to prove it impossible (and I doubt they could). We know of mammals with wings (e.g. bats). The existence of a winged horse wouldn't mean it would have to fly (ostriches don't, but they have wings), or even that it has six limbs. It would only mean extra tissue between a rib and a limb - something that's easily conceivable ... maybe it's even happened and I'm not aware of it ... but per the Greek story it's not something we've seen. It might be conceivable, but we've no evidence of what is described in Greek myths.

My definition (per durango's post) speaks of things we can experience. Remember what I said regarding how I use the word "physical". I use it only to mean those things we can interact with. People often begin these conversations assuming immaterial means something we can't see, touch, taste, smell, hear, etc. I've not said that. It would be ridiculous for that to be part of my definition.

Further, you used the word "supernatural". I've not used that word. So far, I've only used 3 words: material, immaterial, and physical.

We're not really ready for a deep discussion on other terms, but I'll add two more definitions to help clarify things a bit.

soul: Soul is a mind constituted of the material.

spirit: Spirit is a mind constituted of the immaterial.

I've still not used the word "supernatural", and I've no plans to. In all the connotations I've seen of that word, it's not (AFAIK) a Biblical concept. So, it's not part of my beliefs ... though I'd be willing to entertain a definition from you regarding what you think that word means.

I don't know if material things can be at rest. Not all material things have mass (photons), and I'm not sure if they all have extension. I'd think the physical is only reducible to a point... it must stop somewhere, but that irreducible thing will still be physical.

You're working the wrong direction here. You're listings things you consider to be material and noting how they don't fit my definition. If that's what you're going to do, you'll have to explain to me why they are material and what immaterial might possibly mean. I'm going the other direction. State the definition and then classify things based on which definition they adhere to.

As such, per my definition, a photon is immaterial.

If you're going to argue with that, tell me why I'm wrong. I'll lead you a bit, and say I suspect that your current thinking is: everything that is physical is material. My definition does not require that. In fact, if you insist on keeping that axiom, you make it impossible for me to give you a definition. You've stacked the deck before the game begins. You have to allow me that there is some way I can perceive the immaterial. If I can't perceive it, how am I to define it for you?

FYI, there is published literature on this topic if you're interested.

 

[juvenissun]

What does measurable mean?

Does this mean something is physical if a thing has quantity? I'm just trying to phrase it in terms of the object, rather than what the observer can do.

More than that. For example, 5 gods is not physical because god can not be measured. To measure means to count the quantity.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes, but let's work through a few issues here and maybe my statement will be clearer. In the same venue as our discussion here we have terms like "miracle", which most take to mean a suspension of physical law. Most definitions of miracle create some kind of contradiction such as a miracle is when the impossible happens. That's just nonsense. I use C.S. Lewis' definition of miracle, which is God's intervention in the material world, not a suspension of physical law. IOW, it is the application of power beyond our abilities, but in concert with physical laws and not something that is impossible.

I agree your definition makes more sense. Though I'd wonder if other spiritual entities could also be said to do miracles.

As such, my definition is asking you to say: this is possible.

I suppose so, if there's a God.

Next, we have things like faeries ... or I prefer to use Pegasus as an example - winged horses. You would probably accept that a winged horse is possible. No one has used biology to prove it impossible (and I doubt they could). We know of mammals with wings (e.g. bats). The existence of a winged horse wouldn't mean it would have to fly (ostriches don't, but they have wings), or even that it has six limbs. It would only mean extra tissue between a rib and a limb - something that's easily conceivable ... maybe it's even happened and I'm not aware of it ... but per the Greek story it's not something we've seen. It might be conceivable, but we've no evidence of what is described in Greek myths.

I'm not sure if a flying horse can exist (might be to heavy), but I imagine a horse with wings is possible.

My definition (per durango's post) speaks of things we can experience. Remember what I said regarding how I use the word "physical". I use it only to mean those things we can interact with. People often begin these conversations assuming immaterial means something we can't see, touch, taste, smell, hear, etc. I've not said that. It would be ridiculous for that to be part of my definition.

By things we can interact with, do you also mean things we can interact with indirectly using technology? So by physical you would mean everything controlled by the laws of physics?

As for your definition of material and immaterial... it could make sense, but I'm not sure why it is a useful distinction. The photon would seem to be immaterial according to you, but I don't see the point in putting the photon under a different label than most other particles.

Further, you used the word "supernatural". I've not used that word. So far, I've only used 3 words: material, immaterial, and physical.

I tend to use supernatural, spiritual, and immaterial to mean the same things.

We're not really ready for a deep discussion on other terms, but I'll add two more definitions to help clarify things a bit.

soul: Soul is a mind constituted of the material.

spirit: Spirit is a mind constituted of the immaterial.

I'd think that the mind would be made from one or the other (or both), rather than having a full mind fully created two different ways. What I mean is, your understanding seems to imply that two minds exist made of two different things. Unless you think either the soul or spirit exists, not both.

I've still not used the word "supernatural", and I've no plans to. In all the connotations I've seen of that word, it's not (AFAIK) a Biblical concept. So, it's not part of my beliefs ... though I'd be willing to entertain a definition from you regarding what you think that word means.

Well, I might at the end of this post... or I might not.

You're working the wrong direction here. You're listings things you consider to be material and noting how they don't fit my definition. If that's what you're going to do, you'll have to explain to me why they are material and what immaterial might possibly mean. I'm going the other direction. State the definition and then classify things based on which definition they adhere to.

Well I was thinking we generally agreed on what things were material and immaterial. If we don't agree then we might be talking about different things away.

In the OP I was trying to ask what the difference is between things like gods, angels, and ghosts, and things we generally consider to be part of the universe, such as particles and fields.

As such, per my definition, a photon is immaterial.

I understand using the word that way in an informal way, but I'm not sure why that usage would be useful for understanding reality. I'm not sure why putting the photon and gluon under a different label from the rest of the particles in the standard model would be helpful.

