Are words immaterial?

[Juma]

what is the point of using the word "immaterial"? The difference is in the structure and structure is definitely part of what we call material.

I said that there is an immaterial aspect to the material.

And what is the point? What are "immaterial" supposed to mean?

 

[ryan]

I said that there is an immaterial aspect to the material.

And what is the point? What are "immaterial" supposed to mean?

Case #1: 4 apples are in a square formation, and a car drives over 2 apples.

Material A interacts with material B, and the result is C.

Case #2: 4 apples are in a row, and a car drives over all 4 apples.

Material A interacts with material B, and the result is D (not equal to result C).

A different result occurred using the same material. Since material on the macroscale is expected to have a unique effect on other macroscopic material, then it was not the material that caused the results to be different. The reason must be immaterial.

 

[Bomb#20]

First of all, let's assume that a word is an object outside of the brain. Let's also assume that letters are also objects outside of the brain. Now, let's even assume that words exist the way we perceive them.

The word/object "post" can have the exact same material as the word "tops". So I am forced to assume that there is an immaterial difference between words even though they are of the same material.

But a word isn't a sequence of letters. The mapping between them is just close enough to one-to-one that it's easy to confuse the two. Consider the classic intelligence test from a certain Canadian university that shall remain nameless: you show your unsuspecting subject the sequence of letters "unionized" and ask him to read it aloud. If he pronounces it un-ion-ized, he passes; if he pronounces it union-ized, he flunks.

Hmmm. Maybe I had it wrong. Perhaps it's a sound.

So then what is in a book?

Well, if I take the road that a word is more akin to a sound than a quasi-abstract object, I would probably be inclined to make a distinction between an unwritten word and a written word. An unwritten word would then be a sound while a written word would then be a representation of a sound, much like the numeral three is a representation of the number three. So, a word would be either a sound or a representation of a sound.
...
Don't hold me to all that. It needs some work.

Fair enough. A word isn't a sound either. The mapping between them is just close enough to one-to-one that it's easy to confuse the two. So easy that when I was typing my reply to ryan I typed "allowed" instead of "aloud", did a doubletake, and had to fix it. Both the letter sequence and the sound are representations of the word, not the word itself.

 

[Juma]

A different result occurred using the same material.

So is different elements as gold and carbon: different using the same material.

Since material on the macroscale is expected to have a unique effect on other macroscopic material,

Utter bullshit. How material behaves in different configuration is the subject of physics/mechanics. Do you really say that the subject of mechanics is immaterial?

 

[ryan]

But a word isn't a sequence of letters. The mapping between them is just close enough to one-to-one that it's easy to confuse the two. Consider the classic intelligence test from a certain Canadian university that shall remain nameless: you show your unsuspecting subject the sequence of letters "unionized" and ask him to read it aloud. If he pronounces it un-ion-ized, he passes; if he pronounces it union-ized, he flunks.

I don't understand what you're saying here. I defined a word to be a written word. What do you define a word to be?

If we go outside of "mainstream ontology", then science, math, logic etc. falls apart.

 

[ryan]

So is different elements as gold and carbon: different using the same material.

An object with the exact same material and quantity of the material as another object is only relevant to the point I was trying to make.

Since material on the macroscale is expected to have a unique effect on other macroscopic material,

Utter bullshit. How material behaves in different configuration is the subject of physics/mechanics. Do you really say that the subject of mechanics is immaterial?

Yes, the extra dimensions of time and space seem to be part of the reason for different reactions using the same materials.

 

[Juma]

An object with the exact same material and quantity of the material as another object is only relevant to the point I was trying to make.

So the difference between forms of carbon (diamonds versus black dust) is immaterial?

 

[ryan]

An object with the exact same material and quantity of the material as another object is only relevant to the point I was trying to make.

So the difference between forms of carbon (diamonds versus black dust) is immaterial?

That is based on carbon atoms only needing certain positions to be considered a diamond which is obviously wrong. But I'll go with it if you want.

So, assuming there is no difference other than the arrangements between the black dust and a diamond, the only difference is position. Surely positions are not material.

