DeepSight:


In that case, take good care of my absence, a real thing which is right beside you.
Good night.

Deepsight. Your absence is a real thing. A real huge gap will exist where you were before you removed yourself from it, and the absence you leave behind will be noticed by those of us who remain here.

You too will notice the effect of your absense on us when you eliminate your absence and return.

LordReed:
Hi DeepSight. So this thread will carry on with our discussions from other threads. I will start with the following reply to your comment. I will also subsequently add replies to your other comments.



Oh the analogy is very apt. A driverless car acts just as directed as though a human being was driving it because all its integrated systems work to provide a safe driving experience with all the same features of a human driven vehicle. The car will brake, turn, slow down, speed up, allow for car spacing from cars in front of it, follow lane markings, etc just as well as a human. It would be futile to now say that because you cannot locate the driver inside therefore it is unable to function without a driver.

Also driverless cars do have seats and steering and all the other accoutrements that a "normal" car has so the question would be how do we distinguish between a driverless car and a human driven one? Which is directly analogous to the question how do we establish that a human being is "a machine suited to house and facilitate the experience and activity of a resident "being."" rather than the machine with all its attendant functions as an integrated whole?

Interesting discourse.

On the dichotomy between Matter and Mind, evidence being that patients on life support have practically lost the functionality of their mind, only their body seems to be held functioning on oxygen.
Hence this can be a reason to submit that the mind and matter are separate entities.

On the other hand, it there has been no evidence to actually separate the mind from the body, hence the argument of the oneness of the body and the mind seems quite plausible.

To even further convolute this argument, religion has introduced a 3rd party which is the spirit. But let's not derail this thread.

whats the context of this argument Matter nd mind i see but whats up with light and no light..

PS: light is material.

budaatum:


Electricity, light, sand, silicon, etc, my Lord. Everything required to make the device I type the physical words on and which work together to transmit them to you.


Do they really differ? The building makes the shadow by blocking some light from where the shadow is.

The shadow is made of light, or specifically by the reduction of light in the shadow area.

They do differ my dear buda. The physical substance creating the effect is different from the effect. Here's a way we can tell, you cannot manipulate the image or shadow without manipulating the physical substance creating the effect. I am sure you have something casting a shadow somewhere around you, attempt to physically manipulate the shadow itself without touching the thing casting the shadow, it is a physical impossibility simply because the shadow is not made of substance, it is immaterial. You similarly do not directly manipulate the words on your screen, you are issuing commands to a processor which takes you input and outputs it on the screen, the image of which is virtual. Again contrast this to a physical book or diary to which you put pen on to write, in this case you are directly altering a physical substance.

kkins25:
whats the context of this argument Matter nd mind i see but whats up with light and no light..

PS: light is material.

I was attempting to illustrate how immaterial can arise from material.

Myer:


Interesting discourse.

On the dichotomy between Matter and Mind, evidence being that patients on life support have practically lost the functionality of their mind, only their body seems to be held functioning on oxygen.
Hence this can be a reason to submit that the mind and matter are separate entities.

On the other hand, it there has been no evidence to actually separate the mind from the body, hence the argument of the oneness of the body and the mind seems quite plausible.

To even further convoluted this argument, religion has introduced a 3rd party which is the spirit. But let's not derail this thread.

It's fine to bring up spirit and other religious concepts but that thing is it will undergo scrutiny.

LordReed:


They do differ my dear buda. The physical substance creating the effect is different from the effect. Here's a way we can tell, you cannot manipulate the image or shadow without manipulating the physical substance creating the effect. I am sure you have something casting a shadow somewhere around you, attempt to physically manipulate the shadow itself without touching the thing casting the shadow, it is a physical impossibility simply because the shadow is not made of substance, it is immaterial. You similarly do not directly manipulate the words on your screen, you are issuing commands to a processor which takes you input and outputs it on the screen, the image of which is virtual. Again contrast this to a physical book or diary to which you put pen on to write, in this case you are directly altering a physical substance.