If you're going to argue with that, tell me why I'm wrong. I'll lead you a bit, and say I suspect that your current thinking is: everything that is physical is material. My definition does not require that. In fact, if you insist on keeping that axiom, you make it impossible for me to give you a definition. You've stacked the deck before the game begins. You have to allow me that there is some way I can perceive the immaterial. If I can't perceive it, how am I to define it for you?

Well my thinking is that I wouldn't define the particles of the standard model differently from how they are already defined by the standard model. I don't see the need to add the label of immaterial to particles that don't interact with the higgs field.

I don't know if the definition of material makes too much difference to the point of the thread. I'm asking what difference, if any, is there between things like angels and ghosts, and things like rocks and photons?

FYI, there is published literature on this topic if you're interested.

Thanks, but I don't care for it right now.

 

[Resha Caner]

Thanks, but I don't care for it right now.

That's the answer I get 95% of the time (100% in your case, I believe). I almost never bother to mention it anymore. So, do you do any investigation into what philosophers have said on these topics before you post a question? I guess I'm somewhat curious what you expect to get out of this. Most often threads like this bear an unspoken challenge of: I bet you can't do it, i.e. give a defintion. But that doesn't seem to be your style.

I'm not sure if a flying horse can exist (might be to heavy), but I imagine a horse with wings is possible.

No heavier than an airplane. The issue is the amount of muscle mass needed to provide strength for the necessary lift force. I wouldn't be too quick to say it's impossible. It is, however, very impractical, which is probably why no flying horses exist.

By things we can interact with, do you also mean things we can interact with indirectly using technology? So by physical you would mean everything controlled by the laws of physics?

For the sake of this conversation I'll put my instrumentalism aside and answer "yes". Also with the caveat that I would not agree God is controlled by the laws of physics. Rather, He submits to them ... in fact, He was the one to establish them in the first place.

I tend to use supernatural, spiritual, and immaterial to mean the same things.

Many people do. IMO, for words to be useful they need to have distinct meanings. If two words mean the same thing, we only need one of those words. As such, I associate different meanings with them.

I'd think that the mind would be made from one or the other (or both), rather than having a full mind fully created two different ways. What I mean is, your understanding seems to imply that two minds exist made of two different things. Unless you think either the soul or spirit exists, not both.

This gets a bit tricky, which means I may need to fine tune my phrasing. Angels are spirits. As such, their mind is 100% immaterial.

Humans are material, and I think of our mind (our soul) as 100% material. However, the Bible is clear that humans also have a spirit. So, does this mean, as you ask, that we have 2 minds? No. So, it might be better for me to say the human mind is a combination of the material and the immaterial.

I don't like to say it that way, however. Why? For 2 reasons. First, if you'll notice, the material is made up of the immaterial. By my definition a single electron is immaterial (it is, as far as we know, indivisible and it has no extent as I would define extent). It is only when that electron becomes bound to a nucleus to form an atom that it becomes material - or rather that the atomic system becomes material. So, to say a mind could be both would be a bit redundant without really meaning anything.

Second, note this implies there is a sense in which we can say the immaterial is inside of all of us (i.e. that we all have a spirit). It is just that we don't, of ourselves, use that spiritual potential for mind. It is only when the Holy Spirit resides in a person that such potential is awakened. IOW, it fits nicely with Christian theology to say it this way - that those without the Spirit cannot accept God (the spiritual realm) by their own volition because we don't know how to do it. We only have the physics - the biology - that organizes a material mind. It is the intervention of the Holy Spirit that organizes the spirit within us to gain the aspect of a spiritual mind.

Sorry. That seems really wordy. I'll think on it to see if I can condense it down.

Well I was thinking we generally agreed on what things were material and immaterial. If we don't agree then we might be talking about different things away.

That's why I asked for your idea. How would you define material & immaterial?

In the OP I was trying to ask what the difference is between things like gods, angels, and ghosts, and things we generally consider to be part of the universe, such as particles and fields.

I think I've met that request. We are material as is everything in the periodic table. Once you get into particles and fields, my instrumentalism will kick in, but I accept them as physical.

God and angels are spirits. Ghosts don't exist - except possibly for material and immaterial beings who pretend to be ghosts.

I understand using the word that way in an informal way, but I'm not sure why that usage would be useful for understanding reality. I'm not sure why putting the photon and gluon under a different label from the rest of the particles in the standard model would be helpful.

For physics? There may not be much use. But I didn't think this was a discussion of physics. I thought we were talking metaphysics here. For metaphysics I think it's very useful.

I can flip that question around. Of what use is it to physics to have one category? Every time we perceive something, we put it in the bucket called "stuff". OK. So what?

I still think you're starting from the position of, "I want this to be material and that to be immaterial. Now let's make the definition fit." I'm challenging you to create a definition and see how that causes you to classify things - how it might challenge your thinking on this topic.

 

[bhayes]

It is an excuse for not having an answer.

I think the same of atheism.

 

[Ken-1122]

Magnetism can't be experienced by our senses. I suppose we could say that we don't sense gravity either, we just feel the pressure put on our feet (for example). So I don't think that works.

I said that which can be experienced via our 5 sences. Even though we are unable to SEE gravity or magnetism, we are able to experience it's existence via one or more of our 5 sences.

I don't define the universe like that though. If the universe is all that exists, that means God and angels are part of the universe, so God couldn't create the universe.

But that is the definition of the Universe even if it conflicts with your religious views.

Ken

K

 

[Ken-1122]

I think the same of atheism.

Atheism does not attempt to give answers.

K

 

[Paradoxum]

That's the answer I get 95% of the time (100% in your case, I believe). I almost never bother to mention it anymore. So, do you do any investigation into what philosophers have said on these topics before you post a question? I guess I'm somewhat curious what you expect to get out of this. Most often threads like this bear an unspoken challenge of: I bet you can't do it, i.e. give a defintion. But that doesn't seem to be your style.

