An immaterial reality, if it exists, how to present it?
An immaterial reality, if it exists, how to present it?
If the question is asked, "which is primary, consciousness or matter?", the answer suggests itself - the question is not relevant, since consciousness is material (material perception associated with thinking, which is also, naturally, material).
Imaginary pictures in the brain, like images on a computer screen, are material.
The synonym “spiritual” has been fixed for the “immaterial”, apparently due to the fact that the movement of air is invisible, but it is present. But any movement, including air, is, in principle, material, because it is perceptible, one way or another, therefore the synonym "spiritual" misleads and introduces confusion throughout history.
Does non-material reality exist?
A person needs to imagine what he is talking about, if this is not a parrot's conversation.
Material is what is felt, directly or indirectly.
It seems that the intangible can be represented as a regularity of the world, and only as a regularity.
In my opinion, there is One common regularity of nature, and the formulated laws of nature are approximate, limited views on the One law of nature. That is, the laws of nature are not independent, but united in the One law of nature.
For example, the laws of electricity, gravity and others are related to each other. This can be seen from the general theory of relativity.
Thus, all laws are united in One common regularity of nature. The "formula" of this One law cannot be determined, but it is obvious that this One law exists.
Regularity of nature is unchanged and not "tangible", but is comprehended only by thinking.
If we return to philosophical schemes, then the substantial form is the First cause of the world. Aristotle calls the One the form of the world.
Everything happens according to the One law of nature, which is the Form of the world, its First cause.
Bacon meant by form nothing more than the law of nature.
However, perhaps, and "atheists" will agree that the material world obeys the laws of nature.
That is, it is still possible to agree that the One Law is the First inner cause of the World, and, therefore, the immaterial is primary.
I would be glad if I can find a consensus here on the above.
Imaginary pictures in the brain, like images on a computer screen, are material.
The synonym “spiritual” has been fixed for the “immaterial”, apparently due to the fact that the movement of air is invisible, but it is present. But any movement, including air, is, in principle, material, because it is perceptible, one way or another, therefore the synonym "spiritual" misleads and introduces confusion throughout history.
Does non-material reality exist?
A person needs to imagine what he is talking about, if this is not a parrot's conversation.
Material is what is felt, directly or indirectly.
It seems that the intangible can be represented as a regularity of the world, and only as a regularity.
In my opinion, there is One common regularity of nature, and the formulated laws of nature are approximate, limited views on the One law of nature. That is, the laws of nature are not independent, but united in the One law of nature.
For example, the laws of electricity, gravity and others are related to each other. This can be seen from the general theory of relativity.
Thus, all laws are united in One common regularity of nature. The "formula" of this One law cannot be determined, but it is obvious that this One law exists.
Regularity of nature is unchanged and not "tangible", but is comprehended only by thinking.
If we return to philosophical schemes, then the substantial form is the First cause of the world. Aristotle calls the One the form of the world.
Everything happens according to the One law of nature, which is the Form of the world, its First cause.
Bacon meant by form nothing more than the law of nature.
However, perhaps, and "atheists" will agree that the material world obeys the laws of nature.
That is, it is still possible to agree that the One Law is the First inner cause of the World, and, therefore, the immaterial is primary.
I would be glad if I can find a consensus here on the above.
-
- Posts: 12628
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: An immaterial reality, if it exists, how to present it?
Note Hume's view of regularity and the Problem of Induction. One cannot be certain the Sun will rise tomorrow despite its regularity over millions of years.
Rather than 'existence' which can veered off to radical ontology, what is most practical to ask is, Is materiality and immateriality real?
Btw, Berkeley has debunked materialism thus the preferable term would be 'physical' in the loosest sense.
Whatever is real must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK], the most credible is the scientific FSK.
Many of the mental activities and manifestations are non-physical immaterial, e.g. the emotions and they can be verified and justified as real within the scientific FSK, thus presented as real.
Where things cannot be verified and justified philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge, that would merely be a belief, imagination, fantasy, illusion and not real knowledge of reality.
In this case the 'believing' is real but what-is-believed since not justified with sufficient veracity and credibility cannot be accepted as real.
Beliefs despite having no corresponding reality [physically] should be subjected to the review of morality & ethics to ensure only what is net-positive should be adopted and retained for the progress of humanity.
What is most critical with beliefs is they must NOT be insisted to be really-real.
An example of this is a 'God' which is impossible to be real nevertheless is useful to many, but has the potential to exterminate the human race as with Allah the Islamic God. Such potentials of evil from a belief in a God must be noted.
Rather than 'existence' which can veered off to radical ontology, what is most practical to ask is, Is materiality and immateriality real?
