LordReed:


LoL. Are you suddenly forgetting that this back and forth start primarily because I told you that a deterministic interpretation of methodological naturalism is not my position? Or are you forgetting that I have asked you more than 3 times to provide evidence for your ghost in the machine and you have yet to provide any? If anyone is uncomfortable here it might be you since you seem to be having selective amnesia all of a sudden. LoLz.

Rather than saying this, you should undertake my "spot the difference" task.
I am about to provide my description of spirit. Your affirmation of the mighty oath came too late last night, hence the delay. Remember that it is a mighty oath I shall hold you to.

DeepSight:


Rather than saying this, you should undertake my "spot the difference" task.
I am about to provide my description of spirit. Your affirmation of the mighty oath came too late last night, hence the delay. Remember that it is a mighty oath I shall hold you to.

Spot what difference?

And yet, another crucial point emerges here:

DeepSight:


To my mind, the real problem we are having here is your refusal to accept that the software is one of those parts - you are sticking with the hardware (matter) alone. The software is the immaterial component you have left out of your equation which is the reason I have problems with it.

Note: immaterial component - not immaterial result! - This is my position - And this is very key.
Because what you are in fact saying is actually something that emerges most illogical, absurd and preposterous: to wit: that material things may spawn immaterial things.

In saying that -

1. Mind arises from matter
2. Mind itself is not strictly material

You make the leap of suggesting that the material may spawn the immaterial.
Is this a position you are happy to stand by?

DeepSight:


To my mind, the real problem we are having here is your refusal to accept that the software is one of those parts - you are sticking with the hardware (matter) alone. The software is the immaterial component you have left out of your equation which is the reason I have problems with it.

Actually that problem is yours which you insist on foisting on me. I have said mind is not material and yet is part of being so tell me who is the one with the conundrum if not you since you refuse to acknowledge what I am saying but insist that your interpretation of my position is correct? Now you trying to saddle me with this "The software is the immaterial component you have left out of your equation" when I have repeatedly said mind is not material so how could I have left it out of the equation. Its not my conundrum, its yours but you can't see it.

LordReed:


Spot what difference?

Sigh. This one -

DeepSight: For you have said that the mind arises from the activity and interactions of matter - this is the root issue of this thread. How is this different from saying that the prior actions of matter spawn mind and all its actions?

Double Post.

LordReed:


Actually that problem is yours which you insist on foisting on me. I have said mind is not material and yet is part of being so tell me who is the one with the conundrum if not you since you refuse to acknowledge what I am saying but insist that your interpretation of my position is correct? Now you trying to saddle me with this "The software is the immaterial component you have left out of your equation" when I have repeatedly said mind is not material so how could I have left it out of the equation. Its not my conundrum, its yours but you can't see it.

The above should be answered by this -

DeepSight:
And yet, another crucial point emerges here:

Note: immaterial component - not immaterial result! - This is my position - And this is very key.
Because what you are in fact saying is actually something that emerges most illogical, absurd and preposterous: to wit: that material things may spawn immaterial things.

In saying that -

1. Mind arises from matter
2. Mind itself is not strictly material

You make the leap of suggesting that the material may spawn the immaterial.
Is this a position you are happy to stand by?

Capisce?

DeepSight:
And yet, another crucial point emerges here:



Note: immaterial component - not immaterial result! - This is my position - And this is very key.
Because what you are in fact saying is actually something that emerges most illogical, absurd and preposterous: to wit: that material things may spawn immaterial things.

In saying that -

1. Mind arises from matter
2. Mind itself is not strictly material

You make the leap of suggesting that the material may spawn the immaterial.
Is this a position you are happy to stand by?

Is computer software material? It is not yet it is generated by a computer a material thing. The image on a screen is not material yet it is generated by a material thing. You should acknowledge you have a problem with how you view these things, the conundrum is not mine.

DeepSight:


Sigh. This one -

I said I won't answer that part until you provide definition of your ghost in the machine.

LordReed:


Is computer software material? It is not yet it is generated by a computer a material thing. The image on a screen is not material yet it is generated by a material thing. You should acknowledge you have a problem with how you view these things, the conundrum is not mine.