I didn't know you kept a chart on my responses. I didn't ask for a link, so I don't know why you seem to be getting huffy with me.

It depends what topics you mean. My philosophy degree was mostly aimed at things like ethics and philosophy of law, so I've stuff stuff on those topics (which are the topics I talk most often about). Not that I claim to be anywhere near expert on anything.

I didn't do any investigation for this because it was just a thought I had, and I wondered what people would say. I wasn't trying to catch people out (I'm not sure how that would work).

No heavier than an airplane. The issue is the amount of muscle mass needed to provide strength for the necessary lift force. I wouldn't be too quick to say it's impossible. It is, however, very impractical, which is probably why no flying horses exist.

Maybe a horse could, but I don't know if any animal that heavy has flown before. Perhaps it is possible.

For the sake of this conversation I'll put my instrumentalism aside and answer "yes". Also with the caveat that I would not agree God is controlled by the laws of physics. Rather, He submits to them ... in fact, He was the one to establish them in the first place.

You don't think God is physical though do you?

You say instrumentalism later on in the post, so I'll ask now what you mean by that.

Many people do. IMO, for words to be useful they need to have distinct meanings. If two words mean the same thing, we only need one of those words. As such, I associate different meanings with them.

Well the word might have slightly different meanings to people... but rather similar. We do tend to have numerous words for some things. For example, sex, or words for the sex organs (strange example).

I don't see a need to use them differently since I can't think of any concepts that need words like these as their labels.

This gets a bit tricky, which means I may need to fine tune my phrasing. Angels are spirits. As such, their mind is 100% immaterial.

Humans are material, and I think of our mind (our soul) as 100% material. However, the Bible is clear that humans also have a spirit. So, does this mean, as you ask, that we have 2 minds? No. So, it might be better for me to say the human mind is a combination of the material and the immaterial.

It's 100% material, but is a bit of both, but below you also say the material is made of the immaterial? That seems quite confused.

I don't like to say it that way, however. Why? For 2 reasons. First, if you'll notice, the material is made up of the immaterial. By my definition a single electron is immaterial (it is, as far as we know, indivisible and it has no extent as I would define extent). It is only when that electron becomes bound to a nucleus to form an atom that it becomes material - or rather that the atomic system becomes material. So, to say a mind could be both would be a bit redundant without really meaning anything.

It would seem that the spirit (brain particles) humans have can't mean the same thing as the spirit (mind) that angels have then. Am I right? If it meant the same thing then angels must have souls too, it would seem.

Also, this means all animals have a soul and spirit, according to the human definition?

I am a little confused.

Second, note this implies there is a sense in which we can say the immaterial is inside of all of us (i.e. that we all have a spirit). It is just that we don't, of ourselves, use that spiritual potential for mind. It is only when the Holy Spirit resides in a person that such potential is awakened. IOW, it fits nicely with Christian theology to say it this way - that those without the Spirit cannot accept God (the spiritual realm) by their own volition because we don't know how to do it. We only have the physics - the biology - that organizes a material mind. It is the intervention of the Holy Spirit that organizes the spirit within us to gain the aspect of a spiritual mind.

You seem to be using the word 'spirit' in a different way again. If I'm correct, you use the word spirit to apply to the particles in our brains, but here you seem to assume this spirit has magical extra powers which have nothing to do with the physics of these particles.

Atheists could accept God was real without the Spirit, we would just need the evidence. I don't see why we would need the Holy Spirit for us to follow God either. If God shows that he is good and worth listening to then many people would follow him. Just because I'm an atheist it doesn't mean I'm purposely doing what I deep down know is wrong.

How does this Holy Spirit stuff help Christianity anyway? If someone dies unsaved that means it's Gods fault. Unless the Spirit can open you to God but you nevertheless deny it for some reason.

That's why I asked for your idea. How would you define material & immaterial?

Thinking about it more, I think I might make distinctions between immaterial and supernatural.

I haven't fully thought through these definitions, but I'll give them a go:

Material: Anything part of time and space. A unit or amount of substance.

Immaterial: Beyond time and space (ie: Only God).

I'll consider more what I think is natural and supernatural another time.

I think I've met that request. We are material as is everything in the periodic table. Once you get into particles and fields, my instrumentalism will kick in, but I accept them as physical.

God and angels are spirits. Ghosts don't exist - except possibly for material and immaterial beings who pretend to be ghosts.

You think God and angels are made of things like point particles?

For physics? There may not be much use. But I didn't think this was a discussion of physics. I thought we were talking metaphysics here. For metaphysics I think it's very useful.

I can flip that question around. Of what use is it to physics to have one category? Every time we perceive something, we put it in the bucket called "stuff". OK. So what?

I suppose to differentiate it from not-stuff.

I still think you're starting from the position of, "I want this to be material and that to be immaterial. Now let's make the definition fit." I'm challenging you to create a definition and see how that causes you to classify things - how it might challenge your thinking on this topic.

I don't think it makes much sense to just create a definition. You could say cheese means wood and mental objects, but that isn't very helpful.

You generally need an idea of what it is you think you're labelling and trying to define. I agree that labelling can get you to think about it more and change your mind. I've thought more about it than I've written down, but I've come to no strong conclusions, and I suspect my previous definitions of material and immaterial might not be good.

 

[Resha Caner]

I didn't know you kept a chart on my responses.

Yeah, that doesn't make me sound creepy.

I don't keep charts. I just happen to remember I've asked you before, and I don't recall that you've ever taken me up on it. Anyway, at least I have an idea now of your level of interest in this topic.

You don't think God is physical though do you?

As I use it, He is. God interacts with us. The Bible has countless examples of him acting in physical ways. I'm not saying he is only physical ... I'm not even sure what that would mean, but it seems to be part of your question. Remember I said He is immaterial, well, except for the Incarnation.

You say instrumentalism later on in the post, so I'll ask now what you mean by that.