Btw, Berkeley has debunked materialism thus the preferable term would be 'physical' in the loosest sense.
Whatever is real must be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge [FSK], the most credible is the scientific FSK.
Many of the mental activities and manifestations are non-physical immaterial, e.g. the emotions and they can be verified and justified as real within the scientific FSK, thus presented as real.
Where things cannot be verified and justified philosophically within a credible framework and system of knowledge, that would merely be a belief, imagination, fantasy, illusion and not real knowledge of reality.
In this case the 'believing' is real but what-is-believed since not justified with sufficient veracity and credibility cannot be accepted as real.
Beliefs despite having no corresponding reality [physically] should be subjected to the review of morality & ethics to ensure only what is net-positive should be adopted and retained for the progress of humanity.
What is most critical with beliefs is they must NOT be insisted to be really-real.
An example of this is a 'God' which is impossible to be real nevertheless is useful to many, but has the potential to exterminate the human race as with Allah the Islamic God. Such potentials of evil from a belief in a God must be noted.
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: An immaterial reality, if it exists, how to present it?
The terms material and physical are often used interchangeably. If matter is the weak force; the light that fell from heaven, it would be powerless if it were not animated by the forces and operations of physics. What exists, whether as matter or physical forces, is within the range of either sense perception or instruments that extend their range.
What lies beyond can only be surmised. There are abstract ideas and mathematics to be considered.The ultimate question is whether existence is dependent on forces; matter or physics, or whether the motion and change of existence is dependent on something that exists without being subject to either. It all comes back to the question of a prime mover not drawn into the flux. The immaterial has be other than the energy of gross matter or even the finer physical energies of fine matter.
Consciousness is the final frontier for philosophy and a problem it wrestles with. Some branches of science see it as emerging from nature, beholden to its forces. If consciousness were found to be immaterial, beyond the forces of nature, it would fit the bill and account for the laws of nature and the abstractions that the human mind accesses without reference to sense perception.
What lies beyond can only be surmised. There are abstract ideas and mathematics to be considered.The ultimate question is whether existence is dependent on forces; matter or physics, or whether the motion and change of existence is dependent on something that exists without being subject to either. It all comes back to the question of a prime mover not drawn into the flux. The immaterial has be other than the energy of gross matter or even the finer physical energies of fine matter.
Consciousness is the final frontier for philosophy and a problem it wrestles with. Some branches of science see it as emerging from nature, beholden to its forces. If consciousness were found to be immaterial, beyond the forces of nature, it would fit the bill and account for the laws of nature and the abstractions that the human mind accesses without reference to sense perception.
-
- Posts: 12628
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: An immaterial reality, if it exists, how to present it?
The difficulty here is you start with the hypothesis [presumption],owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:16 pm Consciousness is the final frontier for philosophy and a problem it wrestles with. Some branches of science see it as emerging from nature, beholden to its forces. If consciousness were found to be immaterial, beyond the forces of nature, it would fit the bill and account for the laws of nature and the abstractions that the human mind accesses without reference to sense perception.
there is a possibility that consciousness could be immaterial and thus will keep clinging to it and hoping there will be evidences to confirm the hypothesis to become a theory. This is a non-starter of ontology and cognitive dissonance.
Rather it would be more 'realistic' to start with the point that "consciousness is real" as it exists at present based on the LIMITED knowledge we have.
Thus the proper approach is keep increasing and expanding our limited knowledge.
Along with it we keep exploring 'consciousness' with every new set of knowledge and keep going without any hope of finality and complete certainty [100% certainty is impossible anyway].
The above is the reality, i.e. 1,000 years ago, humanity know nothing [or very little] about 'consciousness' but have increasing knowledge of consciousness in correlation with the increase in the human database since then to the present.
At present we still know little about consciousness, but the fact is human knowledge is at present going at an expanding exponential trend and we will know more and more about human consciousness in the future.
Rather than hoping for a final answer [which is humanly impossible] humanity can pragmatically [pragmatism] tap [modulated with morality] whatever increasing knowledge is available to optimize the well being of humanity.
Those who prefer, can still debate whether consciousness is material or immaterial but they need to understand the circumstances and limits of such a thesis.
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: An immaterial reality, if it exists, how to present it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
"Rather than hoping for a final answer [which is humanly impossible] humanity can pragmatically [pragmatism] tap [modulated with morality] whatever increasing knowledge is available to optimize the well being of humanity.
Those who prefer, can still debate whether consciousness is material or immaterial but they need to understand the circumstances and limits of such a thesis. "
............................................
