Lordy. Maybe there’s just a chasm between us so profound that neither of us can understand the other. You say you don’t know where I’m coming from or where I’m going. Rest assured, the bewilderment is mutual.
I’m still stuck trying to wrap my brain around an existence that is ontologically meaningless yet includes observers whose observations are meaningful — but not material! The brain itself is material, but it produces ghosts (concepts) that aren’t. Material reality is manifest subjectively. And yet, objectively, too. These observers are part of the existence, one presumes, and yet they are like the wind, neither here nor there, incorporeal and yet material. Predications without agency. It is all mystical beyond anything I’ve ever seen in theology.
With a friend assisting, stand on an accurate scale; not a Dr.'s scale, but a dynamic scale which registers changes either on an analog dial or preferably a digital readout. Hold out both hands together, palms up, cupped.
A. Now close your eyes and embrace a new concept. Have your friend record any changes on the scale.
B. Now do the same thing as your friend pours Karo corn syrup into your cupped hands.
What changes did the scale register during part A? Part B? What does this imply about the material nature of concepts? Of Karo corn syrup?
There’s nothing mystical about materialism. That’s one of the clues that distinguishes it from mysticism.
From you experiment, I gather that concepts are not material. But then the question is, does the concept exist?
If yes, then in a Materialist worldview, it must be measurable. How? By changes in Lib’s brain chemistry or neural network while is is conceiving of the concept?
Excellent questions. Yes, I would say the concept exists, but other materialists may disagree with that (I can’t speak for the whole lot of 'em). I don’t know how much information regarding the concept itself could be gained through observation of Lib’s brain chemistry, though. I’d say any assessment of the effect of the concept on Lib is mostly dependent on his communication regarding it. Remember, an immaterial thing can’t be objectively evaluated. (There’s no object.)
You’re apology is accepted. I think much of the problem was a misunderstanding.
Your statement about cake meant something entirely different to me. I’m going to mostly comment on your post reacting to xeno because it has more substance.
As I understand this phrase, it means that something is meaningless when having to do with the theory or study of existence. I don’t think you mean this. These are the kinds of statements that make this discussion frustrating for me. Are you really saying that a philosophy which defines existence is meaningless when speaking of existence?
The brain includes substances and forces which sometimes comprise a concept. Many concepts are relationships between material objects. The pattern of forces and substances is real. The relationship, if the concept is correct, is a real way in which matter/energy acts.
I submit that a baseball player could exist who could someday bat 1.000 for an entire season. This player, most likely, will never exist and yet he COULD. Such a creature is the being who could observe a piece of existence that no individual can currently observe. They COULD exist, unlike spirits. How I come to the conclusion has to do with the axiom of materialism. I have conceived of that axiom by noticing that there is material everywhere I look but spirits nowhere. Some people tell me that they can detect spirits, but not how. Some people tell me how to do it, but upon testing it doesn’t work. Some people tell me of how many ways they have attempted to detect all manner of things and spirits are never detected. All evidence points to materialism. This, you are correct, is not absolutely conclusive. People are fallable. I, in particular, am fallable. Doesn’t mean that I AM wrong. I am a materialist. Are Christians infallable? Is it impossible that you are wrong?
Nothing mystical about it unless you mean that you haven’t been able to understand it.
from Encarta:
I’m hoping you were talking about meaning number 4, otherwise there’s something else you misunderstand.
I’m afraid xeno’s experiment with Karo will only provoke you to comeup with example’s of material things that do not have weight or are at least unmeasurable by current technology. We cannot and no one will ever be able to perceive the entire universe. No one can ever know the whole of existence. The axiom of materialism is that there is no non-material part of the universe. Did we ever get a good definition of material? (sheesh, been working on this post on and off for about an hour and fifteen minutes. going to have to reload the thread.)
Material, for me, is energy/matter. Energy/matter has properties/relationships. These are real.
Example:
Let’s think about a set in mathematics. There can be a set of even numbers. All the numbers are divisible by two, but divisiblity by 2 is not a part of the set, it’s a property of the set. This is different from an agent that causes all the numbers to be divisible by 2. It is merely a fact that, in the set being considered, all the numbers are divisible by 2.
Does this make sense? Do other materialist concur with my definitions? I hope this helps with the existence of concepts vs. the non-materiality of concepts.
Within existence, I can look at the ever diminishing probablitity of the existence of a God (from my point of view), compare that with my thoughts on goodness and what a good God might be like, and conclude that it is absolutely impossible that such a being could exist. The only supernatural beings that I cannot refute in this general way are ones that somehow want things to happen exactly as they are today, which, IMHO, is strangely random and excessively cruel, or ones who do not in any way affect us. I see no reason to consider these concepts seriously. What good could it do me?
OK, going to post and see what happens. Gotta get some work done.
This is the part I have difficulty understanding. You say that concepts are non-material. (or did I misunderstand) You also say that there is no non-material part of the universe. Therefore, I must conclude that you don’t think concepts exist. Yet, clearly, we all have a concept of Triskadecamus’s gausopheme.
There is a dim light trying to illuminate my mind concerning your idea of relationships and properties. Would it be correct to say that a concept is a property of the mental activities that created it?
Is this a property in the same way that “red” is a property of my hair? Red exists only when my brain evaluates the stimulus of light striking the cones and rods in my, or another observer’s, eye.
But if properties exist, where do they exist? In nebulous, ether world of non-material reality? Or does non-material reality only exist while being observed or comptemplated?
These, the gausopheme type of thought, are the kinds of thoughts that exist only as chemical/electrical patterns in our brains and our reactions to them.
No. The mental activities do have properties and these properties could be called concepts I suppose. I think concept is an odd term to use for this discussion because it implies an agent of conception. Properties do not require an agent, but agents may discover or conceive of properties. If an agent conceives of a property, does that make the property a concept? Was it a concept before it was conceived of? See? A confusing term.
It is a property of your hair that it reflects and absorbs light in a certain way. We can perceive this through vision. We describe our perception with the word “red”.
Go back to my example of the set of even numbers. That’s the best I can do to explain this. Maybe someone else can do better.
Why does existence need to have meaning? Existence just IS. What’s the meaning of a cup of coffee?
Lib, do you know the difference between concrete and abstract?
Where did any materialst say that on this thread?
No, what’s mystical is the notion that everything needs an intelligent creator. Materialsim says that not all material objects need creators in order to come into existence.
Concepts need not be directly “measurable” to be materialistic. In my definition given early on in this thread…
Thus, since concepts are “a form or function or action of a material entity” (i.e., the brain), concepts are materialistic in this sense. They need not be measured directly. For example, a magnetic field is not measured directly, yet I don’t think anyone could legitimately claim that magnetic fields are not materialistic.