₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
I see: clearly, we have been very careless thus far. We are not using the word "thing" in the same way (and we probably are not using the words "material", immaterial" and "mind" in the same way either. If we must proceed, we absolutely must each define each of these words as they apply this conversation.

The word "thing" has very broad applicability but my understanding of the word as it applied to this conversation was in relation to the discussion at hand - matter and mind - and thus I have been using the word as it would apply to either a definite material object or, in reference to the immaterial, it would have to be some identifiable element, force or quantity, however described. For this reason I would not have used the word "thing" to refer to an action, a deed, an event or even an effect - even though of course in the very broad usage of the word "thing" you could find such usages. In summary, for the material, it would have to be a definite object - that it is, have mass and occupy space. And for the immaterial, it would have to be real-in-itself, that is to say, existent, identifiable and capable of existing in a causative chain as a cause of an effect, that is to say it must be capable of exerting force in whatever existent realm or dimension it has its presence in. So in this manner, mind, for example, could be considered an immaterial thing, whereas a shadow would not qualify because it is not real-in-itself in the first place: its is not "existent" - it is only the description of absence of a thing (light) on a surface. At all events for me, no description of a "thing" would admit of an "absence" being a "thing." Because if this were the case, we could well call "emptiness" a "thing" as well, we could be drawn into describing an empty pot as being full of the absence of everything that is not in the pot, and in this way we would lead ourselves surely into a pedantic and foolish mess which will not be worth the time of the cheapest clown in town.

Thus, with the above, I hope I have clarified my stance on what a "thing" is - and no, for the purposes of this discussion I would not have included actions, events or effects. However I grant that you obviously do/ did and thence lies the source of our misunderstanding. With this clarification, hopefully we can move forward.

<sub>Post-Script: I set out below an extract from the dictionary of the many applications of the word "thing" - just to show how misguided we were to to assume what particular application either of us had in mind (and this is not even an exhaustive list).

thing
noun: thing; plural noun: things; noun: the thing; noun: one's thing; plural noun: one's things

1 - an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
"look at that metal rail thing over there"
2 - an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
"I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished"
3 - an action, event, thought, or utterance.
"she said the first thing that came into her head"
4 - informal
what is needed or required.
"you need a tonic—and here's just the thing"
5 - what is socially acceptable or fashionable.
"it wouldn't be quite the thing to go to a royal garden party in wellies"
6 - informal
one's special interest or inclination.
"reading isn't my thing"
7 - informal
used to introduce or emphasize an important point.
"the thing is, I am going to sell this house"</sub>

triplechoice:
Oh. I mistakenly quoted you instead of Lordreed.

It was meant for him not you..

But then, I know things are not necessary effects but he , Lordreed, seems to use that word to "carry" so many things along to make
it easy to change his position when it doesn't favor him.

Or he should qualify the word, effect, so we know exactly what he is talking about

DeepSight:
I very much feared so.

Look at the third definition of thing in DeepSight's post and compare it to the way I use it and point out the difference.

budaatum:
I am going to manipulate my meter so I have light. The damn thing tripped!

Consider the following:

You cannot manipulate the light image or shadow or without manipulating the physical substance creating the light effect.

Do you agree? And does that make light immaterial?

You can manipulate light independently of its source. For example you can make light bend.

elated177:
Don't you know what it means to influence something? I have my reasons for not using that chart.

No need to continue with this. You are not serious.

LoL. You are the one who isn't serious. It is almost as if you don't know the meaning of objective and subjective. Let's not even start with your perceived influence over the weather that you can't be specific about.

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.

elated177:
Is that what was going through your mind? No wonder! It is now obvious why you were evasive. You actually thought that I was asking to know if the weather was comfortable or uncomfortable to you? Chai!

"Fine" is not enough description. Is it cold, warm, hot, cloudy, sunny, raining, etc. These are attributes you can see, feel, observe and estimate the the slightest change. Na wa o!