It's a philosophy of science, whereby no claim is made that specific objects exist. It is a view that science is a tool for describing physical phenomena rather than science being a search for truth or reality. For example, I'm not convinced electrons exist as real, material things. I'm not denying the possibility all the properties of the electron correlate to a single type of thing, but it may also be just a convenient fiction - a well-evidenced and highly effective model. I just don't worry about whether it's anything more than a model.

It's 100% material, but is a bit of both, but below you also say the material is made of the immaterial? That seems quite confused.

It would seem that the spirit (brain particles) humans have can't mean the same thing as the spirit (mind) that angels have then. Am I right? If it meant the same thing then angels must have souls too, it would seem.

I'm satisfied with my material/immaterial definitions. As I said, though, I realize the soul/spirit definitions need some work. The essence of it is there, but I need to wordsmith it. I'll work on that, but I need some time to think.

Maybe an example would help - one I already alluded to. One isotope of the hydrogen atom (tritium to be exact) is comprised of two neutrons, one proton and, one electron. Physics has defined categories into which atoms can be divided. Therefore, something that is 100% hydrogen is also neutrons, protons, and electrons. Yet I assume you don't think it odd to consider hydrogen gas as 100% hydrogen. It doesn't confuse you that it can also be subdivided into neutrons, protons, and electrons.

Neither does it confuse you that the properties of hydrogen are different from the properties of neutrons, protons, or electrons. They are also different than the properties of oxygen, even though oxygen also contains neutrons, protons and electrons.

Likewise, as I have defined it, the material is made up of the immaterial. And yet, when acting as material, the properties of that substance are different than the properties of the immaterial constituents.

Also, this means all animals have a soul and spirit, according to the human definition?

Ecclesiastes 3:21. So, yes, but the result is different for humans and animals.

You seem to be using the word 'spirit' in a different way again. If I'm correct, you use the word spirit to apply to the particles in our brains, but here you seem to assume this spirit has magical extra powers which have nothing to do with the physics of these particles.

Atheists could accept God was real without the Spirit, we would just need the evidence. I don't see why we would need the Holy Spirit for us to follow God either. If God shows that he is good and worth listening to then many people would follow him. Just because I'm an atheist it doesn't mean I'm purposely doing what I deep down know is wrong.

Well, the Spirit is mentioned in a multitude of Bible verses, so I'm not going to discard that. And you asked about spirits, so I answered.

It is not an attack on your intelligence or efforts to be moral. I think it's a pretty easy concept to grasp. If I handed a calculus book to an infant, I doubt they would understand it. They need a teacher. The Spirit is the one who teaches about spiritual things. Doesn't that make sense?

How does this Holy Spirit stuff help Christianity anyway? If someone dies unsaved that means it's Gods fault. Unless the Spirit can open you to God but you nevertheless deny it for some reason.

Yes. Weren't you a Christian at one time? And now you deny it.

Material: Anything part of time and space. A unit or amount of substance.

Immaterial: Beyond time and space (ie: Only God).

Are you interested in delving into these? I can't tell if you are.

You think God and angels are made of things like point particles?

Well, light is often used in the Bible to describe angels, so it seems to me the description could be more than an analogy.

In terms of God, I wouldn't put it that way. Light is created (Gen 1:3), and God is not. Since God is not material (except, as I said, for the Incarnation), the only other choice is that He is immaterial. I have not, however, limited the list of immaterial things to only the things we know about. So, I must admit there is still a large "I don't know" aspect to all of this. Such is the nature of probing the infinite. I don't think that belittles what I can talk about.

I suppose to differentiate it from not-stuff.

Which is? If not a definition, give me an example of "not-stuff".

I don't think it makes much sense to just create a definition. You could say cheese means wood and mental objects, but that isn't very helpful.

I don't think this is a fair representation of my intent in saying that. In the past when I gave my definition people accused me of starting with the desired result and working backward to a definition. That is not at all true. I agree that would be an improper approach, and so I am asking the same of you.

For example, despite my instrumentalism, I didn't start out with an intent to define electrons as immaterial. In fact, I was rather surprised when it turned out that way, and went through several revisions to see if there might exist a form that would make electrons material. I never came up with anything satisfactory.

In my case I read what others had to say on the matter, and found a particularly good paper that discussed the shortcomings of many past definitions: circularity, exclusion problems, etc. My main objective was to see if I could produce something that overcame those problems, and yet maintained the intuitive aspects of what people mean when they say something is material.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yeah, that doesn't make me sound creepy.

I don't keep charts. I just happen to remember I've asked you before, and I don't recall that you've ever taken me up on it. Anyway, at least I have an idea now of your level of interest in this topic.

I hope you know I'm joking.

I just find it kinda interesting, but it isn't something I'm serious about researching. I don't even think the supernatural exists. Extensionless, irreducible things I'd just called extensionless irreducible things.

As I use it, He is. God interacts with us. The Bible has countless examples of him acting in physical ways. I'm not saying he is only physical ... I'm not even sure what that would mean, but it seems to be part of your question. Remember I said He is immaterial, well, except for the Incarnation.

At first glance that seems quite strange, but I guess it makes sense if you think God is part of the universe. I wouldn't say God is physical though, in the same way I wouldn't say I'm a lung. It's part of me, but that doesn't mean the same label applies to the whole.

But I'd need to think about this more to clarify my thinking. Perhaps I'd say that something is physical if it's in the control of physics.

It's a philosophy of science, whereby no claim is made that specific objects exist. It is a view that science is a tool for describing physical phenomena rather than science being a search for truth or reality. For example, I'm not convinced electrons exist as real, material things. I'm not denying the possibility all the properties of the electron correlate to a single type of thing, but it may also be just a convenient fiction - a well-evidenced and highly effective model. I just don't worry about whether it's anything more than a model.

Fair enough.

