I think you are completely disregarding the existence of the third state.
While the brain is material, it is not just. You say to maintain integrity with our perception but you refuse the first acknowledgement of Rene Descartes. The dude essentially discovered his namesake.
Material, immaterial, and both. Before we get into the nonsenses of Hubbard, when I say both it is a temporary and fleeting state. The material is the vessel for the immaterial. The immaterial can exist devoid. Death for example is a constant and is completely immaterial yet as a concept we can allocate it to anything, even that which has no life. Remember the past is gone and the future is an illusion, because they are completely internalized immaterial states of being. Facilitated by your body but ultimately designed by things ultimately no longer material in a whole sense.
You get deep enough into this and you’ll have to bring up the ship of Theseus as this whole subject would relate to our definition of an item being, not being, or partly being. You are still you even if materially you are not the same. Yet your mind never stopped, never did it notice the change until it had already been done.
The material decays, the immaterial continues changing but locked in form. For example god has no physical domain indetifiable yet it keeps breathing. With no matter to speak of?
Death and God are merely concepts brought about by the currents in our neurons. And through this quirkiness instilled in us through the imperfection of evolution, we started seeing lack of something as a concept of its own, even though it’s still a strictly material circumstance directly related to presence of a respective concept.
Death is simply lack of life (which is why we can attribute it to something that didn’t live in the first place). Vacuum is similarly just a lack of matter. It’s the same, just two sides of a spectrum defined merely by the material circumstances.
Descartes merely found he existed regardless of the reality of perception, which, yes, he did.
The time is yet another coordinate of spacetime. What happened in the past is merely off one coordinate same as when we move left or right. What will happen in the future is also off the same coordinate. It’s all there, materially - but we can only be present in one place at a given time - and vice versa, move it one second and you and the planet you stand on are in a wildly different place, and you’ll never return.
And God is just something we imagined not to feel alone and scared in the grand realm of the Universe. Who says He needs breathing? Who says He is alive? Who says He…is?
The person breathes and utters god, yet no god has ever breathed.
The person lives and yet no god has ever lived.
My point is that god as a concept exists with no material form. If you are to say all immateriality exists with material. Then by your evidence if the concept of god exists, is it the neurons making it exist, is that the body of god?
It is the person who breathes into it life. As a material object it is not, it can be written and spoken and traverse the material. Yet wholely it remains in the immaterial domain of man, imperceivable by any other being. It is immaterial for the dogs cannot listen and they cannot fathom.
To say time is a coordinate is to map something immaterial as well, time passed and yet nothing changed. Time flows, yet nothing makes it move.
My point is that the concept of God, or any other concept for that matter, never unbounds the material carrier. It could be the neurons in your brain, or letters in a book we learn to transform into the neural activity, or something else - but it is always material.
If all people die, all books rot, all hard drives lose surface charge, all material evidence of the concept gets destroyed, so does the concept itself. It doesn’t persist outside the material - we just learned to replicate it and taught others to restore materially bound knowledge to make it last ages.
This is, by the way, exactly why concepts remain in the “human domain”. We don’t have any kind of special affinity to the “immaterial”; we are simply the only animals that can convert letters and drawings (which are material) to respective neural activity (which is also material), and vice versa, thanks to the evolutionary development of respective brain parts. This allows us to be more efficient at communicating concepts, even without personal presence, as long as you both agree on what symbols mean.
As for time, it’s not moving anywhere. It is us moving through it, similarly as we move through space with Earth without ever doing anything, or to falling off a cliff, for example. As any concept, time is what we formulated to explain to ourselves why things happen the way they do, and to predict what happens next. What we objectively experience we then attribute to the flow of time, yet the Universe is more complicated, and time gets “warped” (or rather, it does what it always did, it just falls out of a simple human perception) all the time in all the places. Think of black holes, or near-light travel, or even GPS satellite clocks needing correction because they literally move through time differently. The concept of time is merely a reflection of the immensely interrelated processes happening in the Universe. Yet, they’re all material, and so is the man-made concept of time flowing through our neurons.
So if time is material please explain it, it is a consequence of materiality because it can be observe. It exists in the human domain and there is a special connection with the immaterial because we as people can convert thought into material perception.
You are misunderstanding me. I do agree that it is all material however it is also immaterial. The concept itself is not the material, it is why you can’t just move one to the other. Immaterial concepts like time which can be influenced by matter and gravity implies they are not intrinsically material - your own explanation even says we move through it. Yet you cannot explain what it is, it is only our perception of time that makes it material in understanding, but immaterial in existence.
You see everything through a human lens and not through that of nothingness.
If everything dies and it all rots away, immateriality still exists. If one is to exist, so is the other. The third is a medium state in which one can carry the other. I do not speak of humans being special yet your own grandiosity speaks as such.
The immaterial is just that, not material. The material is just that. When you shine a light, you cast a shadow. The immaterial is what can be interpreted and the material is what is.
