Theoretically I guess it could. However I've never heard such an argument and I'm doubtful that one exists.

I'd say no, on the premise that, for me, it'd mean giving up on trying to understand something.  The historical trend has been that things have physical causes, and not supernatural ones.  Consequently, invoking the supernatural is just saying, 'we can't find a physical reason.'  As such, I will personally never accept an argument for immaterial existence.

             No.

 

Probably not. I say probably, because I am physically sensitive to these phenomena and always was, as long as I can remember. It is diffcult for me to imagine a life without "immaterial" phenomena. I can only speculate what would I do in that situation.

Of course, there is nothing "immaterial", just different degrees of materiality. There is also nothing "supernatural", only what the majority of people or mechanical detectors can't yet reliably detect, but this will improve with mental and technological progress.

I suppose what I'm asking you are what you feel the limits of philosophy are.  According to some people philosophy is the root of all knowledge.  Everything that can be known is known either threw philosophy or threw something that relies on philosophy.  Other people seem to disagree and confine philosophy to a lesser role, or no role at all.  I was wondering what you think philosophy can or cannot do.  

I suppose if something existed and it had no connection to physical reality whatsoever then that things existence would be completely irrelevant to physical reality.  I.e. its existence would be functionally equivalent to its nonexistence.  I have often thought that there could conceivably be a limitless number of realities unconnected to this one, but even if there are it is pointless to think about them as anything more than a mental exercise.  

Philosophy, in trying to determine ‘ultimate’ reality, sometimes uses ‘possible worlds’ to make statements about the real world.  Do these ‘possible world’ have any real meaning, or are the just a mental exercise?Sometimes I think that philosophy without empirical data can tell you nothing about reality outside of your own mind; including the nature of the mind itself.   

 

 

Not likely... however, I suppose it depends on the current definition of "physical reality". For example, extra-dimensional existance, as well as travel...

 

Ex gratia, I sometimes dream myself as the new GOD* in place of the current ones, and I would do so through technology. (AKA a Deus ex Machina) The means and paths towards a Technological Singularity are quite infinite, and they can easily become monopolized by a single individual.

I also dream myself as having numerous vestal virgins near my 'throne' at all times, but that is more of a Male Ego type thing, than anything else. (And probably a subject best left to another thread)

 

From the point of biological determinism, it is impossible to not be "selfish" - insofar you are a living organism.

I can see that I did not choose my words wisely here, when I intended to suggest that the pursuit of immideate gratification often stands in conflict with your chances at succeeding with more long-term objectives. However, my point was that a philosopher is true to his "non-self" (sophia) rather than his "self" (ego).

Awareness of other intelligences is important, but to what extant? You can actually become TOO selfish, and become either psychotic (from absolute social isolation) or a sociopath (from being hardwired to ignore the moral complex of the brain, in a number of situations- and sometimes just in general) of some sort as well.  You can also become so 'sophia-aware' that you ignore whatever impulse or thought process is generated internally by your own mind, exclusively from social influences. To me, free will, self-awareness, biological impulses, and willpower, are INFINITELY more important to me than they would be for 'most' people. Thus, I believe in "Selfishness as a Virtue". You must also accept that technology has advanced sufficiently enough, and rapidly enough, that the creation of an "artificial God" will be MUCH more likely during this century, than in one imagined previously.... and that, any such technological singularity developed now will have lasting effects on our ability to pursue our ambitions... as it may inevitably be used to serve only one individual. An "Ultimate Selfish Act", if you will... thusly, a person who is "perfectly selfish"(Think: "Universal Super Being" and Frank Herbert's Dune) may eventually learn how to spread their ego to every corner of this universe, and those which are ultimately parallel to ours. (Parallel Universes aren't just a science fiction concept, apparently)

This concept, which I like to call "Unlimited Ambition", which has a more precise psychological term, but has implications beyond just simple "megalomania"... refers to our species' potential ability to make "Perfect Humans", and under such circumstances, Brian Sapient's signature line... would no longer have any meaning imaginable, whatsoever. Thus, I believe sophiaphilia will ultimately become over-rated, ultimately, when in comparison to the ability to completely understand the self, en absentia of assistance from others.

I am interested in your input on these concepts...

yeah i supose i could be convinced.  It would have to be one hell of an arguement though.