I'm satisfied with my material/immaterial definitions. As I said, though, I realize the soul/spirit definitions need some work. The essence of it is there, but I need to wordsmith it. I'll work on that, but I need some time to think.

Maybe an example would help - one I already alluded to. One isotope of the hydrogen atom (tritium to be exact) is comprised of two neutrons, one proton and, one electron. Physics has defined categories into which atoms can be divided. Therefore, something that is 100% hydrogen is also neutrons, protons, and electrons. Yet I assume you don't think it odd to consider hydrogen gas as 100% hydrogen. It doesn't confuse you that it can also be subdivided into neutrons, protons, and electrons.

Neither does it confuse you that the properties of hydrogen are different from the properties of neutrons, protons, or electrons. They are also different than the properties of oxygen, even though oxygen also contains neutrons, protons and electrons.

Likewise, as I have defined it, the material is made up of the immaterial. And yet, when acting as material, the properties of that substance are different than the properties of the immaterial constituents.

I think I get what you explain here.

Well, the Spirit is mentioned in a multitude of Bible verses, so I'm not going to discard that. And you asked about spirits, so I answered.

I generally thought soul and spirit meant the same thing, so don't need different concepts. Your ideas of soul and spirit seem to be similar to the ideas brain and mind. Do you think there's a difference?

It is not an attack on your intelligence or efforts to be moral. I think it's a pretty easy concept to grasp. If I handed a calculus book to an infant, I doubt they would understand it. They need a teacher. The Spirit is the one who teaches about spiritual things. Doesn't that make sense?

I doubt a teacher could teach calculus to an infant anyway. If the Spirit showed me manifestations of God I would believe. ie: If God visually appeared to me and others consistently.

Yes. Weren't you a Christian at one time? And now you deny it.

The Spirit didn't do a good job then. I know that my friends exist and I can't deny that... God should be pretty much undeniable too. Giving people vague feelings and unproven accounts of miracles aren't good evidence in the age of social and physical science.

Perhaps not best to get into reasons for belief in God though.

Are you interested in delving into these? I can't tell if you are.

I'm not serious about read up on it at the moment.

Well, light is often used in the Bible to describe angels, so it seems to me the description could be more than an analogy.

In terms of God, I wouldn't put it that way. Light is created (Gen 1:3), and God is not. Since God is not material (except, as I said, for the Incarnation), the only other choice is that He is immaterial. I have not, however, limited the list of immaterial things to only the things we know about. So, I must admit there is still a large "I don't know" aspect to all of this. Such is the nature of probing the infinite. I don't think that belittles what I can talk about.

Light could be used to describe the Sun poetically, but the Sun is made of matter, not light.

I think it makes sense to say God isn't like light.

Which is? If not a definition, give me an example of "not-stuff".

God. Depending on your theology, people might think angels, ghosts, or magic are not-stuff. On the other hand once you think about it you might conclude that they are stuff.

I suppose the idea that angels and ghosts are not-stuff comes from them seeming to be outside of physics, and are very mysterious and magical to us. But if you can imagine that they must work by their own laws too, and are probably made of something, then it becomes more reasonable to think they are just made of stuff different than ourselves.

I don't think this is a fair representation of my intent in saying that. In the past when I gave my definition people accused me of starting with the desired result and working backward to a definition. That is not at all true. I agree that would be an improper approach, and so I am asking the same of you.

For example, despite my instrumentalism, I didn't start out with an intent to define electrons as immaterial. In fact, I was rather surprised when it turned out that way, and went through several revisions to see if there might exist a form that would make electrons material. I never came up with anything satisfactory.

In my case I read what others had to say on the matter, and found a particularly good paper that discussed the shortcomings of many past definitions: circularity, exclusion problems, etc. My main objective was to see if I could produce something that overcame those problems, and yet maintained the intuitive aspects of what people mean when they say something is material.

I'd think the way we define words is either based on how the word is used, or based on a concept that needs a label. What I'm wonder is if my intuitions about these words and what they apply to make sense. I try to figure that out by trying to give a definition which makes sense to the things I'd generally consider physical or material. Depending on the results of that, I might change my mind about how to define things.

Or put another way... I probably have some vague definition of these things in my mind, but I'm trying to make them conscious and explicit definitions by thinking about them.

 

[Eudaimonist]

My understanding is this:

The "physical" refers to that which may be observed or studied by means of the senses. This doesn't require direct observation. We may use telescopes or microscopes, for instance, to make those observations indirectly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

At first glance that seems quite strange, but I guess it makes sense if you think God is part of the universe. I wouldn't say God is physical though, in the same way I wouldn't say I'm a lung. It's part of me, but that doesn't mean the same label applies to the whole.

But I'd need to think about this more to clarify my thinking. Perhaps I'd say that something is physical if it's in the control of physics.

Are you conflating meanings? Recall the definition of "physical" that I gave. When you ask, "Is God physical?" I hear, "Is God interactive?" He interacts with the material universe, but that doesn't mean He is part of it. Your lung example is perfect, especially since the Biblical words for spirit stem from words for breath. A lung breathes, but is not itself breath.

I generally thought soul and spirit meant the same thing, so don't need different concepts. Your ideas of soul and spirit seem to be similar to the ideas brain and mind. Do you think there's a difference?

You need to get away from this idea that words bearing similar concepts are identical in meaning. Saying something is small is different than saying it is short even though they both bear an idea of lesser dimension.

Hebrew: nefesh = soul, ruach = spirit
Greek: pschye = soul, pneuma = spirit

Admittedly that is a simplistic translation of those words, and the Biblical usage is not always that straightforward, but they are different words with different meanings - even though they share some common ground.

Note that the Hebrew word for soul stems from a material part of the body - nefesh derives from words for throat. And the Hebrew word for spirit (ruach, breath) is what was contained within that part of the body. So, in our case, the material soul directs the immaterial spirit ... and the result hasn't been good. It needs to be the other way round.