I did not start with a theory rather I indicated the problem consciousness presents for philosophy, which does not have any fixed theory about it, and said that for some branches of science the question is already settled; that it emerges from nature, which leaves no room for further research or discussion. I did speculate that if it was fundamental it would solve some problems relating to abstract ideas not derived from sense experience.
Philosophy and science have no choice but to start where we are and it would be limiting not to raise all possibilities. The strong and weak forces were not known until the first half of the 20th century and the role the neutral force plays in creating mass until the second half of the century. We can no longer consider mass as the criteria for what is real. Immaterial has a different connotation now than it had even a century ago. Science uses the weak force to detect the higher forces which cannot be seen or measured.
It will be a long time before there is a final answer to whether consciousness predated the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong, neutral, and weak forces, or emerged from them. It is human nature to continue to seek for answers. All possibilities should be considered without a bias towards any particular outcome.
"Rather than hoping for a final answer [which is humanly impossible] humanity can pragmatically [pragmatism] tap [modulated with morality] whatever increasing knowledge is available to optimize the well being of humanity.
Those who prefer, can still debate whether consciousness is material or immaterial but they need to understand the circumstances and limits of such a thesis. "
............................................
I did not start with a theory rather I indicated the problem consciousness presents for philosophy, which does not have any fixed theory about it, and said that for some branches of science the question is already settled; that it emerges from nature, which leaves no room for further research or discussion. I did speculate that if it was fundamental it would solve some problems relating to abstract ideas not derived from sense experience.
Philosophy and science have no choice but to start where we are and it would be limiting not to raise all possibilities. The strong and weak forces were not known until the first half of the 20th century and the role the neutral force plays in creating mass until the second half of the century. We can no longer consider mass as the criteria for what is real. Immaterial has a different connotation now than it had even a century ago. Science uses the weak force to detect the higher forces which cannot be seen or measured.
It will be a long time before there is a final answer to whether consciousness predated the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong, neutral, and weak forces, or emerged from them. It is human nature to continue to seek for answers. All possibilities should be considered without a bias towards any particular outcome.
-
- Posts: 12628
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: An immaterial reality, if it exists, how to present it?
There is no absolute certainty, but it is 99.99% certainty as qualified [conditioned] upon the scientific framework, human consciousness emerged subsequent to the emergence of other emergent.owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:22 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
"Rather than hoping for a final answer [which is humanly impossible] humanity can pragmatically [pragmatism] tap [modulated with morality] whatever increasing knowledge is available to optimize the well being of humanity.
Those who prefer, can still debate whether consciousness is material or immaterial but they need to understand the circumstances and limits of such a thesis. "
............................................
I did not start with a theory rather I indicated the problem consciousness presents for philosophy, which does not have any fixed theory about it, and said that for some branches of science the question is already settled; that it emerges from nature, which leaves no room for further research or discussion. I did speculate that if it was fundamental it would solve some problems relating to abstract ideas not derived from sense experience.
Philosophy and science have no choice but to start where we are and it would be limiting not to raise all possibilities. The strong and weak forces were not known until the first half of the 20th century and the role the neutral force plays in creating mass until the second half of the century. We can no longer consider mass as the criteria for what is real. Immaterial has a different connotation now than it had even a century ago. Science uses the weak force to detect the higher forces which cannot be seen or measured.
It will be a long time before there is a final answer to whether consciousness predated the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong, neutral, and weak forces, or emerged from them. It is human nature to continue to seek for answers. All possibilities should be considered without a bias towards any particular outcome.
I agree ALL possibilities [even 00.01% or lesser] should be considered regardless of whatever.
Since it is highly improbable for human consciousness to predate the basic forces of nature, there is no need to give priority to it.
It is only theists and others [>80% of humans] who slide human consciousness with absolute consciousness [e.g. God], who are interested to confirm a pre-existing consciousness as the first cause based on such a sliver of possibility.
So the more critical question, since it involve >80% of humans, why do they cling on to such a belief despite its low probability.
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm
Re: An immaterial reality, if it exists, how to present it?
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
"So the more critical question, since it involve >80% of humans, why do they cling on to such a belief despite its low probability."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beliefs are either pro or con a particular worldview. Belief is not knowing; only knowing closes the door on possible outcomes. Until then the door should remain open to all possibilities. Human nature being what it is belief is comforting and gives an identity, something to defend, so choosing a particular worldview is the norm.
"So the more critical question, since it involve >80% of humans, why do they cling on to such a belief despite its low probability."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beliefs are either pro or con a particular worldview. Belief is not knowing; only knowing closes the door on possible outcomes. Until then the door should remain open to all possibilities. Human nature being what it is belief is comforting and gives an identity, something to defend, so choosing a particular worldview is the norm.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man