₦airaland Forum

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.

Love the qualification with "interactions".

Your interaction produced the internal non-material effect that caused me to materially smile.

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



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.

You want to force me to say what you want me to say?

I said what you, I mean , YOU, refer or think is shadow is a phenomenon caused by the absence of light. It is not really a thing on the wall even though it is seen as such. Reread again. The statement is a natural follow up from our previous discussion. It is how you yourself see it I am talking about and not me.



You still don't get .

OK. Let me ask you. Is an echo a real sound?

Yes or no.

Now, look at this. supposing you inadvertently spill bleach on your cloth and images now appear from the bleached parts of the cloth, would you now describe those images as a separate thing and not the cloth that has had some parts of it beached, that is ,would you call the images things and not a part of the cloth that is now bleached?

I think you're stubbornly clinging on to how you have been taught to describe certain things and not willing to see things exactly the way they are.

The true meaning of what it i means to create is to bring into existence something that has never existed before.

I think the conversation should end now. It is your choice and right to view the world from whatever position you want to view it from.

But when one insist on viewing reality from a singular stand point, it may become difficult to understand the certain things.

I am seeing things from your position but you're not willing to see from my side.

budaatum:
Love the qualification with "interactions".

Your interaction produced the internal non-material effect that caused me to materially smile.

I think you're deliberately using the word , effect, so you can escape from being pinned down on anything.
effects can range from the intangible to tangible.

I rather you used the word, things, instead of effect.

I want to see how exactly the material can produce the immaterial that would be devoid of material substance

LordReed:
Just tell me what substance shadow is made of.

Are shadows not made of light?

LordReed:
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.

Sounds like, things I do not directly manipulate are immaterial, according to you.

I am baking bread. Or at least I would have thought I was before this. I am not directly manipulating the baking process, not after the mixing and kneading. Its in the oven, baking. So I am not baking bread anymore. The bread is being baked by the oven.

I could be driving (manipulating) a car, but since the engine is burning the oil that moves the car, I guess I am not really directly driving the car, especially since even turning the wheels in the direction I want to go is not directly done by me.

I am being absurd, of course.

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.

I do not think my Lord said "darkness is immaterial", Myer. If he did, we'd have an even greater disagreement.

Consider the following:

Light is the presence of illumination, which is a product of a light source.

Darkness is a presence of zero illumination, as in, an absence of a light source.

Shadow is the presence of partial illumination, as in, the partial blocking of the source of the illumination.

Can I not therefore claim, light is immaterial, and that it is the source of the light that is material?

Lol! My light just literally turned to zero!

triplechoice:
I think you're deliberately using the word , effect, so you can escape from being pinned down on anything.
effects can range from the intangible to tangible.

I rather you used the word, things, instead of effect.

I want to see how exactly the material can produce the immaterial that would be devoid of material substance

I am deliberately using all the words I write, Triple. That's what philosophy and reasoning is about.

Things, are not effects. That I think is what my Lord is teaching me. Though he seems to muddle some things with effects.

Light, for instance, is an effect. Shadow is an effect, and Myers newly introduced, darkness is an effect too. All are caused by different degrees of illuminations.

I will claim they are 'things' too. My light just went out and I can see the darkness. The Sun, the source of illumination, sets early where I live.

LordReed:
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.

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>

budaatum:
I do not think my Lord said "darkness is immaterial", Myer. If he did, we'd have an even greater disagreement.

Consider the following:

Light is the presence of illumination, which is a product of the light source).

Darkness is a presence of zero illumination (as in, an absence of a light source).

Shadow is the presence of partial illumination (as in, the partial blocking of the source of the illumination).

Can I not therefore claim, light is immaterial, and that it is the source of the light that is material?

Lol! My light just literally turned to zero!

Know this one thing. Darkness is the absence of light.
Light is the matter.

You can see the source of light.
You can control light.
The intensity of light can be calculated.

Darkness on the other hand is just what you get in the absence of light.
You don't calculate the intensity of darkness. You calculate the intensity of light.

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 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?

Myer:
Know this one thing. Darkness is the absence of light.
Light is the matter.

You can see the source of light.
You can control light.
The intensity of light can be calculated.

