A question involving the 'physical'...


Imagine this, one knows what a shovel is, but has never previously thought about all of the possibilities for it's usefulness. While in the garden, one is digging and suddenly there is a snake. Without ever thinking about it before, the person thinks(for the first time) of how he can remove the imposing animal, and then uses the handle to pick up the snake by sliding it underneath the creature.

What is 'physical' about that newfound idea itself? The imagining a solution to that problem for the first time ever? How is that idea considered to be physical, other than it depends completely on a physical being for it's existence... the mental connection connection between prior knowns.

Does that make the idea itself a physical thing, with it's own set of physical properties?

You are still stuck in the concept of dualism.

You are trying to imagine ideas coming from some other place then brains. Or so it seems . . . however regardless, my following illustration stands to reason, what the source is and transmission method is, are not important to the definition.

If physical is defined as that which interacts, then you cannot say that anything distinct can be non physical. All things distinguishable would there by have characteristics of interaction.

So purely based on definition this is so. Your problem is you want to know how.

Your lack of understanding regarding how brains think and where for ideas come from is your sole issue at hand not how we characterize interactions.

Even if brains received transmissions from any outside source and this was the source of all knowledge, we would still have a physical interaction at the transmission site. All data collected would have been stored somewhere physical, transmitted by means of physical interactions and stored via physical interactions through representational structures both at the source, and the destination.

Regardless of our capability to detect these interactions, or sources we can count on the fact that the structure of each distinct idea is unique to itself, and that the source is able to keep these things distinct also informs us that it is physical.

We do not need to explain how, the fact that ideas are distinct inform us that there must be something that separates each idea, and can store those differences.

Again I will ask two related counter questions. How can something non physical interact with something physical? Also what does it mean to store, and organize without structure?

The first answer is either it cannot, or you have to agree that reality cannot be known, ie phenomena do not necessarily come from structure, which is a fancy way of saying the cause is not distinct, and cannot be characterized.

This is an argument from ignorance at best, solipsism at worst.

The second answer is there is no meaning for organization or representational understanding without structure and form.

Well Jeremy, as is your wont, you’ve successfully defined away any possibility of any reference to anything non-physical. Essentially making the term “non-physical” a nonsensical self-contradition.

Kudos, brilliantly done.

Now, as with any theory, the acid test is, does it explain all observed phenomena?

So how does your theory explain such things as Remote Viewing and Past Life Memories? Or does it simply deny the existence of such phenomena?

And then there are the practical aspects of a theory that really determines it’s true usefullness. Can it predict – and possibly more importantly, can it reproduce – similar phenomena?

Until your “materialist” (for lack of a better term – feel free to substitute any label that you feel comfortable with) theory can do that, I’ll stick with my own “ignorant” world view/theory which does explain and can predict/reproduce those phenomena.

Not true. Space DOES NOT EXIST. Remember? TIME AND SPACE DO NOT EXIST except in relation to material or physical objects which vibrate.

Until you can grasp this concept you will not understand what I am saying.

In your dreams SPACE DOES NOT EXIST. Also, time is or is experienced differently in your dreams. And yet you manifest (as mind stuff) a three dimensional dream world with objects, things, sky, people, mountains, and whatever you can dream up and your dream body (also manifested from mind stuff) interacts with all this 'stuff.'

The real scientists know this. They know that spacetime does not actually exist except in relation to matter.

Matter exists as frequency and vibration within its environment which is a mind.

Mind creates matter!

You sound VERY confused.

I suggest you try to answer my questions from the last post I think this will help you discover your misunderstandings.

Materialism says NOTHING about matters characteristics.

It just says that if it exists, its determinable via form, function, and/or interaction. Where in that you got certain phenomena cannot exist I surely do not know . . .

If you can explain to me how something without form, function, and that does not interact can exist I will be happy to change my classification system from materialism.

Is that your own personal definition? Its a big IF.

I don't define physical as that which interacts. As I said before you might define existences as that which interacts, but not physical.

So your premise is totally flawed and wrong.

I answered that question, but you are under the mistaken assumption that space exists and can exist separate from matter. It can't!!

Without matter, (which has frequency and vibration) TIME AND SPACE CANNOT EXIST OR BE EXPERIENCED.



Again, it is all about the mind and vibrations of thought. We live in a thought universe. You will never make sense of anything that Sky or me say or answer until you realize that and realize that Mind manifests matter and matter manifest time and space.

This is truth.

The thing both sky and JB are failing to understand is this is a concept of classification. Not one of discerning what reality is.

As I said, mind creates matter, matter manifests space and time. Vibration without form is thought coming from MIND.

We live in a mind world and a thought universe.

Say hello to my lil' friend!"

Weird tripple posting.

Wrong. It is exactly discerning what reality is. You personally are trying to discern what reality is. I personally am trying to discren what reality is. Your point of view is not superior to mine or Sky's. You just think you are right. I don't know why, it is clear to me that you are wrong and that you just can't see the whole picture because you are too busy looking at the tiny parts and details. You are lost in a maize of mind stuff manifested by others.

You have NOT answered my question. Is that your own personal definition of physical???

Thats fine, I will let you define physical.

Do so . . .

If not all interactions are physical then please explain how physical and non physical interactions are characterized and thus told apart?

________________________________

PS JB you are starting to make this personal again please review your last few posts and remove personal references.

Thank you.

So you agree that non physical things do not interact with physical things, is that right???????

Ok, I'll try.

1.”How can something non physical interact with something physical?”
Per your definitions (as I understand them), there is no such thing as non-physical, so the question itself has no real meaning.

2. “what does it mean to store, and organize without structure?”
It doesn’t mean anything to me.

I have not discovered any misunderstandings in answering your questions. So either the misunderstanding is yours, or there is no misunderstanding.

I cannot. But (for the second time) nowhere did I ever postulate anything like that. So there does seem to be some misunderstanding somewhere.

Then you define physical. While your at it define non physical.

Shesh, nothing but critics . . .

Now there's irony for ya.

Criticizing the critics.

Good one Jeremy.

Sorry, just realized that was meant for me (I think).

Unfortunately, there is no "scientific" terminology that can be used for these definitions because all those terms have already been co-opted to mean things that are anethema to my concept of the physical/non-physical difference.

So I can only do my best with a limited choice of words to express what is, to me, a fundamental concept.

For the purposes of our discussion, I would define non-physical as that which postulates, and physical as that which is postulated.

(Note that there are several words that could be used to replace "postulate" in those definitions: "decide", "opine" and "consider" are a few such.)

So how can you characterize the interactions of non physical with physical?