Your conundrum is easily solved when you take into account that just as people can have different axioms or assumptions about reality so to can people have a different sense of what qualifies as justification.  Everyone considers there own axioms or assumptions to be justified.  Really, in reasonable discourse between people with radically different views it's best to stick with the things you have in common and the thing we all have in common is that we all live in this world.  If you want to change someone’s views you have to start were you agree not where you disagree.  Simple repeating your assumptions over and over again isn't going to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced in the first place. 

Also assumptions and axioms do not simple exist in a vacuum.  Assumptions and axioms affect how one interprets evidence and facts, but evidence and facts affect people’s assumptions.  If assumptions were unaffected by anything then people's assumptions would never change, but that is obviously not the case.  Assumptions are tested constantly against the realities of our lives, and those that don't meet our expectations are eliminating or modified. 

 

 

If you wish to understand were I am coming from you may wish to look at this. Pragmatism and Prediction

The natural starting point is were there is agreement.  Are you telling me that we can agree about nothing?  If we both saw a tree could we agree that the tree existed?  Can we agree that we are having this conversation?  Can we agree that we both exist?

I've considered what you've said, and have several things I would like to say.  

First, people will decide what they want to believe.  At least to an extent.  I suppose we are all a product of our circumstances, at least to an extent.  Nature verses nurture and all that.  The point is that the person who decides your starting point is you, and the person that determines mine is me.  No one can force anyone else to change their views.  You can only offer reasons, or pressure.   

Second, people can only communicate with each other with the assumption of agreement.  We must, to some extent, assume that we know what the other person is saying.  How do we really know we are correct?  The only answer I can see is prediction.  If your assumption allows you to predict what the other says or does then that assumption can be said to be true.  Prediction is justification for a belief.

Thirdly, the phrase "ultimate criterion for truth" means nothing to me, because I do not believe that anything in a human mind can do equates to the reality that gave it birth.  In other words humans are limited.  In other word language cannot be a perfect vessel for reality, ultimate or otherwise.  All we can do is create models of reality, and hope the models are correct.  How better to tell if those models are correct then to judge them by what predictions they make?

 
As far as I can tell pragmatism is the best option available to a limited humanity.  

 

It is impossible to not have such a 'belief'. Actually, it's not even a belief per se; we're just born with a brain that assumes it, automatically.

First, a worldview does not have to answer every unknown in order to be coherent. To claim that it *must* is ... incoherent. There are things we don't know. There's nothing wrong with that. Hint: There are things you don't know either. Nobody has all the answers (even if they make believe that they do).

Second, even if we *start* at the unknown, it doesn't mean we are stuck there. In fact, we do have a good understanding/justification for why all humans are born with an understanding of uniformity built into their brains. It's simple really: Evolution. All animals with nervous systems assume that the world they experience is at least partially uniform. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the *real* uniformities in nature, and their nervous system would have no evolutionary advantage. Those nervous systems that do have this implicit assumption built in *are* able to take advantage of uniformity, and as a result, pay for themselves with the real uniformities they exploit. Thus, this basic assumption is a pre-requisite for any functional nervous system, including human brains.

In terms of worldviews, unfortunately, you also must a priori assume uniformity without logical justification, since logic itself depends on uniformity. The technical term for this is proof by retortion: It cannot be otherwise, or we couldn't even be having this conversation. Neither side can claim uniformity as a strength for their own side, or a weakness for the other side. Both sides depend on retortion.

So, basically, red herring.

No. Greatest 'good' is ethical utilitarianism. Pragmatism is about epistemological usefulness. Since 'useful' is ambiguous, there are different varieties of pragmatism. RatDog is defending the variation where 'useful' is 'what makes the best predictions'. Prediction is not ambiguous. You make a prediction, and it either comes true, or it doesn't. If different ideas make different predictions, and one idea makes more accurate, reliable, and/or timely predictions, then it is more 'useful' than the other.

Not being an atheist yourself, the more honest approach would be to *ask* atheists about their worldviews, rather than *assuming* (and being wrong).

Misunderstandings and straw men. See Pragmatism and Prediction. Like uniformity, you can't escape the assumption of pragmatism either. You are a pragmatist deep down, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Any pragmatism I appeal to is guided by larger principles.