You are using immaterial as some sort of opposite to physical, which is wrong. The effect itself is a thing it is own right, as is the consequence of an effect. You mentioned emotions and feeling as examples of this, I think.

My words here you are reading are physically before you as substance that I have manipulated to physically present them to you. I manipulated what you are now reading by deleting and reordering the physical words you now see, which you couldn't possibly be reading if what you are seeing lacked material that makes its substance physically possible for you to see.

I tried your experiment by the way, by just moving the light source, and the shadow moved without me touching the thing casting the shadow. So it is not a physical impossibility at all.

I do not need to directly manipulate a thing for it to have substance, my Lord. You are not reading the immaterial non-physical words in my mind, you are seeing the material I have indirectly manipulated to physically present the contents of my mind to you. And I hope it does have substance.

LordReed:


I was attempting to illustrate how immaterial can arise from material.

Explain please. How does immaterial arise from material?

LordReed:


It's fine to bring up spirit and other religious concepts but that thing is it will undergo scrutiny.

It is believed that we are created in the image of God.
That God is a tripartite being popularly called Trinity- the Father, the Son and the Holyspirit. (Though this concept isn't shared by all).
Hence man is also a tripartite being.consisiting of the Body, the Mind and the Spirit.

The Body is responsible for housing the Spirit and Mind. It is the physical part of the human responsible for sustaining our life on earth. It allows us touch, taste, see,, hear, feed etc. It is also referred to as the Flesh responsible for making man commit sin.. Hence the flesh yearnings should be disciplined.lol

The Mind is the seat of intellect responsible for thought. It is the intermediary between the Body and the Spirit. It is where all human experience is stored.
And responsible for what forms our habit.

The Spirit is supposedly the true entity of our being. Since God is Spirit hence when he created man in his image, he actually created a spirit. Hence it is the part of man that God or the devil can commune with.

As I type this, my mind being my seat of intellect and experience is responsible for informing the thought process I'm sharing.
My body is responsible for the physical act of seeing the keypad and typing my though process.
My spirit is meant to communicate something ethereal that my mind has not experienced before depending on how.spiritual I am, either from God or from the devil.

I hope this hasn't further convoluted this discourse though.lol

budaatum:


You are using immaterial as some sort of opposite to physical, which is wrong. The effect itself is a thing it is own right, as is the consequence of an effect. You mentioned emotions and feeling as examples of this, I think.

My words here you are reading are physically before you as substance that I have manipulated to physically present them to you. I manipulated what you are now reading by deleting and reordering the physical words you now see, which you couldn't possibly be reading if what you are seeing lacked material that makes its substance physically possible for you to see.

I tried your experiment by the way, by just moving the light source, and the shadow moved without me touching the thing casting the shadow. So it is not a physical impossibility at all.

I do not need to directly manipulate a thing for it to have substance, my Lord. You are not reading the immaterial non-physical words in my mind, you are seeing the material I have indirectly manipulated to physically present the contents of my mind to you. And I hope it does have substance.

Just tell me what substance shadow is made of.

EDIT: You didn't directly manipulate the shadow which was the point of the 'experiment'. You can't directly manipulate the shadow you can only manipulate the things that give rise to the shadow. Similarly you don't directly manipulate the words on your screen you are manipulating a processor which is the one actually facilitating the output on your screen. And like a shadow the output of your screen is not made of substance, it is light selectively blocked. The light that is not blocked is what enables you to see the words.

Myer:


It is believed that we are created in the image of God.
That God is a tripartite being popularly called Trinity- the Father, the Son and the Holyspirit. (Though this concept isn't shared by all).
Hence man is also a tripartite being.consisiting of the Body, the Mind and the Spirit.

The Body is responsible for housing the Spirit and Mind. It is the physical part of the human responsible for sustaining our life on earth. It allows us touch, taste, see,, hear, feed etc. It is also referred to as the Flesh responsible for making man commit sin.. Hence the flesh yearnings should be disciplined.lol

The Mind is the seat of intellect responsible for thought. It is the intermediary between the Body and the Spirit. It is where all human experience is stored.
And responsible for what forms our habit.