 

[Bomb#20]

But a word isn't a sequence of letters. The mapping between them is just close enough to one-to-one that it's easy to confuse the two. Consider the classic intelligence test from a certain Canadian university that shall remain nameless: you show your unsuspecting subject the sequence of letters "unionized" and ask him to read it aloud. If he pronounces it un-ion-ized, he passes; if he pronounces it union-ized, he flunks.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

I'm saying your procedure of considering the letters P, O, S and T isn't a valid way to reason about the word "post". The series of letters isn't the word itself; it's just a representation -- a sort of hint or pointer -- to help readers figure out which word you have in mind.

I defined a word to be a written word.

Sure; but how a word is written isn't all there is to a written word -- you can have two completely different written words that are written exactly the same way. For instance...

...
The winds buffet the hotel, whilst inside the guests enjoy the buffet.
I tried to console the controller as he stood at his console.
John was content that the content of the box was undamaged.
The drawer drew a picture of the cupboard and drawer.
The lavishly decorated entrance will entrance the visitors.
It will incense the bursar that we have spent so much on incense.
Ron tried to intimate that Liz had an intimate relationship with Ben.
As my mother moped about, a man on a moped rode by.
I broke a number of bones in my right hand; it's number than the left.
...​

You wouldn't say the word for what the winds were doing to the hotel and the word for the meal inside are the same word, would you?

What do you define a word to be?

Oh, I'm not going out on that limb -- what, I should go where linguistics professors fear to tread? But I'll happily hide behind the tree and shoot holes in other people's attempted definitions.

But I guess I might venture a mere description. I think they're a high-level emergent phenomenon -- they can't really be made sense of except in terms of how they function in a whole high-level system. They're a kind of move in the games we call languages.

If we go outside of "mainstream ontology", then science, math, logic etc. falls apart.

High-level emergent phenomena are a part of mainstream ontology. You can't define an intron in terms of DNA base pairs either -- it only makes sense in the context of a whole complex of ribosomes and transfer RNAs and so forth.

 

[Juma]

So the difference between forms of carbon (diamonds versus black dust) is immaterial?

That is based on carbon atoms only needing certain positions to be considered a diamond which is obviously wrong. But I'll go with it if you want.

So, assuming there is no difference other than the arrangements between the black dust and a diamond, the only difference is position. Surely positions are not material.

Then what IS material?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Structures and shapes can be regarded as material to the extent that they have a causal effect. That's what is meant by "material". <snip>
In your example, only the apples arranged in a straight-line structure could all be hit by an arrow in just one shot.
EB

That is my point. The exact same material can have different effects on what interacts with it. There seems to be both material and immaterial qualities to the arrangements of the apples.

But you seem to want to ignore how the word "material" has always been used, i.e. to signify objects (i.e. objective things) having weight and inertia but also structure, shapes and relative positions. The properties of these objects are all dependent on their structure, shapes, relative positions, etc. A glass can contain water because it has a certain shape and its material possesses a certain structure that prevent water sipping through it. Our notion of what is material can only be related to our experience of objects in the material world and these objects all have properties all dependent, as far as we know, on the shapes, structures, relative position etc.

I don't mind that you should use the words "material" and "immaterial" in a non-standard way but you need to justify what would be the essential point of doing that. We all know that structure is a factor in properties. Scientists should be able, at least in principle, to deduce the macroscopic properties from the structures, at all levels, but also from the microscopic distribution over all space of matter and electric charge and of the various force fields associated with such distributions. You seem to be saying that the material world is only the quantity of matter, while its distribution over space being somehow immaterial! You seem to be saying in fact that time and space are immaterial because they are no matter! Yes they are not matter but spacetime is a part, an essential part, of the material world as we experience it. So that's just what we normally mean by "material".

Perhaps, one point you need to consider is that the effects of structures, shapes and relative positions on the behaviour of matter are at least in principle entirely predictable by physical laws. What the structures, shapes and relative positions are at one point in time depend in principle on physical laws and on the relative position in space of the basic components of the physical world (say elementary particles and associated force fields).