How was the weather yesterday morning? How was it last night? How was it in the morning? How is it now?

I told you already that my Father in heaven, Daddy in the sky, has given me, Elated177, his humble servant, the power to influence the weather and you wanted proof. It is not something that can be hidden, Reed.

Of course the weather can't be hidden which is why I gave you an objective assessment. You keep saying you can influence the weather without being specific, what exactly are you expect from the weather? The objective assessment makes everything clear, my subjective assessment gives the icing on the cake. What other answer are you expecting? Or is that you don't know what the weather chart symbols indicate?

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.

Jackanda1:
What i posted was an opinion. You don't have to believe me at all.

Well what you posted has nothing for me to believe or disbelieve in the first place. You refuse to supply any facts that can lead me to make an informed decision.

elated177:
Fine and great are vague ways of describing the weather, but then, you know exactly what you are doing.
Mmmhmm! Ndi aruru ala! Ndị ajọ mmadụ! They are already tired. Remember what I said to you the other day, Reed?

LMFAO! I gave you an objective assessment of the weather you said no you want my subjective assessment I give you that, now you cry foul. I don't think you understand what you want. The weather is fine, I have no issues with it. When you are ready to tell me you have asked sky daddy to make the weather uncomfortable lemme know so I can report back. Bwahahahahaha!

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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:
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.

elated177:
It was a simple task, Reed. I wanted you to tell me, in your own words, what the weather was like. You refused to do it. Anyway, how was the weather yesterday morning? How was it last night? How is it now?

Fine and great both yesterday and today. Thanks for asking. LoL!

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.

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:
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.

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:
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.

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.

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.

budaatum:
My Lord, you can not claim a virtual book is not made up of substance just because its not made up of physical paper and physical ink! Paper and ink has simply been evolved in the case of the virtual book and has become virtual ink and virtual paper.

And a shadow is specifically made of physical substance! That building forming a shadow by blocking the sun is a physical substance! Remove the physical building and it will stop forming that specific shadow.

Viirtual ink and virtual paper are not material. If you think they are then what are they made of?

I didn't ask for what is making the shadow, I asked what the shadow itself is made of.

budaatum:
You are conflating physical things with whatever might be its opposite.

The words you are reading are physical things made by me ordering the letters in a specific order to convey a very specific message, which I will have converted into a virtual image so you can receive and read it. The virtual part is just to overcome the distance between us. If I called you and read it out to you instead you will not claim the voice of buda reading to you is virtual.

Same with the image on a cinema hall screen. I only see it because the screen, and the specific image, are physically there in front of me in the physical cinema hall.

Ok then what is the image made of? Tell me what shadow is made of as well.

budaatum:
There is no difference between a "physical image" and a "virtual image" in the specific case of books. I can post you a piece of paper with ink for words, but it will just take a bit longer. Or would you argue that what you just read is not material that I physically created in the comfort of my home and virtually transmitted to you to read?

As for shadow, I know its physically there when it protects me from the sun and my sweating reduces. We can of course argue that the heat is blocked by the building forming the shadow, but that simply would mean the building formed a physical thing which I am benefiting from.

The difference is in what they are made of. The virtual book or words are immaterial, they aren't made of substance unlike the book which is made of paper. Similarly, a shadow is not made of substance.

budaatum:
Yes, my Lord, computer software is physical "material", as are these physical words physical me is generating with my physical hands and mind using a physical computer, and which you will read after I am done generating them. The message that the physical words convey itself is not physical however, but more of a non-physical message.

When you read these physical words, they are transformed back from their mere physical nature by your mind into the non-physical message that I am using the physical words to convey.

I am reluctant at this moment to give a name to the "non-physical message". And I've quoted Deepsight below because he is pretty close.

I think you are conflating your physical acts with the words on your device screen. The words on your device screen are virtual they are not made of material. They are a projection. Will you call the image in a cinema hall screen a physical image? It's not. If you think it is, what is it made of? Similar question to what is a shadow made of.

budaatum:
Hair splitting, my Lord.