Darkness on the other hand is just what you get in the absence of light.
You don't calculate the intensity of darkness. You calculate the intensity of light.

Gbam.

Myer:
Know this one thing. Darkness is the absence of light.
Light is the matter.

You can see the source of light.
You can control light.
The intensity of light can be calculated.

Darkness on the other hand is just what you get in the absence of light.
You don't calculate the intensity of darkness. You calculate the intensity of light.

Myers, I am in darkness at the moment. My meter tripped. I will go untrip it so I have my light back.

Am I not therefore not simply manipulating something to produce a light source to eliminate darkness?

One can calculate the intensity of darkness, by the way. You do so by measuring the intensity of light.

Zero light = darkness.
100% Light = zero darkness

Myer:
Know this one thing. Darkness is the absence of light. Light is the matter.

I do agree somewhat with this by the way, though I would say darkness is the absense of a source of illumination which produces the matter called light by reducing the (matter) called darkness.

Funny. Has anyone noticed we are arguing that a natural state of things called darkness is being denied its existence just because we shed light on it?

Go on, turn the light off. Tell me the darkness you obviously see does not exist or is not a thing with substance.

budaatum:
I am deliberately using all the words I write, Triple. That's what philosophy and reasoning is about.

Things, are not effects. That I think is what my Lord is teaching me. Though he seems to muddle some things with effects.

Light, for instance, is an effect. Shadow is an effect, and Myers newly introduced, darkness is an effect too. All are caused by different degrees of illuminations.

I will claim they are 'things' too. My light just went out and I can see the darkness. The Sun, the source of illumination, sets early where I live.

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

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 easy to change is position when it doesn't favor him.

I was surprised, I confess, but felt I better just accept your accusation since one could say the same about me too.

We are discussing complex words here, and we do not always mean the same things by their use. Please forgive us all. You included.

budaatum:
I was surprised, I confess, but felt I better just accept your accusation since one could say the same about me too.

We are discussing complex words here, and we do not always mean the same things by their use. Please forgive us all. You included.

Yes, me included. Thank you.
I just modified my previous post and ask him to modify his usage of that word

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>

Good

Certain terms were not properly defined from the beginning and it has resulted in misunderstanding

triplechoice:
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.

I very much feared so.

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.

budaatum:
I do agree somewhat with this by the way, though I would say darkness is the absense of a source of illumination which produces the matter called light by reducing the (matter) called darkness.

Funny. Has anyone noticed we are arguing that a natural state of things called darkness is being denied its existence just because we shed light on it?

Go on, turn the light off. Tell me the darkness you obviously see does not exist or is not a thing with substance.

I see where the issue is now.
Calling light a matter is actually a misnomer cos light is an Energy.
Matter of course being anything with mass and occupies space.
So neither light or darkness is matter.
You can have Light energy and I believe you can likewise have dark energy.

So I get your point. They both exist.

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

How?

Myer:
I see where the issue is now.
Calling light a matter is actually a misnomer cos light is an Energy.
Matter of course being anything with mass and occupied space.
So neither light or darkness is matter.
You can have Light energy and I believe you can likewise have dark energy.

So I get your point. They both exist.

Thank you sir.

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.

If light passes through certain medium it will bend eg water. It doesn'tmater what the source of light is, it will bend in water.

budaatum:
How?

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

Can you state where I changed something because it didn't favour me?

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.

This is generous, and is why I got involved in this thread in the first place, the fact that words may mean different things ro different people, which gets in the way of fruitful communication.

There is a difference between the religious use of words and other uses of the same words especially words with scientific implications, and even those of the same religion may mean different things with the same word, which we all should mind.

Your absence was duly noted, by the way. Moreso now that you have returned with a presence to enlighten the place by reducing the darkness.

LordReed:
If light passes through certain medium it will bend eg water. It doesn'tmater what the source of light is, it will bend in water.

Is it not the same bending of light that forms shadows, my Lord?

I mean, shadows are after all, a reduction of the full source of the light on the shadowed area. If no light at all gets to the shadowed area, that area would be in no-light, as in, darkness, as opposed to some light reaching the shadowed area to form a shadow.

triplechoice:
You want to force me to say what you want me to say?

