Are words immaterial?

[ryan]

So then what is a ghost?

What in "it is a bogus word" do you not understand? IT DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING! It is a word used by ignorants.

You told Togo that immaterial has meaning, so then what does it mean?

 

[ryan]

Well, if space-time is considered matter, then I guess I should add space-time to the elementary particles as what is matter. But the question of whether or not positions still remain.

Please try to keep focused! We were talking about the use of the word "material", not of the word "matter". We're not debating about the word "matter".

So, sticking to current science as you urged us to do, I will assume that science does not regard spacetime as matter. Yet, we use the word "material" to refer both to matter and spacetime (or perhaps more accurately to all spacetime relations between distributions of matter over spacetime). I take it that all material properties are considered by science as dependent on the spacetime distribution of quantities of matter. You cannot make any observation of matter except through these spacetime-dependent properties. So, the word "material" really means that spacetime and matter cannot be considered in isolation of one another, and this is science. All you can say, and everybody I guess would agree, is that some material things are not matter but something else, i.e. spacetime, or spacetime relations between distributions of matter over spacetime. Yet, from that, you want to say that spacetime and spacetime-dependent relations are not material. But what's wrong with just accepting that these things are material but not matter?
EB

I thought that we all understood that matter is material.

 

[Juma]

You need something physical to represent the concept.

You need something physical to represent Mount St Helens. But it's not that representation that makes Mount St Helens physical, so why apply a different standard to concepts?

I dont. Conceots requires matter. That is what makes them physical.

 

[Juma]

What in "it is a bogus word" do you not understand? IT DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING! It is a word used by ignorants.

You told Togo that immaterial has meaning, so then what does it mean?

Who cares? There is nothing that is immaterial anyway. Everything requires matter.

 

[WAB]

You need something physical to represent Mount St Helens. But it's not that representation that makes Mount St Helens physical, so why apply a different standard to concepts?

I dont. Conceots requires matter. That is what makes them physical.

Concepts require matter, but that doesn't make them physical. Cut open the brain, examine every bit of it, and you won't find a concept.

 

[Juma]

I dont. Conceots requires matter. That is what makes them physical.

Concepts require matter, but that doesn't make them physical.

Yes. They do. Something immaterial does not require matter.

 

[Juma]

Cut open the brain, examine every bit of it, and you won't find a concept.

If you cut open the brain you will probably kill the object you are investigating...
But if you use less damaging methods then you definitely will find concepts. In the same way that looking in the memory banks of a computer you will find adresses and names.

 

[ryan]

You told Togo that immaterial has meaning, so then what does it mean?

Who cares? There is nothing that is immaterial anyway. Everything requires matter.

The point is that you are trying to say that everything is material without defining it or defining what it's not. Then you will always be right because even a ghost is in the set of everything/material. So even if I show you a ghost, you would have to say that it is something in the set of everything. The interesting thing is to try to define what isn't material and what is material. You don't have to do this; just find me a credible definition of material.

 

[fast]

What in "it is a bogus word" do you not understand? IT DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING! It is a word used by ignorants.

You told Togo that immaterial has meaning, so then what does it mean?

Just so no mistake is made, immaterial no more has meaning than do cats--and I'm talking about lexical meaning. The point is that never does the referent of a term have a lexical meaning. It's always the term that denotes meaning, so a lamp, for instance has no lexical meaning, but the word, "lamp" does.

It's not usually necessary to point this out, even when someone mistakingly talks of trying to define some object, but I feel it needs to be understood that not the object but instead the term has meaning.

 

[fast]

I dont. Conceots requires matter. That is what makes them physical.

Concepts require matter, but that doesn't make them physical. Cut open the brain, examine every bit of it, and you won't find a concept.

Exactly. Where there is no matter to give rise to the mental phenomena, there is no mental phenomena, but what has risen need not be composed of what gave rise.

 

[ryan]

You told Togo that immaterial has meaning, so then what does it mean?

Just so no mistake is made, immaterial no more has meaning than do cats--and I'm talking about lexical meaning. The point is that never does the referent of a term have a lexical meaning. It's always the term that denotes meaning, so a lamp, for instance has no lexical meaning, but the word, "lamp" does.

What about "hello" and "hi". "Hello" may mean "hi", and "hi" may mean "hello".

It's not usually necessary to point this out, even when someone mistakingly talks of trying to define some object, but I feel it needs to be understood that not the object but instead the term has meaning.

Yeah, I should be using quotation marks when using terms, but I usually forget.

 

[WAB]

Concepts require matter, but that doesn't make them physical.

Yes. They do. Something immaterial does not require matter.

No. They don't. To say that a concept is physical is to not understand what a concept is. To say that a concept is physical is to ignore the distinction between abstract and concrete, quantity and quality, etc. This distinction exists. Man has recognized it and written about it for thousands of years. It will not be willed or wished or waved away too easily.