The Spirit is supposedly the true entity of our being. Since God is Spirit hence when he created man in his image, he actually created a spirit. Hence it is the part of man that God or the devil can commune with.

As I type this, my mind being my seat of intellect and experience is responsible for informing the thought process I'm sharing.
My body is responsible for the physical act of seeing the keypad and typing my though process.
My spirit is meant to communicate something ethereal that my mind has not experienced before depending on how.spiritual I am, either from God or from the devil.

I hope this hasn't further convoluted this discourse though.lol

How can we establish that spirit exists.

LordReed:


How can we establish that spirit exists.

It is experiential.
For a new convert into Christianity there's meant to be an awakening of the spirit by the Holyspirit hence the term "born-again".
Which should cause such person to speak in tongues either immediately or at some point.

Then the conmuning between the person's spirit and God (Holy Spirit) begins.

Although this has become a rarity.

budaatum:


Explain please. How does immaterial arise from material?

Hasn't he established this already with the light and shadow illustration?

Light is material, darkness is immaterial.
Darkness is simply the absence of light.
Shadow is created when a substance blocks light. A shadow is not matter.

budaatum:


Explain please. How does immaterial arise from material?

Some material interactions give rise to effects that are non-material. Most of these effects are unseen, some like a shadow can be seen.

Myer:


Hasn't he established this already with the light and shadow illustration?

Light is material, darkness is immaterial.
Darkness is simply the absence of light.
Shadow is created when a substance blocks light. A shadow is not matter.

Nice one, couldn't have put it better myself.

LordReed:


Some material interactions give rise to effects that are non-material. Most of these effects are unseen, some like a shadow can be seen.

Most immaterial effects are unseen while some are seen?

What's your definition of immaterial?

However, I thought buda asked you what " thing" , immaterial object, can be produced from the material . He is not asking of the "effects" that arises from the material.

"Effects "can be my reaction to watching a comedy show from a material object ,a tele in this case .Others may not react.

So is "something" which you say can arise from the material, the same as the effects from it?

triplechoice:


Most immaterial effects are unseen while some are seen?

What's your definition of immaterial?

However, I thought buda asked you what " thing" , immaterial object, can be produced from the material . He is not asking of the "effects" that arises from the material.

"Effects "can be my reaction to watching a comedy show from a material object ,a tele in this case .Others may not react.

So is "something" which you say can arise from the material, the same as the effects from it?

Yes the something is the effect. When we talk about immaterial somethings we know they have no substance but we refer to them as things because they exist. Case in point the shadow. It is a something yet it is not made of substance, it is merely the effect of actual materials interacting.

Myer:


Hasn't he established this already with the light and shadow illustration?

Light is material, darkness is immaterial.
Darkness is simply the absence of light.
Shadow is created when a substance blocks light. A shadow is not matter.

If light is material and darkness immaterial, then shadows are not created but just appear in the absence of light.
If you insist they are created, then what materials are they created from if darkness is immaterial

LordReed:


Yes the something is the effect. When we talk about immaterial somethings we know they have no substance but we refer to them as things because they exist. Case in point the shadow. It is a something yet it is not made of substance, it is merely the effect of actual materials interacting.

So something can be made without "something" (non substance)?

Myer:


It is experiential.
For a new convert into Christianity there's meant to be an awakening of the spirit by the Holyspirit hence the term "born-again".
Which should cause such person to speak in tongues either immediately or at some point.

Then the conmuning between the person's spirit and God (Holy Spirit) begins.

Although this has become a rarity.

Well how do we know it is spirit and not just the mind? How do we know the spirit is communicating to another spirit?

triplechoice:


So something can be made without "something" (non substance)?

In a manner of speaking yes. Do you agree that immaterial things exist?

triplechoice:


If light is material and darkness immaterial, then shadows are not created but just appear in the absence of light.
If you insist they are created, then what materials are they created from if darkness is immaterial

You are limiting creating to physical manufacturing. We create immaterial things all the time. Your thoughts for instance are immaterial yet they are being created by you.