To answer your question, yes, there is a strong interconnection between soul and mind. I think we've discussed that before. If you want to connect that to the brain, yes there is a connection there as well. When I think about something, the result is a physical construct in my brain. The difference, IMO, is that "mind" refers only to the reasoning functions of the brain, where as soul is more encompassing.

Spirit parallels many of those things, but on the immaterial side. I'm not claiming I can write you a physics book on angels, but I'm saying that if we were to agree light is immaterial, and that angels are made at least in part of light, we would have a substance with physical capabilities, but whose structure and properties are different from the material. Given those physical properties, it is conceivable they could be harnessed to store information, process logic, etc. IOW, they could possibly constitute a mind. Yet it would be a very different mind than ours.

I doubt a teacher could teach calculus to an infant anyway.

The infant would need to mature, wouldn't it? (1 Cor 13:11) And yet a good teacher would be there to teach what the child was ready to learn. What do you think "this little piggy" is about? Among other things, it teaches counting - the beginnings of mathematics.

But the student must be willing.

The Spirit didn't do a good job then.

Yes, it's all God's fault. I don't get it. I honestly don't get it ... People come here with all kinds of questions, and so often the thread pitters away unresolved. When it ends with, "I understand but don't agree for reason X," I can get that. I may not like it, but I get it. However, the frequent result seems to be, "Yeah, that's a problem, but I'm not going to worry about it." I don't get that.

I'm not sure which ending this thread will have, but it has hints of the latter.

I think it makes sense to say God isn't like light.

It doesn't make sense to speculate on the make-up of something you don't believe in.

God. Depending on your theology, people might think angels, ghosts, or magic are not-stuff. On the other hand once you think about it you might conclude that they are stuff.

No. I'm asking for something you believe in that is not-stuff. If the answer is, "Nothing," than we're into discussing physicalism.

 

[Paradoxum]

Are you conflating meanings? Recall the definition of "physical" that I gave. When you ask, "Is God physical?" I hear, "Is God interactive?" He interacts with the material universe, but that doesn't mean He is part of it. Your lung example is perfect, especially since the Biblical words for spirit stem from words for breath. A lung breathes, but is not itself breath.

I probably was forgetting your definition. I don't accept your definition as one which people should agree with, but I might come back to this.

You need to get away from this idea that words bearing similar concepts are identical in meaning. Saying something is small is different than saying it is short even though they both bear an idea of lesser dimension.

Hebrew: nefesh = soul, ruach = spirit
Greek: pschye = soul, pneuma = spirit

Admittedly that is a simplistic translation of those words, and the Biblical usage is not always that straightforward, but they are different words with different meanings - even though they share some common ground.

Note that the Hebrew word for soul stems from a material part of the body - nefesh derives from words for throat. And the Hebrew word for spirit (ruach, breath) is what was contained within that part of the body. So, in our case, the material soul directs the immaterial spirit ... and the result hasn't been good. It needs to be the other way round.

I don't think I was saying that just because two words are similar they are identical. But similar words can refer to the same thing. If one persons says a short animal ran past, and another person says a small animal ran past, they could be talking about the same animal.

The common Christian understanding that I know of is that the soul is a spiritual mind. You may disagree with that understanding, but I wasn't a Greek scholar, so I could only read soul to mean what I understood soul to mean. If so many Christians have got the idea of what a soul is so wrong from the unclear infallible book, I can't help that.

When the common understanding of soul is the above, it appears to be just another word for spirit, which commonly means a non-physical substance.

I'm generally not convinced anyway that the soul and spirit are different in the Bible. Just because they have different root words doesn't tell us what the words meant. What do you think the soul in the Bible means? What do you think spirit in the Bible means?

From your previous definitions I guess you think the soul is a mind with extension. So... you mean the brain, or part of the brain? It seems like it would be easier just to use those words... it's much clearer.

And the spirit is a mind without extension. Does this mean the particles which make up the brain (which is still the brain), or something else?

I'm not sure I see the reason for using two words. If you are just talking about the brain from the zoomed in and zoomed out perspective, why not just say humans have brains?

I know I'm probably mashing up your thinking, I'm just confused by your definitions because I don't find them intuitive.

To answer your question, yes, there is a strong interconnection between soul and mind. I think we've discussed that before. If you want to connect that to the brain, yes there is a connection there as well. When I think about something, the result is a physical construct in my brain. The difference, IMO, is that "mind" refers only to the reasoning functions of the brain, where as soul is more encompassing.

Well mind can be used in broad or narrow ways. In fact I'd think that the mind normally refers to more than reasoning, as you could say 'the mind has repressed a memory'.

Looking at your definitions again though, I think I and you just messed up with definitions, because you use 'mind' in your definition of soul.

It doesn't look to me like either spirit or soul refer to consciousness. They both seem to talk about what the brain is made of (things with extension made from extension less things).

Spirit parallels many of those things, but on the immaterial side. I'm not claiming I can write you a physics book on angels, but I'm saying that if we were to agree light is immaterial, and that angels are made at least in part of light, we would have a substance with physical capabilities, but whose structure and properties are different from the material. Given those physical properties, it is conceivable they could be harnessed to store information, process logic, etc. IOW, they could possibly constitute a mind. Yet it would be a very different mind than ours.

But humans have a spirit right? Does this mean the particles that make up the human brain, or does it mean something else?

The infant would need to mature, wouldn't it? (1 Cor 13:11) And yet a good teacher would be there to teach what the child was ready to learn. What do you think "this little piggy" is about? Among other things, it teaches counting - the beginnings of mathematics.

But the student must be willing.

Sure.

Yes, it's all God's fault.

Well I know you wont agree because to agree you would probably have to stop believing in God. But from my point of view, it makes sense to think that this god doesn't do a good job.

I don't get it. I honestly don't get it ... People come here with all kinds of questions, and so often the thread pitters away unresolved. When it ends with, "I understand but don't agree for reason X," I can get that. I may not like it, but I get it. However, the frequent result seems to be, "Yeah, that's a problem, but I'm not going to worry about it." I don't get that.