 

 

The definition of "immaterial" is physically and scientifically possible. By no means, it's not a philosophical thing. "Immaterial" objects have mass, they are even composed of the same elements as material substances.
The difference is on below-quark level and how their atoms bond together. They don't form bonds with the matter that we are made of. Therefore, from our point of view, they're intangible and immaterial. From their point of view, we are immaterial.

Well, weight is a characteristic of things, not a "thing" in itself. Heat is energy in transfer, so we can't really call that a "thing" either.

Is energy not extended in space?

 

Well, my point was that these things are immaterial, and not really things as you rightly point out. But they are not independent of physical reality.

 

I don't think energy can be extended in space without a vehicle. Some matter is required to transmit energy, like a falling rock or a bullet. But I am not a physicist. I know it doesn't have mass.

Okay.

Rational Theist defined immaterial as "something" that is not extended in space. I interpreted "something" as like a substance.

Depends upon what falls under the category of philosophy. Some would call logic and mathematics a form of philosophy. So could concepts like infinity, square roots of negative numbers, statements that are simultatneous true and false, etc... exist independent of the physical world. Do things exist if only in the relm of imagination?

As a matter of definitions, it is impossible for something to be immaterial matter. But you could argue that dark matter is less material than ordinary matter, or that it's not matter at all. But immaterial means "not matter". Immaterial matter is A and -A: absurd.

Don't be so strict about definitions. I suspect that next decades will show, that dark matter is composed of multiple states of matter, very distinct from our own. The concept of materiality will have to be reconsidered. There will be new necessary words for our common matter and other states of matter. There are already such a concepts in my field of expertise, maybe science will adopt them. But I can't use them here much.

All the fuss about definitions seems useless to me. The name does not have to be perfect. "Immaterial" or "non-material" colloquially refers to the sum of all matter that has such a properties, that distinguish it from dense-material matter. Most of people are OK with such a colloquial terms, they have intuition and the intuition tells them what it means. We are not robots that need an exact data format. I can't explain to everyone basics of string theory, so they would have a precise understanding. My everyday experience is, that the more precise I say things, the less people understand them. Get that? The research of "non-material" is important, not it's definition. Definition is a formality, unless you're someone who needs it for research. This is something I don't like about philosophy, this useless playing with words.

 

 

I completely agree. Dark matter, or at least part of it will copy the Mendelejev's tablet. But there are certain fascinating properties that this matter has and which I was able to find out.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophical thing".  That seems like a disparaging term used to put natural science on some sort of intellectual pedestal over metaphysics, but I digress.

No, by definition, immaterial objects have no mass.  Mass refers to properties of matter. You obviously are defining "immaterial" in a very particular way, but that is not the classical philosophical understanding.  It is synonymous with the term "incorporeal".  But I really don't feel like getting pedantic on terminology.  That's just a red herring. 

It doesn't make any sense to you because you've posited a very limiting definition of "immaterial" which I doubt any philosopher in some credible academic circle would agree upon. 

First of all, your definition is vague.  It says nothing about the actual nature of these things which are not dependent upon physical reality.  It would be like defining a human being as something which exists independently of animal reality.  

Second of all, you have not clarified the meanings of your other terms.   What does it mean to "depend" on physical reality?  Do you mean causally dependent?  Ontologically dependent?  Epistemically dependent?  Logically dependent?  All of the above?  What does "physical reality" even mean?  Does that refer to the universe of physical things or is it simply every physical thing which is not the particular thing in question?  What if I can locate some entity which has mass and volume but which is not dependent on any other physical things?  Would that be classified as "immaterial"? 

Third of all, the classical philosophical understanding of "immateriality" makes no provisions as to whether or not something depends on physical reality.  It merely specifies that immaterial things have no physical properties.  In fact, they could have some dependence on physical reality that we are unaware of. 

Now if you still choose to defend your original post, then I will answer your question by saying that yes, I do believe there are things which are independent of all physical things.

What do you mean "in that basic sense"?  This is just a redefining of terms in different contexts. 

If it has mass, it is not immaterial.  It is that simple.  I don't care what kind of wordplay you do.

Not at all.  You are adhering to a metaphysical worldview of empiricism, which has not been justified by scientific means.  Therefore, your science is enslaved to philosophy.

But poisoning the well aside, none of what you said is inconsistent with the definition of "immaterial" being "lacking any physical properties", which is the classical philosophical understanding.  Energy is material, any way you slice it.