Myer:


It is believed that we are created in the image of God.
That God is a tripartite being popularly called Trinity- the Father, the Son and the Holyspirit. (Though this concept isn't shared by all).
Hence man is also a tripartite being.consisiting of the Body, the Mind and the Spirit.

The Body is responsible for housing the Spirit and Mind. It is the physical part of the human responsible for sustaining our life on earth. It allows us touch, taste, see,, hear, feed etc. It is also referred to as the Flesh responsible for making man commit sin.. Hence the flesh yearnings should be disciplined.lol

The Mind is the seat of intellect responsible for thought. It is the intermediary between the Body and the Spirit. It is where all human experience is stored.
And responsible for what forms our habit.

The Spirit is supposedly the true entity of our being. Since God is Spirit hence when he created man in his image, he actually created a spirit. Hence it is the part of man that God or the devil can commune with.

As I type this, my mind being my seat of intellect and experience is responsible for informing the thought process I'm sharing.
My body is responsible for the physical act of seeing the keypad and typing my though process.
My spirit is meant to communicate something ethereal that my mind has not experienced before depending on how.spiritual I am, either from God or from the devil.

I hope this hasn't further convoluted this discourse though.lol

If man is spirit and God is also spirit as you say, then it means humans are the same with God.

LordReed:


In a manner of speaking yes. Do you agree that immaterial things exist?

The "manner of speaking" is the way you were taught these things.

In reality what you were taught may not be exactly so.

Creating thoughts is not really creating thoughts. The mind actually process thoughts that has entered it but we describe this process as the mind creating thoughts.

So, I still insist that the shape that appeared on the wall just appeared due to the absence of light. This phenomenon of seeing a shape in the absence of light is called shadow. It is not created but scientific jargon tells us so.

What you refer to as shadow is part of the wall devoid of light. It is not actually a thing.

The immaterial as I know it as against what science teaches, means something that is completely devoid of matter and is not, from what I currently know, a product of any material substance

From my self erected pedestals up above the world I shall make this pronouncement to resolve all your burning questions on this issue. The pronouncement is :


If it doesn't MATTER then don't MIND it.

triplechoice:


The "manner of speaking" is the way you were taught these things.

In reality what you were taught may not be exactly so.

Creating thoughts is not really creating thoughts. The mind actually process thoughts that has entered it but we describe this process as the mind creating thoughts.

So, I still insist that the shape that appeared on the wall just appeared due to the absence of light. This phenomenon of seeing a shape in the absence of light is called shadow. It is not created but scientific jargon tells us so.

What you refer to as shadow is part of the wall devoid of light. It is not actually a thing.

How can it be part of the wall of it is not a thing? You are inadvertently saying it is both a thing and nothing at the same time which is obviously impossible.

It seems for you the only acts of creation involves material things so I ask you how do fictional characters come about if they are not created?

LordReed:


How can it be part of the wall of it is not a thing? You are inadvertently saying it is both a thing and nothing at the same time which is obviously impossible.

It seems for you the only acts of creation involves material things so I ask you how do fictional characters come about if they are not created?

I never said it is part of the wall. I only said it is the wall you're seeing devoid of light or reduced light. Please go back and reread what I explained.

I said the phenomenon is what we refer to as shadow.The shadow is not part of the wall ,even if it appears so, but a shape that appears when that part of the wall is blocked from light.


It is all about how you were taught to describe some of these things that might be the problem.

If you doubt this try to convince someone who thinks black is a colour and come back to share your experience. Technically, black is not a colour but most people describe it as colour and you can't convince them otherwise.

Finally, your last statement doesn't apply to me . What comes from the material is still part of the material even though it is described as immaterial.

Fictional characters are created from the already existing if not it won't make any sense to anyone. One is merely rearranging what already exist .using the imagination.

triplechoice:


I never said it is part of the wall. I only said it is the wall you're seeing devoid of light or reduced light. Please go back and reread what I explained.