I'm not sure which ending this thread will have, but it has hints of the latter.

I was trying to bring this discussion to an end because I'll have a busy for next days. We could continue this more in a week? I'll be able to think about it more then and give better answers.

It doesn't make sense to speculate on the make-up of something you don't believe in.

I think it does. You did it before with flying horses.

No. I'm asking for something you believe in that is not-stuff. If the answer is, "Nothing," than we're into discussing physicalism.

I currently don't believe in any not-stuff. Time could be not-stuff, but I don't have a good philosophy of time. I would agree that everything I believe in is physical though.

Consciousness might (or might not) turn out to be substantially different from what we commonly consider part of science now. If it does turn out to be substantially different, but we come to understand it, I'm not sure whether it would be right to consider is physical, or to make consciousness (or qualia) a different thing from the physical (in my understanding of physical).

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't accept your definition as one which people should agree with, but I might come back to this.

It's not my definition. When I look in a dictionary, I see 3 (sometimes more depending on the dictionary) entries for "physical":

1. of or pertaining to that which is material
2. pertaining to the physical sciences
3. involving or requiring bodily contact

I was referring to #3.

The common Christian understanding that I know of is that the soul is a spiritual mind.

Do you realize you're creating a Catch-22 for me? You didn't ask for a common understanding of the word soul. You asked what I think it is. You can't ask that question, and then fault me for not giving a common answer.

Nor can you ask me to elaborate on my understanding, and then respond with a flippant, "Well, I'm not a Greek scholar." I don't think my reply required you to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar. I was only pointing out that the word used for "soul" in the Bible stems from a material part of the body, and the word used for "spirit" (i.e. breath) in the Bible stems from something not of the body, but which the body controls and uses to sustain its life. Since breath is not of the material body, it makes for a good analogy of the immaterial.

I'm not claiming that is a full and complete justification for my view, but surely it is enough for a starting point. If so, you might have to suspend your past usages of soul and spirit in order for us to be clear.

I know I'm probably mashing up your thinking, I'm just confused by your definitions because I don't find them intuitive.

Yes, regarding my contribution to your confusion, I have badly mangled a few things. We would probably need to make a clean break of it - start over and I'll try to give the definition again.

The thought that came to me which might help, is to say that for we material beings, the soul is the computer, the mind is the program, and the spirit is the electricity. Again, one could start arguing that the computer contains electrons in its make-up, and that the program doesn't really "exist" as a separate thing, but is a construct inside the computer, and so, in the end, it's all about the electrons. But that misses the point of talking about the computer and the program doesn't it?

The angels are not material. By analogy, there is no computer. But does that make it impossible that the electrons could still (by some other means) be organized into a program?

Like I said, I'll keep trying to produce something clearer.

I currently don't believe in any not-stuff. Time could be not-stuff, but I don't have a good philosophy of time. I would agree that everything I believe in is physical though.

And as people try to work through such a position, they always seem to be trying to justify a one-sided coin. Like I said, it's a discussion about physicalism (an unfortunate circumstance, since physicalism deals with definition #1 above, i.e. the material ... and yet materialism means something else ... sometimes I hate philosophers).

I was trying to bring this discussion to an end because I'll have a busy for next days. We could continue this more in a week? I'll be able to think about it more then and give better answers.

Um, well, cough, I'm not feeling the need to be polite here. I'd rather make my point - which is that I interpret this to be the end I spoke of earlier. I'm betting we're not going to continue this conversation. It's a bet I'd be happy to lose, but ...

Anyway, God Bless.

 

[Paradoxum]

It's not my definition. When I look in a dictionary, I see 3 (sometimes more depending on the dictionary) entries for "physical":

1. of or pertaining to that which is material
2. pertaining to the physical sciences
3. involving or requiring bodily contact

I was referring to #3.

Okay, and I'm saying I'm not sure I agree with that usage in philosophy.

Do you realize you're creating a Catch-22 for me? You didn't ask for a common understanding of the word soul. You asked what I think it is. You can't ask that question, and then fault me for not giving a common answer.

Nor can you ask me to elaborate on my understanding, and then respond with a flippant, "Well, I'm not a Greek scholar." I don't think my reply required you to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar. I was only pointing out that the word used for "soul" in the Bible stems from a material part of the body, and the word used for "spirit" (i.e. breath) in the Bible stems from something not of the body, but which the body controls and uses to sustain its life. Since breath is not of the material body, it makes for a good analogy of the immaterial.

I said what I said because you were arguing that I shouldn't think words have the same meaning just because the are similar. I was saying that as far as I understand the words, soul and spirit could easier be the same thing.

I don't know greek, so it's not my fault I make the differentiation you do. So I wasn't arguing against your definition so much as defending myself when you said I shouldn't consider different words necessarily the same.

Anyway, I'm not sure if your greek helps. Saying soul is like throat doesn't tell me what it meant.
If common usage doesn't mean a physical thing, then perhaps the Bible translators shouldn't use the word soul.

I'll point out now that I'm a bit tipsy, so maybe I won't make as much sense.

I'm not claiming that is a full and complete justification for my view, but surely it is enough for a starting point. If so, you might have to suspend your past usages of soul and spirit in order for us to be clear.

Or I come up with my own definition. I think how I understand the soul and spirit are easier to understand.

Yes, regarding my contribution to your confusion, I have badly mangled a few things. We would probably need to make a clean break of it - start over and I'll try to give the definition again.

The thought that came to me which might help, is to say that for we material beings, the soul is the computer, the mind is the program, and the spirit is the electricity. Again, one could start arguing that the computer contains electrons in its make-up, and that the program doesn't really "exist" as a separate thing, but is a construct inside the computer, and so, in the end, it's all about the electrons. But that misses the point of talking about the computer and the program doesn't it?

