Are words immaterial?

[none]

I am not sure how to answer this one.
I am puzzled, maybe somebody else here has an idea on how to answer this in the negative..
Are words immaterial?
I'd say words are recorded in the brain and are nothing more than electro-chemical processes.

 

[Kharakov]

I am puzzled, maybe somebody else here has an idea on how to answer this in the negative..
Are words immaterial?

No.

 

[Perspicuo]

I'd say words are recorded in the brain and are nothing more than electro-chemical processes.

So then, why are you "puzzled"? Are you uncomfortable with your own answer? If so, how come?

 

[Togo]

Turn the question around - if they are material, what are they made of?

If you believe it is an electrochemical processes in the brain, then you run into certain problems. Why isn't the same word the same electrochemical pattern in different people, and how can it have both a written and a spoken form without descending into functionalism? Can you have instances of a word without having a definition of the word itself? And so on.

There isn't a 'right' answer to whether all things are material. The sensible approach is simply to use a definition set appropriate to the questions you want to ask. You just need to be aware of what the consequences of embracing one definition over the other are, and the drawbacks of each.

 

[Kharakov]

You got your metamaterial on my material!

 

[fast]

I am not sure how to answer this one.
I am puzzled, maybe somebody else here has an idea on how to answer this in the negative..
Are words immaterial?
I'd say words are recorded in the brain and are nothing more than electro-chemical processes.

Words are immaterial.

 

[fast]

Turn the question around - if they are material, what are they made of?

If you believe it is an electrochemical processes in the brain, then you run into certain problems. Why isn't the same word the same electrochemical pattern in different people, and how can it have both a written and a spoken form without descending into functionalism? Can you have instances of a word without having a definition of the word itself? And so on.

There isn't a 'right' answer to whether all things are material. The sensible approach is simply to use a definition set appropriate to the questions you want to ask. You just need to be aware of what the consequences of embracing one definition over the other are, and the drawbacks of each.

An instance of a word without a definition. Hmmm. That's going to bother me. There is an open-minded propensity to think there's an exception lying in wait.

 

[Under the Rose]

While you are pondering this weighty topic, allow me to post an illustration of words in a material form.

 

[Bronzeage]

Sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

If words were an electro-chemical process, each would have to have a unique molecular composition to account for all the words and all the nuances of mean of all the words in our vocabulary. One can imagine a chemical database of concepts, definitions, and compounds of both. I think the crux if this question is our need for metaphor in thought. We use metaphor to illuminate the relationships in our world. We want words to have substance, but need a metaphor to explain how this could be, so turn to chemistry for a model.

 

[fast]

Sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

If words were an electro-chemical process, each would have to have a unique molecular composition to account for all the words and all the nuances of mean of all the words in our vocabulary. One can imagine a chemical database of concepts, definitions, and compounds of both. I think the crux if this question is our need for metaphor in thought. We use metaphor to illuminate the relationships in our world. We want words to have substance, but need a metaphor to explain how this could be, so turn to chemistry for a model.

The drive to think that immaterial objects are electro-chemical in nature stems from the need to hold true to the belief that everything that exists must exist somewhere.

Every thing is somewhere, but not everything is somewhere.

 

[untermensche]

I am not sure how to answer this one.
I am puzzled, maybe somebody else here has an idea on how to answer this in the negative..
Are words immaterial?
I'd say words are recorded in the brain and are nothing more than electro-chemical processes.

That's only one aspect of words.

They are also waves of sound, and exist as written symbols.

 

[Under the Rose]

Words convey information and energy. Words are conduits for motion and emotion. Words have power in that they can affect us, positively or negatively. For those reasons, I would not discount words as 'immaterial' even though their exact nature may elude description in simple terms.

 

[fast]

Words convey information and energy. Words are conduits for motion and emotion. Words have power in that they can affect us, positively or negatively. For those reasons, I would not discount words as 'immaterial' even though their exact nature may elude description in simple terms.

Words denote meaning.

Speaking of words and meaning, the word "immaterial" is ambiguous and thus has more than one meaning. One meaning is "Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.", and a second meaning is, "Having no material body or form."

When he asks if words are immaterial, he is using the second definition, so the answer is still yes even though it's false that words are immaterial (in the first usage of the term).

 

[Under the Rose]

Words convey information and energy. Words are conduits for motion and emotion. Words have power in that they can affect us, positively or negatively. For those reasons, I would not discount words as 'immaterial' even though their exact nature may elude description in simple terms.

Words denote meaning.

Speaking of words and meaning, the word "immaterial" is ambiguous and thus has more than one meaning. One meaning is "Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.", and a second meaning is, "Having no material body or form."

When he asks if words are immaterial, he is using the second definition, so the answer is still yes even though it's false that words are immaterial (in the first usage of the term).

What if 'thoughts' and 'words' or 'language' are actually measurable? That would suggest that they have a 'form' even if this is not 'formally' acknowledged as yet.

 

[Perspicuo]

You got your metamaterial on my material!

You've got metamaterial on my material!

And you've got material on my metamaterial!

What?

Delicious!

 

[fast]

Words denote meaning.

Speaking of words and meaning, the word "immaterial" is ambiguous and thus has more than one meaning. One meaning is "Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.", and a second meaning is, "Having no material body or form."

When he asks if words are immaterial, he is using the second definition, so the answer is still yes even though it's false that words are immaterial (in the first usage of the term).

What if 'thoughts' and 'words' or 'language' are actually measurable? That would suggest that they have a 'form' even if this is not 'formally' acknowledged as yet.

Material form?

 

[Togo]

What if 'thoughts' and 'words' or 'language' are actually measurable? That would suggest that they have a 'form' even if this is not 'formally' acknowledged as yet.

Material form?

If they have measureable physical characteristics, then that suggests that they have material form. However, it would have to be the thought itself, rather than merely an aspect of or something associated with the thought. This is important because shared concepts - thoughts, words and language, appear to routinely fail to obey physical laws.

You can then go one of two directions. Either acknowledge that shared concepts are not physical (material) objects, and that expecting them to act as if they were is simply a category error. Or maintain that physical laws will one day eliminate the need for everything that isn't physical.

The latter, otherwise known as eliminative materialism, is obviously very attractive, but very hard to justify in practice.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Let me write your words on your eyeballs and see if they don't hurt. Ouch, yeah?

If words were an electro-chemical process, each would have to have a unique molecular composition to account for all the words and all the nuances of mean of all the words in our vocabulary.

No.

Maybe you're not even minimally familiar with how computers work or with the basic facts of language practice in humans?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

While you are pondering this weighty topic, allow me to post an illustration of words in a material form.

Still, it has been a fact for centuries that human beings are trying to dematerialise their words as much as possible, going from clay tablets and marble post-its to electronic mails. I ask you, WHAT NEXT!?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I am not sure how to answer this one. I am puzzled, maybe somebody else here has an idea on how to answer this in the negative. Are words immaterial?

Are you serious man? Are you saying that you don't know if words written on paper are material?
EB

- - - Updated - - -

I am puzzled, maybe somebody else here has an idea on how to answer this in the negative..
Are words immaterial?

No.

Even one word is material evidence.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

I am not sure how to answer this one.
I am puzzled, maybe somebody else here has an idea on how to answer this in the negative..
Are words immaterial?
I'd say words are recorded in the brain and are nothing more than electro-chemical processes.

Words are immaterial.

Any material evidence?
EB