I am happy to take away the understanding that you say that material things may spawn immaterial things. So long as this is your established position, I am good with that, I will dissect it later and raise the very grave problems I see with it. It is good enough for now that we are clear with one another.

Having said that, I wish to correct an error, made by writing too fast and quite at odds with my thoughts -

DeepSight:


Note: immaterial component - not immaterial result! - This is my position - And this is very key.

This is not my position. I do not say that immaterial results derive from material things. Just to be clear, and avoid a bump in the road ahead. Please note.

With this, we can safely sum up another interpretation of our disagreement thus:

- - - > You say that material things may spawn immaterial things.
- - - > I say that they cannot.

I trust we are clear here, as we move ahead.

Next, my description of spirit.

LordReed:



I said I won't answer that part until you provide definition of your ghost in the machine.

No worries, but cognizant of the mighty oath, remember you have not addressed this post.

DeepSight:


The whole being greater than the sum of the parts does not in anyway detract from the fact that your position is that it is exclusively actuated by, instigated by, those parts. Unless you are willing to now openly declare that there is some other factor at work beyond those parts alone. Are you ready to do so? Because if you are, frankly I can see little else to be discussed: you would have ceded the debate.

The whole being greater than the sum of the parts is true of almost every machine, from complex ones right down to simple ones - and it by no means detracts from the parts being the exclusive elements which actuate that whole. The whole being greater than the sum of the parts is simply a matter of function - of how something acts as a result of the combination of its constituent parts. It does not imply that there is any extraneous part involved. Thus in saying that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, you do not sidestep the fact that the parts are still the exclusive elements which constitute that whole.

To my mind, the real problem we are having here is your refusal to accept that the software is one of those parts - you are sticking with the hardware (matter) alone. The software is the immaterial component you have left out of your equation which is the reason I have problems with it.

To render the point in a simple and more direct fashion - and hopefully bind it fast to the mind of readers, let me set out the following (even though I would have thought this unnecessary - nevertheless from your attempt to split an unsplittable strand of hair, I am compelled to -)

- - -> Your position is that mind arises from matter
- - -> You have not indicated any other element or component required for the spawning of mind, other than matter

1st conclusion: It is your position that mind arises exclusively from matter.

- - -> Your position is that mind arises from matter
- - -> You have not indicated any other element which actuates the actions of mind, other than the actions of matter

2nd conclusion: It is your position that the actions of mind are actuated exclusively by the actions of matter

Taking the 1st conclusion and the 2nd conclusion together, the inevitable 3rd conclusion is that the prior actions of matter are responsible for all the actions of mind. And as I said before, this is not even an inference. It is a mere direct summation of what you have conveyed.

If you wish to say that this is not your position, then please point out what other element (other than matter) is involved in actuating the actions of mind.

I will proceed with "spirit" next.

DeepSight:


I am happy to take away the understanding that you say that material things may spawn immaterial things. So long as this is your established position, I am good with that, I will dissect it later and raise the very grave problems I see with it. It is good enough for now that we are clear with one another.

Having said that, I wish to correct an error, made by writing too fast and quite at odds with my thoughts -



This is not my position. I do not say that immaterial results derive from material things. Just to be clear, and avoid a bump in the road ahead. Please note.

With this, we can safely sum up another interpretation of our disagreement thus:

- - - > You say that material things may spawn immaterial things.
- - - > I say that they cannot.

I trust we are clear here, as we move ahead.

Next, my description of spirit.

I am not sure how you can maintain the position that material things cannot spawn immaterial things when you are using a device that is spawning immaterial things right before your eyes. Well let's see how you do it.

LordReed:


Is computer software material? It is not yet it is generated by a computer a material thing. The image on a screen is not material yet it is generated by a material thing. You should acknowledge you have a problem with how you view these things, the conundrum is not mine.

Perhaps before proceeding to define/ describe spirit I should make a small detour/ stop-over here again. The computer software you refer to is a form of informative code which makes it possible to transmit information. So to use an analogy, if you want to copy a song from your computer to your phone, or to an external drive, what is actually moved or copied? What is copied is merely the specific code which represents the song and thus transmits it in a decipherable form. This code could vary from technology to technology and even from language to language. The code remains a method of transmission of the information which represents the song. It is not the song itself which is an immaterial thing.

Thus, the computer, in this analogy, did not generate the song. The mind did.