Another way to look at it is to say that according to you a table isn't a material object. The table, the earth, our galaxy, the whole universe would not be material objects because an essential part of them are the structures, shapes and relative positions which you want to say are not material.

This, just because, strictly speaking, structures, shapes and relative positions are not made of matter?

Please explain!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

But a word isn't a sequence of letters.
<snip>
A word isn't a sound either.

Dictionaries seem to disagree.

Word
1. A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.

1. (Linguistics) one of the units of speech or writing that native speakers of a language usually regard as the smallest isolable meaningful element of the language, although linguists would analyse these further into morphemes.

1. a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning, is typically seen as the smallest such unit capable of independent use, is separated from other such units by spaces in writing, and is often distinguished phonologically, as by accent or pause.

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

how a word is written isn't all there is to a written word -- you can have two completely different written words that are written exactly the same way.

Oh, so you should have completely different letters that are written exactly the same way, like "a" in "This lady told me in Gabon there's a nasty hairy cat in Cairo called Cain."
Yes?
EB

 

[ryan]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

I'm saying your procedure of considering the letters P, O, S and T isn't a valid way to reason about the word "post". The series of letters isn't the word itself; it's just a representation -- a sort of hint or pointer -- to help readers figure out which word you have in mind.

I defined a word to be a written word.

Sure; but how a word is written isn't all there is to a written word -- you can have two completely different written words that are written exactly the same way. For instance...

...
The winds buffet the hotel, whilst inside the guests enjoy the buffet.
I tried to console the controller as he stood at his console.
John was content that the content of the box was undamaged.
The drawer drew a picture of the cupboard and drawer.
The lavishly decorated entrance will entrance the visitors.
It will incense the bursar that we have spent so much on incense.
Ron tried to intimate that Liz had an intimate relationship with Ben.
As my mother moped about, a man on a moped rode by.
I broke a number of bones in my right hand; it's number than the left.
...​

You wouldn't say the word for what the winds were doing to the hotel and the word for the meal inside are the same word, would you?

What do you define a word to be?

Oh, I'm not going out on that limb -- what, I should go where linguistics professors fear to tread? But I'll happily hide behind the tree and shoot holes in other people's attempted definitions.

But I guess I might venture a mere description. I think they're a high-level emergent phenomenon -- they can't really be made sense of except in terms of how they function in a whole high-level system. They're a kind of move in the games we call languages.

If we go outside of "mainstream ontology", then science, math, logic etc. falls apart.

High-level emergent phenomena are a part of mainstream ontology. You can't define an intron in terms of DNA base pairs either -- it only makes sense in the context of a whole complex of ribosomes and transfer RNAs and so forth.

This is why I wanted to define what we were talking about. I can simply say that this object [hello] is intended to be a word no matter what context it's in. But if [hello] was coincidently carved out of a tree by woodpeckers, then it isn't a word because there was no known intention for it to be a word. At least that is how we learn things in the first place.

 

[ryan]

That is based on carbon atoms only needing certain positions to be considered a diamond which is obviously wrong. But I'll go with it if you want.

So, assuming there is no difference other than the arrangements between the black dust and a diamond, the only difference is position. Surely positions are not material.

Then what IS material?

Elementary particles seem sufficient.

 

[ryan]

That is my point. The exact same material can have different effects on what interacts with it. There seems to be both material and immaterial qualities to the arrangements of the apples.

But you seem to want to ignore how the word "material" has always been used, i.e. to signify objects (i.e. objective things) having weight and inertia but also structure, shapes and relative positions. The properties of these objects are all dependent on their structure, shapes, relative positions, etc. A glass can contain water because it has a certain shape and its material possesses a certain structure that prevent water sipping through it. Our notion of what is material can only be related to our experience of objects in the material world and these objects all have properties all dependent, as far as we know, on the shapes, structures, relative position etc.

