I was talking about God existence and how God looks like, and that’s why I mentioned that our minds have limits, for example some people like to think how God looks like which there is no way you are going to reach that by your mind.

After I red the topic agains, I think it’s really good thing to talk about immaterial substance existence, and I think I discussed something like that in religious-freak, I discussed the electrecity, we know how to produce and we know how it happens, but we don’t know what is it, we don’t see it but we feel it and we use it.

Maybe we don’t have forever and will run outta time.

You said “our mind is limited to certain limit, you will never find an answer for what you seek, human being will not go this far.” Sure we are limited. Do you think we should not use our feeble minds to explore such questions? Where do you think our thinking should stop?

You are going to discuss this forever guys:)

Of course you are welcome here. Feel free to comment on anything you find interesting.

Right now, Neando is trying to convince me of the existence of immaterial substances. We haven’t quite gotten to discussing the existence of Allah yet.

Hey Neando,

Take your time. I still haven’t gotten all the way through the NYT article. I’ll respond to your #9 as time permits.

My computer’s been down for a bit and I’m a bit behind in things. I can afford a partial response for now. I will have a look at that NYT article shortly also.

It seems that physical objects in the world present raw data to our cognitive faculties which are then categorized by our mental processes. To say that material objects “cause consistent mental experiences” does not account for anything more than a consistent presentation or acquisition of this data via our cognitive faculties. Our mental experiences come via our minds’ processing of this data. If the data gathered by our cognitive faculties is that of a certain photon wavelength, it is the mind that has the experience of colour. No amount of physical investigation of the brain will discover the qualia of mental experience. A particular photon wavelength is not the same as redness.

Likewise with numbers. There are no numbers in the world: only particulars. Numbers are abstract objects. The fact that there are “consistent mental experiences across multiple entities that have the ability to have said mental experience” is due to the same data of particulars presented to “entities” with like cognitive capacities. Thus I think it is better to speak of correspondence rather than causation.

You’re a bit off topic here. If Allah is unknowable, how do YOU know these things you say about him? How also do you know the other things you claim about him? If you know there is nothing we can know about him, how do you know this, and how do you know what the limits of this knowledge is?

That’s what God said about himself, Sorry for saying that, but our mind is limited to certain limit, you will never find an answer for what you seek, human being will not go this far.

Let me know if you don’t want me here on your site, I will not return back.

Sorry for the delay in responding. I’ve had visitors from out of town staying with me recently.

“my task is to distinguish the existence of substance that is a part of the furniture of the world that is other than what we call material substances.”

Allow me to make your task a little bit easier. I concede that things other than material substances could exist. But in order for you to demonstrate that immaterial substances definitely do exist, we should agree on a definition of ‘material substance’. Implied in your comments is a definition similar to “All things that can be sensed either directly or indirectly”. This definition hinges on the word ‘sense’, which also needs to be defined. I would define it as “have a mental experience of”. Also, since one can experience hallucinations, which are not not real, I think we should add “able to be sensed by others in a consistent manner”. So how does the following sound?

material substance: All things that are able to cause consistent mental experiences across multiple entities that have the ability to have said mental experience

“Your concept of logic, numbers, programmes (information), etc., existing only as emergent from matter seems problematic. This would seem to make their location in matter and person-independent. Yet logic, numbers and information are properties of mental experience.”

Under the above definition, the numbers and information are consistent from observer to observer and are thus are caused by material substances. This is similar to our mental experience of color. Our experience of ‘redness’ is, strictly speaking, a mental experience, like our experience of numbers and information. Yet redness is caused by a material substance (photons traveling at a certain wavelength) just as numbers are. The fact that we can imagine and manipulate numbers, etc. without reference to actual objects is no different from imagining and manipulating redness without reference to actual objects.

Later in the same paragraph, you say, “Apart from persons, logic, numbers and information do not exist.” Neither does ‘redness’ but this does not imply that these mental phenomena are not caused by material substances. Photons traveling at a certain wavelength exist even if no one is around to see the redness, two maps are posted on my cubical wall even if no one is around to count them, etc.

“Further, the paragraph itself demonstrates the agency of the mind. The use of the verbs and the personal pronouns demonstrate a semi-transcendence.”

It is a mere linguistic convenience. I have my doubts as to the actual existence of the ‘self’. Despite Descartes’ compelling ‘cogito ergo sum’ argument, agency is proving to be an illusion. For many decisions, scientists have been able to detect the predict the result which decision is made before the person knows what they have decided based on brain scans. What it means is that our brain makes a decision without conscious effort and then informs our consciousness which then rationalizes the decision. I’ll add some references when I have time.

Here is an New York Times article that references the study I was thinking of. I don’t have time to read all of it all now so I can’t speak to its content yet.

Thanks for your thoughts. You’ll have to do something about those holey shirts.

Your point that my definition of “immaterial substance” may be lacking in substance is well taken. However, my task is to distinguish the existence of substance that is a part of the furniture of the world that is other than what we call material substances. To say that such may not be tested by science per se is that, in principle, science can only test sensory data of material substances, unless your definition somehow reaches beyond that. The belief that only that which can be tested thus limits the boundaries of knowledge is seriously flawed. Some call it scientism.

The hole in shirt illustration is interesting:
“The hole has no existence without the existence of the material shirt that surrounds it. Certainly we think of the hole as a thing that exists, but it is defined by the relationship of surrounding matter to itself and has no existence without matter.”

I would say that a hole is about what does not exist. It is the absence of matter, and the boundaries of matter define its location. It is like darkness being the absence of light rather than existing as a distinct substance or entity.

Your concept of logic, numbers, programmes (information), etc., existing only as emergent from matter seems problematic. This would seem to make their location in matter and person-independent. Yet logic, numbers and information are properties of mental experience. It is the mind that organises and categorizes data and recognises the relationships of its objects. Apart from persons, logic, numbers and information do not exist.

“Numbers and logic can be verified by the scientific method. Fundamentally, the scientific method is applied inductive reasoning.”

This statement appears circular. Numbers and logic are aspects of inductive reasoning. They are applied by the subject to the data and are not themselves the object of science. The scientific method assumes them a priori. It is like saying the scientific method can be verified by the scientific method.

The remainder of the paragraph just quoted is an a posteriori argument. That our knowledge of logic and numbers and information comes from experience. We do learn how to do maths and experience does teach us greater depths of learning, but this would not be possible if the mind did not apply these categories to the data in the first place. We possess a priori the capacity to synthesis sensory data.

Further, the paragraph itself demonstrates the agency of the mind. The use of the verbs and the personal pronouns demonstrate a semi-transcendence. In experimental science it is not the world, the object of investigation, that creates the information about itself, rather it is mind, the human agent that gathers and sorts the data it seeks.