I hope this is clearly conveyed to you: and I had to stop over to make this absolutely clear, lest we suffer from it further down the road.
I now proceed to describe spirit.

LordReed:


I am not sure how you can maintain the position that material things cannot spawn immaterial things when you are using a device that is spawning immaterial things right before your eyes. Well let's see how you do it.

Going again with the analogy of the song which I used above, the computer is not spawning immaterial things before my eyes. That would be an illogicality because the eye cannot see immaterial things. Or can it? If so, how are they immaterial? Or do you now wish to make another leap and say that immaterial things are physically visible?

What the computer is spawning are informative codes which represent the immaterial thoughts in our minds. Those thoughts are not created by the computer but by our minds.

I have gone through all that has transpired between Lordreed and deepaight before this thread was opened and now know enough to understand why the arguments have continued till this point.

It is the fault of deepsight that the discussion has dragged so far. The onus lies one the person that makes a claim to provide evidence for their claims.

I have scanned over and over again all the post made by deepsight concerning a soul that inhabits a human body and not for once did he provide any evidence to back up his claims.

Even though I share the same position with him, I don't think the explanations he has provided is sufficient enough to convince Lordreed or any else following that something called a soul is in control of the human body.

Explanations can't take the position of evidence if the person you're arguing with is not exposed to what you know.

Lordreed rejections of the arguments provided is in order and he has demonstrated honesty because he has stucked to what he knows and what he has experienced. Material
science which he relies on deals with what can be observed by the human eyes or scientific instruments.. Science is yet to observe any soul.

Well, it appears deepsight knows and have experienced what others have not. Now is the time to spill it out. Explanations are not enough because the opposing party will always come up with a counter argument and the circle continues.

triplechoice:

It is the fault of deepsight that the discussion has dragged so far. The onus lies one the person that makes a claim to provide evidence for their claims.

Agreed, and I am in the process of doing so. Nevertheless it is a bit of a laborious process - as I have already explained to LordReed previously - I admit holding the short end of the stick because what I am trying to convey is intangible and experiential. Therefore my task is very hard indeed, and to be approached with great subtlety.

I have scanned over and over again all the post made by deepsight concerning a soul that inhabits a human body and not for once did he provide any evidence to back up his claims.

I am shortly going to describe what I mean by "spirit."
However I warn that "evidence" as used by the scientist may not be strictly what I will be providing, because it is scarcely possible to prove the spiritual with recourse to physical science alone. Physical science is limited to the physical. Thus my method will be a motley suffusion of philosophical logic and the experiential.

A method which of course has no hope of appealing to the determined materialist scientist, but which, I hope, may appeal to the man of common reason, simple sense and inward wakefulness.

DeepSight:


Going again with the analogy of the song which I used above, the computer is not spawning immaterial things before my eyes. That would be an illogicality because the eye cannot see immaterial things. Or can it? If so, how are they immaterial? Or do you now wish to make another leap and say that immaterial things are physically visible?

What the computer is spawning are informative codes which represent the immaterial thoughts in our minds. Those thoughts are not created by the computer but by our minds.

The image you are seeing on the screen is not material, the light conveying that image is what is material not the image itself. These are 2 distinct things.

DeepSight:


Agreed, and I am in the process of doing so. Nevertheless it is a bit of a laborious process - as I have already explained to LordReed previously - I admit holding the short end of the stick because what I am trying to convey is intangible and experiential. Therefore my task is very hard indeed, and to be approached with great subtlety.



I am shortly going to describe what I mean by "spirit."
However I warn that "evidence" as used by the scientist may not be strictly what I will be providing, because it is scarcely possible to prove the spiritual with recourse to physical science alone. Physical science is limited to the physical. Thus my method will be a motley suffusion of philosophical logic and the experiential.

A method which of course has no hope of appealing to the determined materialist scientist, but which, I hope, may appeal to the man of common reason, simple sense and inward wakefulness.

I am hoping that along with your definition and attribute layout of spirit, you'll also include how we can know spirit exists.

EDIT: To be clear I mean the tool by which we may investigate such a thing, whatever that tool may be, physical or non-physical.

LordReed:


The image you are seeing on the screen is not material, the light conveying that image is what is material not the image itself. These are 2 distinct things.