I said what you, I mean , YOU, refer or think is shadow is a phenomenon caused by the absence of light. It is not really a thing on the wall even though it is seen as such. Reread again. The statement is a natural follow up from our previous discussion. It is how you yourself see it I am talking about and not me.



You still don't get .

OK. Let me ask you. Is an echo a real sound?

Yes or no.

Yes.

Now, look at this. supposing you inadvertently spill bleach on your cloth and images now appear from the bleached parts of the cloth, would you now describe those images as a separate thing and not the cloth that has had some parts of it beached, that is ,would you call the images things and not a part of the cloth that is now bleached?

You mean when the colour is distorted? The colour was already on the cloth so a bleach stain has not changed that fact. If it something like a food stain then yes a separate thing is on the cloth.

I think you're stubbornly clinging on to how you have been taught to describe certain things and not willing to see things exactly the way they are.

You are making up something you have absolutely no idea about. You have no idea what or how my education has proceeded so you really have no basis to make this statement.

The true meaning of what it i means to create is to bring into existence something that has never existed before.

True meaning as defined by who, you?

I think the conversation should end now. It is your choice and right to view the world from whatever position you want to view it from.

That is up to you nobody is being forced to participate in the conversation.

But when one insist on viewing reality from a singular stand point, it may become difficult to understand the certain things.

I am seeing things from your position but you're not willing to see from my side.

You have not expressed your own view, only interrogated mine so how am I supposed to see what you haven't shown me yet?

budaatum:
Are shadows not made of light?

They are made by light being blocked so how can they be made of light? It's like saying they are light and not light simultaneously.

Sounds like, things I do not directly manipulate are immaterial, according to you.

I am baking bread. Or at least I would have thought I was before this. I am not directly manipulating the baking process, not after the mixing and kneading. Its in the oven, baking. So I am not baking bread anymore. The bread is being baked by the oven.

I could be driving (manipulating) a car, but since the engine is burning the oil that moves the car, I guess I am not really directly driving the car, especially since even turning the wheels in the direction I want to go is not directly done by me.

I am being absurd, of course.

No that is not what I mean. Your inability to directly manipulate a shadow is not a quality that is meant to extend to everything else. It is meant to underline the immaterial nature of shadow which while is visible is not made of substance. Of course there are many things you don't directly manipulate but they are material and can be directly manipulated even if you can't do so now.

Calling something a thing says nothing about its material or its existence.

Emotions are clearly things, as is a pot and shadows, and a source of light. Even spirits are things, as are Gods, and we would argue about their existence.

Material, is of a different order, though that does depend on usage. A physical thing would have a material, one might like to think, but an emotion, which is a non- physical thing (depending on opinion of course), lacks physical material for instance, even though emotions are physically felt. (Hmm! Physically felt like a slap, or psychologically felt, I now wonder.)

Spirits too lack physical material, and I will hesitate on their existence, which I wouldn't do regarding a shadow or darkness that I can witness and see and even measure, but I would not argue that spirits are not things, because I'm obviously here discussing it as a thing even though it has much less material, in my opinion, than a shadow has.

budaatum:
Is it not the same bending of light that forms shadows, my Lord?

I mean, shadows are after all, a reduction of the full source of the light on the shadowed area. If no light at all gets to the shadowed area, that area would be in no-light, as in, darkness, as opposed to some light reaching the shadowed area to form a shadow.

Genrally the light that gets into the shadow area does so by scattering or reflection not by bending but of course you can have scenarios where both scattering and bending are producing an effect.

LordReed:
They are made by light being blocked so how can they be made of light? It's like saying they are light and not light simultaneously.

In a way, that is what I am saying. You can't have a shadow if you have no light source. You can't have light neither without a light source.

The manipulation of a light source produces light, and shadows, don't you think? The shadow being formed by reducing the effect of the light source by bending the light away from the shadowed area.

LordReed:
Genrally the light that gets into the shadow area does so by scattering or reflection not by bending but of course you can have scenarios where both scattering and bending are producing an effect.

Is scattering not just bending in various different directions simultaneously?