If the image on the screen is not material how the heck are you seeing it? With you spirit eyes, perhaps?

The image you are seeing is a shadow if you will because it is produced by selectively inhibiting light so you not looking at an actual material that has taken the shape of an image. Lemme attempt to contrast this with a physical book . With a physical book you are looking at actual ink on actual paper which you see because light is reflecting off the physical paper into your eyes, with a screen you are looking at a shadow projected through a substrate, the image you are seeing is a virtual image not the reflection of light off of a physical image. In both cases you are seeing because of light but in one case you are seeing a physical image while in the other you are seeing a virtual image. I don't know how anyone can argue that a virtual image is made of material, that would be bizarre to say the least.

DeepSight:
This misunderstanding cant be helped. Its better left where it is.

What you and I wrote is not erased. You can go back and point out where I made a mistake.

DeepSight:
Yes I did sir, and I have nothing more to add. It appears to me you have not read anything I have written. It can rest there.

I don't think you did or you won't have written I said you said image on a screen doesn't exist since that is exactly the opposite of what I actually wrote.

DeepSight:
This is a mischaracterization of what I have said. I didnt say the image you see on a screen is non-existent, I said it is not immaterial. Regrettably I feel there is no point repeating myself ad infinitum ad nauseum. I am content with my explanations and happy to leave them as they are for posterity. I addressed every example or analogy you brought up, but there are several I brought up you simply walked past without a word on. I have nothing more to add on this point.

I equally feel you have not grasped anything on this point, have serially contradicted yourself, have put forward amazing absurdities, but there is nothing more to be said because we have said it all.

Did you even read what I wrote?

LordReed:
What you don't even grasp is that you shot yourself in the foot with this argument when you apply it to images on a screen especially projection screens. If a shadow is non-existent and is merely a surface then what is image on a screen if not the shadows with colour gradients? So how can you then claim the image is made up materials but say a shadow is non-existent? LoLz, you should really reevaluate your position since it has no real world consistency.

DeepSight:
The absurdities are all yours brother. I will list them before we are done.

For the avoidance of doubt I said what you are seeing is a surface. And that is a fact.

If you have a cassette tape and some part of it has no recording and the rest has a recording you cannot then say that the part without a recording is a separate Inmaterial thing. Likewise if you have a wall and some part is blocked off from light that doesn't make it a separate immaterial thing. That is what is absurd. As usual you have ignored my several explanations and examples. Even on Morse code which you brought up.

I am content with what I have explained. It will be there for posterity. Maybe one day in the future you might even read it with better understanding.

What you don't even grasp is that you shot yourself in the foot with this argument when you apply it to images on a screen especially projection screens. If a shadow is non-existent and is merely a surface then what is image on a screen if not the shadows with colour gradients? So how can you then claim the image is made up materials but say a shadow is non-existent? LoLz, you should really reevaluate your position since it has no real world consistency.

DeepSight:
The absurdities are all yours brother. I will list them before we are done.

For the avoidance of doubt I said what you are seeing is a surface. And that is a fact.

If you have a cassette tape and some part of it has no recording and the rest has a recording you cannot then say that the part without a recording is a separate Inmaterial thing. Likewise if you have a wall and some part is blocked off from light that doesn't make it a separate immaterial thing. That is what is absurd. As usual you have ignored my several explanations and examples. Even on Morse code which you brought up.

I am content with what I have explained. It will be there for posterity. Maybe one day in the future you might even read it with better understanding.

Nope, all yours since you kept making inferences that were not my position then insisting they were. Even budaatum got confused thinking you had accurately stated my position not knowing you created a bunch of strawmen for your own pummelling pleasure then started to insisting you had me dead to rights and even now you claim shadow doesn't exist and simultaneously claim it is the surface on which appears. It's a pattern with you and I think it raises from your overthinking of simple concepts and the need to make them more perplexing than they are. But let's see how you do with your spirit definition, hopefully it's not another stark contradiction.