To put it simply if the material is what you can see and feel, yes the immaterial can be stored in material but it is not as direct as you say. It’s about as encrypted and hashed as any password. It can’t be directly extracted, nor can it be moved and receive the same results.
So while material is intertwined at times with the immaterial, it is not always so. The immaterial exists regardless and we as people do have one ability that makes us special. Writing. This allows us to create immaterial realms like the past or fiction. Babylon that no longer is but once was material is translated into a different form, so the concept exists immaterial - agnostic of material form. Whether it is written or not, it happened and it is gone. Sheol or Kali depending on your want, but it’s a concept so true that it is perceived and made material.
Time is the way we perceive one of the defining characteristics of material world. Our perception is material, and so is the world.
Same with, say, energy. It’s not matter itself, but it belongs to the material, because it defines the interactions of matter and doesn’t exist outside of it.
The common understanding of immaterial implies that it is a thing in itself. But any definition, any concept gets born in matter (our brains), can be clearly defined through matter in any of its carriers, and can never exist outside of matter. It is simply, thereof, an arrangement of matter, of the material.
The lens of nothingness is, by definition, nothing. Where nothing exists, no concept exists, either. Think of the vacuum. It has no temperature - it’s not 0K, not 1000K, it’s nothing. It has no radiance, no density. In total, uninterrupted nothingness, concepts of time, God, gravity, energy make no sense; there are no symbols, no writing, nothing. Any meaningful concept is not present in the void. Immateriality, like nothingness, is null.
Writing is merely an act of transcribing concepts in our head to concepts on paper, only meaning anything because we agreed on what means what. We can transcribe our imagination, the electrical dance of neurons. We can transcribe our memories stored much the same way.
For what it’s worth, writing is a clever trick we have invented to transfer our knowledge from material brain to material paper by manipulating matter in our hands and pieces of matters that leave a trace on paper surface. By agreeing on what these traces mean and by teaching younger generation to understand them, we learned to preserve knowledge beyond the time our neurons die.
Writing, thereby, does not invoke anything immaterial; it is merely a way to make backups, same as word of mouth (transferring knowledge to neurons of others, so that your death doesn’t mean data is gone), but more reliable.
And while it is incredible that we learned to preserve knowledge much beyond our own lifespans, it is purely, and completely, material
Also, I’m interested in why do you say the “immaterial” cannot be moved? It’s as easy as making a copy - and in the age of computers, making a perfect copy is entirely possible.
I think you are completely disregarding the existence of the third state.
While the brain is material, it is not just. You say to maintain integrity with our perception but you refuse the first acknowledgement of Rene Descartes. The dude essentially discovered his namesake.
Material, immaterial, and both. Before we get into the nonsenses of Hubbard, when I say both it is a temporary and fleeting state. The material is the vessel for the immaterial. The immaterial can exist devoid. Death for example is a constant and is completely immaterial yet as a concept we can allocate it to anything, even that which has no life. Remember the past is gone and the future is an illusion, because they are completely internalized immaterial states of being. Facilitated by your body but ultimately designed by things ultimately no longer material in a whole sense.
You get deep enough into this and you’ll have to bring up the ship of Theseus as this whole subject would relate to our definition of an item being, not being, or partly being. You are still you even if materially you are not the same. Yet your mind never stopped, never did it notice the change until it had already been done.
The material decays, the immaterial continues changing but locked in form. For example god has no physical domain indetifiable yet it keeps breathing. With no matter to speak of?
Death and God are merely concepts brought about by the currents in our neurons. And through this quirkiness instilled in us through the imperfection of evolution, we started seeing lack of something as a concept of its own, even though it’s still a strictly material circumstance directly related to presence of a respective concept.
Death is simply lack of life (which is why we can attribute it to something that didn’t live in the first place). Vacuum is similarly just a lack of matter. It’s the same, just two sides of a spectrum defined merely by the material circumstances.
Descartes merely found he existed regardless of the reality of perception, which, yes, he did.
The time is yet another coordinate of spacetime. What happened in the past is merely off one coordinate same as when we move left or right. What will happen in the future is also off the same coordinate. It’s all there, materially - but we can only be present in one place at a given time - and vice versa, move it one second and you and the planet you stand on are in a wildly different place, and you’ll never return.
And God is just something we imagined not to feel alone and scared in the grand realm of the Universe. Who says He needs breathing? Who says He is alive? Who says He…is?
The person breathes and utters god, yet no god has ever breathed.
The person lives and yet no god has ever lived.
My point is that god as a concept exists with no material form. If you are to say all immateriality exists with material. Then by your evidence if the concept of god exists, is it the neurons making it exist, is that the body of god?
It is the person who breathes into it life. As a material object it is not, it can be written and spoken and traverse the material. Yet wholely it remains in the immaterial domain of man, imperceivable by any other being. It is immaterial for the dogs cannot listen and they cannot fathom.