 

[fast]

Just so no mistake is made, immaterial no more has meaning than do cats--and I'm talking about lexical meaning. The point is that never does the referent of a term have a lexical meaning. It's always the term that denotes meaning, so a lamp, for instance has no lexical meaning, but the word, "lamp" does.

What about "hello" and "hi". "Hello" may mean "hi", and "hi" may mean "hello".

There are times when words can be used interchangeably despite any differences in their meaning, usually because the distinction isn't contextually relevant. Hello has no lexical meaning, but the corresponding word, however, does.

 

[fast]

Yes. They do. Something immaterial does not require matter.

No. They don't. To say that a concept is physical is to not understand what a concept is. To say that a concept is physical is to ignore the distinction between abstract and concrete, quantity and quality, etc. This distinction exists. Man has recognized it and written about it for thousands of years. It will not be willed or wished or waved away too easily.

Good response, but don't confuse that which is (if it is) abstract (for instance, an abstract object) with something entirely different, for instance, an abstraction. So, even if he argues there are no abstract objects (a good example being the number three--despite objections), such an argument would fail to show there are no abstractions--like the idea of the number three, or the concept of the number three.

 

[Juma]

Yes. They do. Something immaterial does not require matter.

No. They don't. To say that a concept is physical is to not understand what a concept is. To say that a concept is physical is to ignore the distinction between abstract and concrete, quantity and quality, etc. This distinction exists. Man has recognized it and written about it for thousands of years. It will not be willed or wished or waved away too easily.

I'm not talking about a specific concept. I'm talking about concepts. Concepts are a neuronic behaviour and thus physical. What concepts represents doesnt need to be physical though, indeed the referents doesnt need to exist at all. (As f ex is the case of the concept of ghosts)

 

[fast]

No. They don't. To say that a concept is physical is to not understand what a concept is. To say that a concept is physical is to ignore the distinction between abstract and concrete, quantity and quality, etc. This distinction exists. Man has recognized it and written about it for thousands of years. It will not be willed or wished or waved away too easily.

I'm not talking about "a concept". I'm talking about concepts. Concepts are a neuronic behaviour and thus physical. What concepts represents doesnt need to be physical though, indeed the referents doesnt need to exist at all.

A concept is not physical. A concept is mental. The very young may not have developed certain concepts because they have not developed certain understandings, and just because there can be no mental concepts without physical processes occurring in the brain, the consequence of those physical processes are not therefore physical in nature--instead, they are mental in nature.

There have been many discussions and disagreements on the nature of the mind. I am of the opinion that the brain gives rise to the mind where the brain is physical and the mind is not. The brain is material. The mind is not. A concept is said to be in the mind, but that shouldn't be taken literally, as neither concepts or minds have an actual location, not even in the brain.

 

[Juma]

I'm not talking about "a concept". I'm talking about concepts. Concepts are a neuronic behaviour and thus physical. What concepts represents doesnt need to be physical though, indeed the referents doesnt need to exist at all.

A concept is not physical. A concept is mental. The very young may not have developed certain concepts because they have not developed certain understandings, and just because there can be no mental concepts without physical processes occurring in the brain, the consequence of those physical processes are not therefore physical in nature--instead, they are mental in nature.

There have been many discussions and disagreements on the nature of the mind. I am of the opinion that the brain gives rise to the mind where the brain is physical and the mind is not. The brain is material. The mind is not. A concept is said to be in the mind, but that shouldn't be taken literally, as neither concepts or minds have an actual location, not even in the brain.

The mind is physical. I have no idea how you can claim anything else. Everything that goes on in your mind is brain processes.
The referents of the representations you form in your mind doesnt have to be physical thiugh.

 

[fast]

A concept is not physical. A concept is mental. The very young may not have developed certain concepts because they have not developed certain understandings, and just because there can be no mental concepts without physical processes occurring in the brain, the consequence of those physical processes are not therefore physical in nature--instead, they are mental in nature.

There have been many discussions and disagreements on the nature of the mind. I am of the opinion that the brain gives rise to the mind where the brain is physical and the mind is not. The brain is material. The mind is not. A concept is said to be in the mind, but that shouldn't be taken literally, as neither concepts or minds have an actual location, not even in the brain.

The mind is physical. I have no idea how you can claim anything else. Everything that goes on in your mind is brain processes.
The referents of the representations you form in your mind doesnt have to be physical thiugh.

The substantive physical material (that allow micro events to occur) transpire in the brain, yet no conception, idea, or thought (and not even the mind itself) are themselves physical or material in nature, as are the things in the brain (that are physical) that give rise to the mental objects under discussion. Language.

 

[Juma]

no conception, idea, or thought (and not even the mind itself) are themselves physical or material in nature

Oh yes they are. Your thoughts are the interplay of neurons.

 

[fast]

no conception, idea, or thought (and not even the mind itself) are themselves physical or material in nature

Oh yes they are. Your thoughts are the interplay of neurons.

No, thought is a consequence of this 'interplay'. The physical nature of things (like electrochemical signals) is one thing--these are the things we can detect with instrumentation. But, these things we say exist but cannot find are language driven.