We agree that light is what conveys images to our eyes of course. This surely does not mean that light conveys images of immaterial things as well to our eyes? Please think about what you are saying or inferring carefully, lest it becomes a problem when I repeat it down the road, and you suddenly declare that that is not what you are saying.

Does light transmit images of immaterial things to our eyes?

DeepSight:


We agree that light is what conveys images to our eyes of course. This surely does not mean that light conveys images of immaterial things as well to our eyes? Please think about what you are saying or inferring carefully, lest it becomes a problem when I repeat it down the road, and you suddenly declare that that is not what you are saying.

Does light transmit images of immaterial things to our eyes?

This particular immaterial thing can be seen, it is not all immaterial things.

Immaterial is not the same as unperceivable.

Just yet another detour/ stop-over. I am inspired by my own analogy of a song.
Is a song a physical thing?

Not at all, otherwise you would have to show me its atoms / molecules! A song can only be represented or conveyed by physical things. It can be conveyed by musical instruments, it can be written down in the language of musical notes, it can be written down in multiple technical and human languages even, it can be recorded onto physical instruments - a tape recorder, a compact disc, a computer drive, in all of these forms it will appear as informative code of different kinds: smash and destroy all of these things a million times over, and yet you would not have touched or harmed the song. The song remains completely immaterial - even when it is sung by a person, what you hear are actually informative codes which float along sound waves and reach your ears to be transmitted to your brain. If you like grab those sound waves, squash and distort them in any way imaginable, you still will not have touched the song. The song is completely immaterial, a child of the mind and often of the soul as well, you cannot account for the existence of the song or even the nature of the song using physical reference points alone, this just remains impossible.

This is something to dwell deeply upon!

So LordReed when you talk about "seeing" images on the computer, that is something we can liken to the analogy of the song - none of the "images" you are seeing are in fact the thoughts which are being expressed, if you like edit or delete them, the thoughts will not have been destroyed, what you are seeing are merely physical designs which form a code which you have been educated to recognize and interpret in your mind. Therefore you are not seeing immaterial things. It is another absurdity to say that you can see an immaterial thing. Your list of absurdities is growing and somewhere in this thread I will compile them, and when I do, I trust that they will probably provoke you to claim that you never said any such things - whereas you did.

DeepSight:
Just yet another detour/ stop-over. I am inspired by my own analogy of a song.
Is a song a physical thing?

Not at all, otherwise you would have to show me its atoms / molecules! A song can only be represented or conveyed by physical things. It can be conveyed by musical instruments, it can be written down in the language of musical notes, it can be written down in multiple technical and human languages even, it can be recorded onto physical instruments - a tape recorder, a compact disc, a computer drive, in all of these forms it will appear as informative code of different kinds: smash and destroy all of these things a million times over, and yet you would not have touched or harmed the song. The song remains completely immaterial - even when it is sung by a person, what you hear are actually informative codes which float along sound waves and reach you ears top be transmitted to your brain. If you like grab those sound waves, squash and distort them in any way imaginable, you still will not have touched the song. The song is completely immaterial, a child of the mind and often of the soul as well, you cannot account for the existence of the song or even the nature of the song using physical reference points alone, this just remains impossible.

This is something to dwell deeply upon!

So LordReed when you talk about "seeing" images on the computer, that is something we can liken to the analogy of the song - none of the "images" you are seeing are in fact the thoughts which are being expressed, if you like edit or delete them, the thoughts will not have been destroyed, what you are seeing are merely physical designs which form a code which you have been educated to recognize and interpret in your mind. Therefore you are not seeing immaterial things. It is another absurdity to say that you can see an immaterial thing. Your list of absurdities is growing and somewhere in this thread I will compile them, and when I do, I trust that they will probably provoke you to claim that you never said any such things - whereas you did.

Your definition of immaterial must be different from mine. Immaterial means not made of matter it is not the same as unperceivable or else the song which yourself acknowledge is immaterial would not be able to be heard by you. If you agree can hear an immaterial song why are you struggling with the idea that you can see the immaterial image on a screen?

DeepSight:


Agreed, and I am in the process of doing so. Nevertheless it is a bit of a laborious process - as I have already explained to LordReed previously - I admit holding the short end of the stick because what I am trying to convey is intangible and experiential. Therefore my task is very hard indeed, and to be approached with great subtlety.