I said the phenomenon is what we refer to as shadow.The shadow is not part of the wall ,even if it appears so, but a shape that appears when that part of the wall is blocked from light.


It is all about how you were taught to describe some of these things that might be the problem.

If you doubt this try to convince someone who thinks black is a colour and come back to share your experience. Technically, black is not a colour but most people describe it as colour and you can't convince them otherwise.

Finally, your last statement doesn't apply to me . What comes from the material is still part of the material even though it is described as immaterial.

Fictional characters are created from the already existing if not it won't make any sense to anyone. One is merely rearranging what already exist .using the imagination.

Come now, what you wrote hasn't been erased:

triplechoice:



What you refer to as shadow is part of the wall devoid of light. It is not actually a thing.

The shadow has nothing to do with the wall since even if the wall wasn't there the shadow will still be cast. Even if the is no surface to intercept the shadow it is still cast, you just can't see it.

LoL where have you seen anything been created that is not a rearrangement of existing things? So how does a fictional character being the rearranging of already existing things mean it is not created? Unless you mean creation can only be done from nothing in which case nothing currently existing was indeed created.

PastorAIO:
From my self erected pedestals up above the world I shall make this pronouncement to resolve all your burning questions on this issue. The pronouncement is :


If it doesn't MATTER then don't MIND it.

To plumb the depths of this statement will require deep earth mining equipment and mining engineers. LoL.

LordReed:


To plumb the depths of this statement will require deep earth mining equipment and mining engineers. LoL.

I'm half kicking myself because I think it would have been better if I'd phrased it thus:

If you don't Mind it, it doesn't Matter.

LordReed sincerely I really lost hope that we could understand one another from our discussion yesterday. Especially by the time we had wound up with absence being a thing I truly felt it was hopeless.

However something occurred to me from some of your exchanges above with triplechoice and Myers. Perhaps we are being defeated by language. We ought to have commenced with definitions (I acknowledge my outstanding on that of "spirit" ) but we ought to have defined "matter", "mind" and "immaterial", as well.

We also need to define the word "thing" as being used in this discussion.

Because it struck me from something you said up there that perhaps the problem here is our consideration of what a "thing" is. If we say that a shadow is an effect can we call it a thing. So are the effects of actions "things" properly so called. And would it also be apt to call a verb a thing. So for example is running a thing? Is jumping a thing. Is slapping a thing. Is a deed a thing.

Also is the effect of natural forces a thing? For example can you call the damage done by a tsunami a thing. If we see a broken house as a result of a tsunami can we call the damage thereon a separate thing from the house. Your thoughts on this may be useful to seeing if we can correct our misunderstandings.

DeepSight:
LordReed sincerely I really lost hope that we could understand one another from our discussion yesterday. Especially by the time we had wound up with absence being a thing I truly felt it was hopeless.

However something occurred to me from some of your exchanges above with triplechoice and Myers. Perhaps we are being defeated by language. We ought to have commenced with definitions (I acknowledge my outstanding on that of "spirit" but we ought to have defined "matter", "mind" and "immaterial", as well.

We also need to define the word "thing" as being used in this discussion.

Because it struck me from something you said up there that perhaps the problem here is our consideration of what a "thing" is. If we say that a shadow is an effect can we call it a thing. So are the effects of actions "things" properly so called. And would it also be apt to call a verb a thing. So for example is running a thing? Is jumping a thing. Is slapping a thing. Is a deed a thing.

Also is the effect of natural forces a thing? For example can you call the damage done by a tsunami a thing. If we see a broken house as a result of a tsunami can we call the damage thereon a separate thing from the house. Your thoughts on this may be useful to seeing if we can correct our misunderstandings.

I would say thing is how we describe particular or distinct phenomenon. I am not sure exactly how it applies to actions but we do say stuff like "I am doing something" when we are busy with a task so would I say that action is a thing? I can't say.

As for effects like that from a Tsunami I would say it is a thing, we call it damage. There are many words like damage that we use to describe our environment that don't exactly correlate to a material, like damage isn't a material but what has happened to a material.