To say time is a coordinate is to map something immaterial as well, time passed and yet nothing changed. Time flows, yet nothing makes it move.
Rene discovered rebirth.
My point is that the concept of God, or any other concept for that matter, never unbounds the material carrier. It could be the neurons in your brain, or letters in a book we learn to transform into the neural activity, or something else - but it is always material.
If all people die, all books rot, all hard drives lose surface charge, all material evidence of the concept gets destroyed, so does the concept itself. It doesn’t persist outside the material - we just learned to replicate it and taught others to restore materially bound knowledge to make it last ages.
This is, by the way, exactly why concepts remain in the “human domain”. We don’t have any kind of special affinity to the “immaterial”; we are simply the only animals that can convert letters and drawings (which are material) to respective neural activity (which is also material), and vice versa, thanks to the evolutionary development of respective brain parts. This allows us to be more efficient at communicating concepts, even without personal presence, as long as you both agree on what symbols mean.
As for time, it’s not moving anywhere. It is us moving through it, similarly as we move through space with Earth without ever doing anything, or to falling off a cliff, for example. As any concept, time is what we formulated to explain to ourselves why things happen the way they do, and to predict what happens next. What we objectively experience we then attribute to the flow of time, yet the Universe is more complicated, and time gets “warped” (or rather, it does what it always did, it just falls out of a simple human perception) all the time in all the places. Think of black holes, or near-light travel, or even GPS satellite clocks needing correction because they literally move through time differently. The concept of time is merely a reflection of the immensely interrelated processes happening in the Universe. Yet, they’re all material, and so is the man-made concept of time flowing through our neurons.
So if time is material please explain it, it is a consequence of materiality because it can be observe. It exists in the human domain and there is a special connection with the immaterial because we as people can convert thought into material perception.
You are misunderstanding me. I do agree that it is all material however it is also immaterial. The concept itself is not the material, it is why you can’t just move one to the other. Immaterial concepts like time which can be influenced by matter and gravity implies they are not intrinsically material - your own explanation even says we move through it. Yet you cannot explain what it is, it is only our perception of time that makes it material in understanding, but immaterial in existence.
You see everything through a human lens and not through that of nothingness.
If everything dies and it all rots away, immateriality still exists. If one is to exist, so is the other. The third is a medium state in which one can carry the other. I do not speak of humans being special yet your own grandiosity speaks as such.
The immaterial is just that, not material. The material is just that. When you shine a light, you cast a shadow. The immaterial is what can be interpreted and the material is what is.
To put it simply if the material is what you can see and feel, yes the immaterial can be stored in material but it is not as direct as you say. It’s about as encrypted and hashed as any password. It can’t be directly extracted, nor can it be moved and receive the same results.
So while material is intertwined at times with the immaterial, it is not always so. The immaterial exists regardless and we as people do have one ability that makes us special. Writing. This allows us to create immaterial realms like the past or fiction. Babylon that no longer is but once was material is translated into a different form, so the concept exists immaterial - agnostic of material form. Whether it is written or not, it happened and it is gone. Sheol or Kali depending on your want, but it’s a concept so true that it is perceived and made material.
Time is the way we perceive one of the defining characteristics of material world. Our perception is material, and so is the world.
Same with, say, energy. It’s not matter itself, but it belongs to the material, because it defines the interactions of matter and doesn’t exist outside of it.
The common understanding of immaterial implies that it is a thing in itself. But any definition, any concept gets born in matter (our brains), can be clearly defined through matter in any of its carriers, and can never exist outside of matter. It is simply, thereof, an arrangement of matter, of the material.
The lens of nothingness is, by definition, nothing. Where nothing exists, no concept exists, either. Think of the vacuum. It has no temperature - it’s not 0K, not 1000K, it’s nothing. It has no radiance, no density. In total, uninterrupted nothingness, concepts of time, God, gravity, energy make no sense; there are no symbols, no writing, nothing. Any meaningful concept is not present in the void. Immateriality, like nothingness, is null.
Writing is merely an act of transcribing concepts in our head to concepts on paper, only meaning anything because we agreed on what means what. We can transcribe our imagination, the electrical dance of neurons. We can transcribe our memories stored much the same way.
For what it’s worth, writing is a clever trick we have invented to transfer our knowledge from material brain to material paper by manipulating matter in our hands and pieces of matters that leave a trace on paper surface. By agreeing on what these traces mean and by teaching younger generation to understand them, we learned to preserve knowledge beyond the time our neurons die.
Writing, thereby, does not invoke anything immaterial; it is merely a way to make backups, same as word of mouth (transferring knowledge to neurons of others, so that your death doesn’t mean data is gone), but more reliable.
And while it is incredible that we learned to preserve knowledge much beyond our own lifespans, it is purely, and completely, material
Also, I’m interested in why do you say the “immaterial” cannot be moved? It’s as easy as making a copy - and in the age of computers, making a perfect copy is entirely possible.