I am shortly going to describe what I mean by "spirit."
However I warn that "evidence" as used by the scientist may not be strictly what I will be providing, because it is scarcely possible to prove the spiritual with recourse to physical science alone. Physical science is limited to the physical. Thus my method will be a motley suffusion of philosophical logic and the experiential.

A method which of course has no hope of appealing to the determined materialist scientist, but which, I hope, may appeal to the man of common reason, simple sense and inward wakefulness.

My only issue is as a methodological naturalist evidence has to be conveyed to the senses so whatever evidence you present cannot be some nebulous unknowable thing.

LordReed:


Your definition of immaterial must be different from mine. Immaterial means not made of matter it is not the same as unperceivable or else the song which yourself acknowledge is immaterial would not be able to be heard by you. If you agree can hear an immaterial song why are you struggling with the idea that you can see the immaterial image on a screen?

The images which you see are physical: they are formed by combinations of minerals and other physical materials in your laptop screen. There are several minerals which are used to create such screens and their combinations are what you are looking at. If you doubt that, smash the screen. What you are seeing are material symbols, every bit as though you are looking at ink, simply a kind of electronic malleable ink which changes its patterns which of course are carried by light to your eyes.

This is the same thing with physical sound. It is sound waves in the air which are vibrating, so those vibrations are actually what causes the phenomenon of sound. This does not make the song physical, what I hear are vibrations of physical things, but even if you smash those vibrations you have not destroyed the song, have you? The song is not material, it is not even located anywhere specific in matter, it belongs to the realm of the intangible.

So lets be clear, you are not seeing anything immaterial on your computer screen. You are seeing physical and perfectly material patterns which are changing based on the electric charges passed through them and you decipher these patterns because you have been taught the language of what they represent.

And thus with reference to the bold in your post, I do not "hear an immaterial song." I hear the physical sounds which pass through physical sound waves and are interpreted within my mind as the immaterial song. The same way written patterns are transmitted by light to your ears and are interpreted in your mind as specific images with a specific meaning. It by no means suggests that your physical eye saw something immaterial nor does my physical ear hear an immaterial sound. To hear something means using your ears here. What our ears pick up are vibrations of the physical.

Capsice?

-------
And yet, you are able to play a song in your head. Does that not tell you something?
Do you use your physical ears to listen to a song you play in your head? You are able to speak to yourself silently in your mind. Does your physical ear hear such words? Anyhow this last bit is part of that which I will use in demonstrating an intangible being. So let us let it be for now.

LordReed:


This particular immaterial thing can be seen, it is not all immaterial things.

Can you distinguish between visible immaterial things and invisible immaterial things?
Be careful - and take time to ponder on the thoughts you are conveying - because you are treading into very murky waters.
I am giving you a heads up because you may afterward accuse me of attributing that which you have not said to you.

Immaterial is not the same as unperceivable.

Quite agreed, however you will also agree that physical things are perceived by physical senses. Can you present to me non physical things that the physical senses can perceive?

LordReed:


My only issue is as a methodological naturalist evidence has to be conveyed to the senses so whatever evidence you present cannot be some nebulous unknowable thing.

I dont know if it will be what you can describe as evidence in a technical sense, but it will certainly be comprised of logic, simple reasoning combined with the experiential.

DeepSight:


Can you distinguish between visible immaterial things and invisible immaterial things?
Be careful - and take time to ponder on the thoughts you are conveying - because you are treading into very murky waters.
I am giving you a heads up because you may afterward accuse me of attributing that which you have not said to you.



Quite agreed, however you will also agree that physical things are perceived by physical senses. Can you present to me non physical things that the physical senses can perceive?

Your image in a mirror for another example is immaterial. What you are seeing is light reflected off a surface, the image itself is not made of material. A visual hallucination is another immaterial yet visible thing.

Invisible immaterial things are more plentiful. Ideas, thoughts, concepts are all examples of immaterial things that are not visible.

Again if immaterial is not synonymous with unperceivable I don't know why you are struggling with this.

LordReed:


Your image in a mirror for another example is immaterial. What you are seeing is light reflected off a surface, the image itself is not made of material.