I don't mind that you should use the words "material" and "immaterial" in a non-standard way but you need to justify what would be the essential point of doing that. We all know that structure is a factor in properties. Scientists should be able, at least in principle, to deduce the macroscopic properties from the structures, at all levels, but also from the microscopic distribution over all space of matter and electric charge and of the various force fields associated with such distributions. You seem to be saying that the material world is only the quantity of matter, while its distribution over space being somehow immaterial! You seem to be saying in fact that time and space are immaterial because they are no matter! Yes they are not matter but spacetime is a part, an essential part, of the material world as we experience it. So that's just what we normally mean by "material".

Perhaps, one point you need to consider is that the effects of structures, shapes and relative positions on the behaviour of matter are at least in principle entirely predictable by physical laws. What the structures, shapes and relative positions are at one point in time depend in principle on physical laws and on the relative position in space of the basic components of the physical world (say elementary particles and associated force fields).

Another way to look at it is to say that according to you a table isn't a material object. The table, the earth, our galaxy, the whole universe would not be material objects because an essential part of them are the structures, shapes and relative positions which you want to say are not material.

This, just because, strictly speaking, structures, shapes and relative positions are not made of matter?

Please explain!
EB

In my post I said that the structure is made of both material and immaterial. And if everything is material, then what is the point in that?

 

[Juma]

Then what IS material?

Elementary particles seem sufficient.

So atoms are imaterial since they are made up of relative positions of particles.

 

[ryan]

Elementary particles seem sufficient.

So atoms are imaterial since they are made up of relative positions of particles.

Particles have both positions and the particles, so they are both material and immaterial.

 

[Juma]

But you seem to want to ignore how the word "material" has always been used, i.e. to signify objects (i.e. objective things) having weight and inertia but also structure, shapes and relative positions. The properties of these objects are all dependent on their structure, shapes, relative positions, etc. A glass can contain water because it has a certain shape and its material possesses a certain structure that prevent water sipping through it. Our notion of what is material can only be related to our experience of objects in the material world and these objects all have properties all dependent, as far as we know, on the shapes, structures, relative position etc.

I don't mind that you should use the words "material" and "immaterial" in a non-standard way but you need to justify what would be the essential point of doing that. We all know that structure is a factor in properties. Scientists should be able, at least in principle, to deduce the macroscopic properties from the structures, at all levels, but also from the microscopic distribution over all space of matter and electric charge and of the various force fields associated with such distributions. You seem to be saying that the material world is only the quantity of matter, while its distribution over space being somehow immaterial! You seem to be saying in fact that time and space are immaterial because they are no matter! Yes they are not matter but spacetime is a part, an essential part, of the material world as we experience it. So that's just what we normally mean by "material".

Perhaps, one point you need to consider is that the effects of structures, shapes and relative positions on the behaviour of matter are at least in principle entirely predictable by physical laws. What the structures, shapes and relative positions are at one point in time depend in principle on physical laws and on the relative position in space of the basic components of the physical world (say elementary particles and associated force fields).

Another way to look at it is to say that according to you a table isn't a material object. The table, the earth, our galaxy, the whole universe would not be material objects because an essential part of them are the structures, shapes and relative positions which you want to say are not material.

This, just because, strictly speaking, structures, shapes and relative positions are not made of matter?

Please explain!
EB

In my post I said that the structure is made of both material and immaterial. And if everything is material, then what is the point in that?

The point is that imateriality is normally what souls (whatever they are supposed to mean) are said to be made of. You use it about parts of our normal material world.

 

[ryan]

In my post I said that the structure is made of both material and immaterial. And if everything is material, then what is the point in that?

The point is that imateriality is normally what souls (whatever they are supposed to mean) are said to be made of. You use it about parts of our normal material world.

In my post I said that the structure is made of both material and immaterial. And if everything is material, then what is the point in that?

The point is that imateriality is normally what souls (whatever they are supposed to mean) are said to be made of. You use it about parts of our normal material world.

First of all, the OP is not asking about souls.

Second, I have a strong intuition that qualia exist, or something that is not only matter associated with the brain. This does not prove the existence of qualia, but it is at least a place that quale could be.