If the soul is the brain, why not just use the word brain (or part of the brain)? Using the word 'soul' seems to introduce unnecessary confusion, and hits at mysteriousness. I can accept that the mind is the program, though I'm not sure if you include consciousness in the mind. I'm not sure a program represents consciousness well. In my opinion nothing represents consciousness because it seems to be different from everything else.

I don't know how you analogy of spirit as electricity works with your previous definition, or how it relates to the brain or mind.

If we are talking about the brain, brain structure, or the mind, I don't know why we would use vague words like soul and spirit. We all generally know what we mean when we say mind or brain.

The angels are not material. By analogy, there is no computer. But does that make it impossible that the electrons could still (by some other means) be organized into a program?

Well they could be made of something else. In truth we have little idea what we are talking about when we talk about angels, it seems. We only have vague hazy ideas.

Like I said, I'll keep trying to produce something clearer.

And as people try to work through such a position, they always seem to be trying to justify a one-sided coin. Like I said, it's a discussion about physicalism (an unfortunate circumstance, since physicalism deals with definition #1 above, i.e. the material ... and yet materialism means something else ... sometimes I hate philosophers).

I don't know what you mean by trying to justify a one sided coin, in regards to this.

Um, well, cough, I'm not feeling the need to be polite here. I'd rather make my point - which is that I interpret this to be the end I spoke of earlier. I'm betting we're not going to continue this conversation. It's a bet I'd be happy to lose, but ...

Anyway, God Bless.

You weren't impolite. Maybe it will be the end, but I honestly do have work to do over the next few days. We'll see.

 

[Resha Caner]

Or I come up with my own definition. I think how I understand the soul and spirit are easier to understand.

I gave you an opening to do that. You typed out a few sentences, and then said you didn't want to delve further into it.

If the soul is the brain, why not just use the word brain (or part of the brain)?

For 3 reasons. First, because you were asking about the nature of such things. Second, because that's the word used in the Bible, and I'm trying to convey its meaning as best I can. Third, because I recall reading an article that it was once thought the brain did all the processing and the nerves were just transmitters, but that view has changed. It now seems possible some of the pre-processing is occurring in other parts of the body. If that's correct, it's not just the brain.

I don't know what you mean by trying to justify a one sided coin, in regards to this.

A coin has two sides. Trying to establish that only the material exists is like trying to say a coin only has one side. Again, we would need to discuss physicalism.

Maybe it will be the end, but I honestly do have work to do over the next few days. We'll see.

Send me a PM if you want to resume, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Paradoxum]

I gave you an opening to do that. You typed out a few sentences, and then said you didn't want to delve further into it.

I'm not saying you should agree with me, I know I've given you little reason to. If I wanted to fully convince you I might have done better, but I've been moving towards ending the discussion because I know I can't continue it for long.

For 3 reasons. First, because you were asking about the nature of such things.

You think the word 'sou'l or 'souls' is more general than 'brains'?

Second, because that's the word used in the Bible, and I'm trying to convey its meaning as best I can.

Well that's only the word used by the translators. If brain, or some similar word to brain, make more sense then perhaps that should be the translation.

Third, because I recall reading an article that it was once thought the brain did all the processing and the nerves were just transmitters, but that view has changed. It now seems possible some of the pre-processing is occurring in other parts of the body. If that's correct, it's not just the brain.

The nervous system then? I suppose it depends what concept it is your trying to convey. I suspect some concepts to do with the mind (ie: consciousness) only occur in the brain, or are only integrated into a whole ego or self in the brain.

A coin has two sides. Trying to establish that only the material exists is like trying to say a coin only has one side. Again, we would need to discuss physicalism.

I only see reason to believe in the physical/ material (ie: things in science and experience). I also see no more reason to think of it as a coin than to think Harry Potter magic might be the other side. Why would you think it's like a coin?

Send me a PM if you want to resume, but I'm not holding my breath.

Probably wise, as I don't think humans can hold their breathe for days.

(Tis a joke... a very bad joke)

 

[Resha Caner]

I've been moving towards ending the discussion because I know I can't continue it for long.

I understand the desire to look for a graceful exit, so let me give you a hint: answer my questions as glibly as possible and don't ask new ones.

You think the word 'sou'l or 'souls' is more general than 'brains'?

I thank you for the opportunity to vet my definition. I worked on it again this morning and think it is improved. I offer the opportunity for you to do the same, and think that would be the best use of our time if the conversation resumes at some point.

Well that's only the word used by the translators. If brain, or some similar word to brain, make more sense then perhaps that should be the translation.

"Brain" would not be a translation of the word, but a poor interpretation of it.

I only see reason to believe in the physical/ material (ie: things in science and experience). I also see no more reason to think of it as a coin than to think Harry Potter magic might be the other side. Why would you think it's like a coin?

I can't help but think there is some intentional obtuseness in this reply.

Do you know of anything that does not have an opposite?

Someone might throw out something like "lemon". What is the opposite of a lemon? But that is to play the substance/property game - a common one for physicalists. Surely you know that game. Is a substance the sum of it's properties? (In terms of language this asks if a noun is a collection of adjectives). The temptation is to answer, "No." But how is the substance of an apple different than a lemon? Hmm. One can't answer such a question without referring to properties.

So, a lemon is sour. The opposite of sour is sweet. An apple is sweet. Therefore, I can propose an apple as the opposite of a lemon. You could argue that ad infinitum, but you'll never convince me a lemon is a thing for which I cannot describe some other differentiated thing.

Likewise with "material". As soon as you describe it to me, you also tell me what it is not ... and it is virtually certain I can identify an existing thing that is outside your definition ... unless you resort to saying "the material is all". If you go there I'll happily let you, but I will also insist you've resorted to some sort of nihilism - which I believe I've mentioned to you before ... yes, I've got it right here on the chart I keep of our conversations.

 

[mindlight]

Physical is something measurable.

Potentially measurable or actually measurable? Most of what we could potentially measure is beyond our reach.