That is not an immaterial thing, that is simply reflected light, which is material.
Unless you are suggesting that aside from the reflected light, there is something else which is immaterial inside the mirror.
Which will only grow your list of absurdities, so be warned.

A visual hallucination is another immaterial yet visible thing.

You are conflating this with an optical illusion - which is material but simply interpreted perversely.
A hallucination properly so called is a trick of your mind and is not actually seen by your eyes, otherwise you will have to tell me how light carries such an image to your eyes.

My friend, please admit: the eyes do not see immaterial things.

DeepSight:


The images which you see are physical: they are formed by combinations of minerals and other physical materials in your laptop screen. There are several minerals which are used to create such screens and their combinations are what you are looking at. If you doubt that, smash the screen. What you are seeing are material symbols, every bit as though you are looking at ink, simply a kind of electronic malleable ink which changes its patterns which of course are carried by light to your eyes.

This is the same thing with physical sound. It is sound waves in the air which are vibrating, so those vibrations are actually what causes the phenomenon of sound. This does not make the song physical, what I hear are vibrations of physical things, but even if you smash those vibrations you have not destroyed the song, have you? The song is not material, it is not even located anywhere specific in matter, it belongs to the realm of the intangible.

So lets be clear, you are not seeing anything immaterial on your computer screen. You are seeing physical and perfectly material patterns which are changing based on the electric charges passed through them and you decipher these patterns because you have been taught the language of what they represent.

And thus with reference to the bold in your post, I do not "hear an immaterial song." I hear the physical sounds which pass through physical sound waves and are interpreted within my mind as the immaterial song. The same way written patterns are transmitted by light to your ears and are interpreted in your mind as specific images with a specific meaning. It by no means suggests that your physical eye saw something immaterial nor does my physical ear hear an immaterial sound. To hear something means using your ears here. What our ears pick up are vibrations of the physical.

Capsice?

-------
And yet, you are able to play a song in your head. Does that not tell you something?
Do you use your physical ears to listen to a song you play in your head? You are able to speak to yourself silently in your mind. Does your physical ear hear such words? Anyhow this last bit is part of that which I will use in demonstrating an intangible being. So let us let it be for now.

No, the images are not formed by combination of minerals. The image you see is conveyed by light passing through a polarised substrate which selectively blocks the light. You are not seeing a material on which light is reflect off, you are seeing a combination of wavelengths of light intricately filtered to give you the perception of an image. The image itself is immaterial, it is not made of material even though the screen and light that are conveying the image to you are material.

LordReed:


No, the images are not formed by combination of minerals. The image you see is conveyed by light passing through a polarised substrate which selectively blocks the light. You are not seeing a material on which light is reflect off, you are seeing a combination of wavelengths of light intricately filtered to give you the perception of an image. The image itself is immaterial, it is not made of material even though the screen and light that are conveying the image to you are material.

Same thing, different words, the light is being reflected through materials (yes, minerals!). Physical materials. Blocking some light, letting some light through to form a pattern.

And going with this same analogy, then if clouds block a part of the sky and you can see the unblocked part which forms a pattern, then hey presto, that is also an immaterial thing that you have seen? Come on! Same thing apples to a shadow, for goodness sake!

There is no "immaterial thing" you are seeing.
You cannot see an immaterial thing.

And mind you, be further warned that if you insist that hallucinations are actually "things" which are "seen" then you just might be conceding to the real existence of ghosts.

DeepSight:


That is not an immaterial thing, that is simply reflected light, which is material.
Unless you are suggesting that aside from the reflected light, there is something else which is immaterial inside the mirror.
Which will only grow your list of absurdities, so be warned.

The image is not the light. How can you not understand this?

You are conflating this with an optical illusion - which is material but simply interpreted perversely.
A hallucination properly so called is a trick of your mind and is not actually seen by your eyes, otherwise you will have to tell me how light carries such an image to your eyes.

My friend, please admit: the eyes do not see immaterial things.

No I am not. I said visual hallucination not optical illusion those are 2 different things. A visual hallucination is called so because it is a visual perception of something that is not there. There is a perception a thing in real objective space even though there is nothing there and it is indicated that the visual cortex is stimulated so it is not merely the mind playing tricks, there is a material component.