Total Posts:137|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Materialism; can it account for imagination?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 7:40:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
That seriously might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 7:47:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:40:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
That seriously might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Then you might be the dumbest person that's ever responded.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 7:55:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:47:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:40:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
That seriously might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Then you might be the dumbest person that's ever responded.

Perhaps and I wouldn't discount that but have you ever actually looked into how materialists account for thought, intentionality, and the like. Because it might come as a surprise but they don't generally say 'well don't worry the Empire state building in yer head is real!".
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:10:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:55:42 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:47:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:40:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
That seriously might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Then you might be the dumbest person that's ever responded.

Perhaps and I wouldn't discount that but have you ever actually looked into how materialists account for thought, intentionality, and the like. Because it might come as a surprise but they don't generally say 'well don't worry the Empire state building in yer head is real!".

Well, if they don't, then they can't say materialism is true. They are admitting the existence of something that is not material.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:12:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:40:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
That seriously might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Clearly you haven't read anything by Ann Coulter.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:16:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 8:10:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:55:42 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:47:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:40:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
That seriously might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Then you might be the dumbest person that's ever responded.

Perhaps and I wouldn't discount that but have you ever actually looked into how materialists account for thought, intentionality, and the like. Because it might come as a surprise but they don't generally say 'well don't worry the Empire state building in yer head is real!".

Well, if they don't, then they can't say materialism is true. They are admitting the existence of something that is not material.

Well yer equivocating different modes of ontology but okay.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:20:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

Although I'm no materialist, a materialist would probably claim that such thoughts are indeed material, they just aren't representations of anything external or objective (i.e. the common intersect of everyone's "subjective experience").
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:24:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 8:20:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

Although I'm no materialist, a materialist would probably claim that such thoughts are indeed material, they just aren't representations of anything external or objective (i.e. the common intersect of everyone's "subjective experience")

But if they are material objects (things in my imagination), then they are made of atoms and take up space; which is clearly not true.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:28:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 8:24:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:20:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

Although I'm no materialist, a materialist would probably claim that such thoughts are indeed material, they just aren't representations of anything external or objective (i.e. the common intersect of everyone's "subjective experience")

But if they are material objects (things in my imagination), then they are made of atoms and take up space; which is clearly not true.

What I meant was that a materialist would claim that the imaginary empire state building in your head is material as a mental process.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:33:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 8:28:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:24:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:20:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

Although I'm no materialist, a materialist would probably claim that such thoughts are indeed material, they just aren't representations of anything external or objective (i.e. the common intersect of everyone's "subjective experience")

But if they are material objects (things in my imagination), then they are made of atoms and take up space; which is clearly not true.

What I meant was that a materialist would claim that the imaginary empire state building in your head is material as a mental process.

What's the difference? If it is material, then it either is spacetime, or exists within spacetime and takes up space. Since this isn't true for representations in my mind; how can it be material?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:36:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 8:33:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:28:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:24:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:20:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

Although I'm no materialist, a materialist would probably claim that such thoughts are indeed material, they just aren't representations of anything external or objective (i.e. the common intersect of everyone's "subjective experience")

But if they are material objects (things in my imagination), then they are made of atoms and take up space; which is clearly not true.

What I meant was that a materialist would claim that the imaginary empire state building in your head is material as a mental process.

What's the difference? If it is material, then it either is spacetime, or exists within spacetime and takes up space. Since this isn't true for representations in my mind; how can it be material?

I agree. I'm just telling you what a materialist would say.

In fact, you can't even claim that the "actual" empire state building is non-mental, since a definition is a mental construct, and the empire state building is its definition.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:44:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 8:36:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:33:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:28:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:24:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 8:20:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

Although I'm no materialist, a materialist would probably claim that such thoughts are indeed material, they just aren't representations of anything external or objective (i.e. the common intersect of everyone's "subjective experience")

But if they are material objects (things in my imagination), then they are made of atoms and take up space; which is clearly not true.

What I meant was that a materialist would claim that the imaginary empire state building in your head is material as a mental process.

What's the difference? If it is material, then it either is spacetime, or exists within spacetime and takes up space. Since this isn't true for representations in my mind; how can it be material?

I agree. I'm just telling you what a materialist would say.

In fact, you can't even claim that the "actual" empire state building is non-mental, since a definition is a mental construct, and the empire state building is its definition.

That actually fits real well with my Idealistic view.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 2:56:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 8:20:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

Although I'm no materialist, a materialist would probably claim that such thoughts are indeed material, they just aren't representations of anything external or objective (i.e. the common intersect of everyone's "subjective experience").

This is my position, dylancatlow. The visions we hold in our heads don't necessarily represent anything in the external world, but they certainly are constructed by material and by material interactions occurring within the brain.

Something that works as an analogy is a drawing of an imagined location, like something you might encounter in sci-fi/fantasy art. The place depicted isn't real, but the page and the drawing are definitely composed of matter and of related phenomena that allows the picture to be viewed by us. Just because the visions we hold in our heads aren't necessarily real, that doesn't mean the processes responsible for them aren't grounded in matter and the laws of physics.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 2:59:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.

Rational thinker, but nerve firings consist of action potentials made of electric discharges, which emit light. We probably actually are viewing nerve firings when we envision something.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 3:05:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 2:59:43 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.

Rational thinker, but nerve firings consist of action potentials made of electric discharges, which emit light. We probably actually are viewing nerve firings when we envision something.

As I've explained in these forums before, consciousness has to be something facilitated by force interactivity between particles of matter. That to me means everything is conscious, though the level of intelligence associated with that consciousness depends on the organization and complexity of the system of matter experiencing consciousness.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 8:06:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.

Ok. How does a house's having properties nerve firings don't have prevent nerve firings from being the source of ideation?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 1:09:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.

But does the house really have properties at all since it is not material? Also, in the case of imagination I don't think that the house has to have the same properties as the brain nerves, just that the brain nerves have to physically represent the house you are imagining.
Nolite Timere
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 8:28:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:06:59 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.

Ok. How does a house's having properties nerve firings don't have prevent nerve firings from being the source of ideation?

Nice switching of the goal posts. First you say that the materialist would say that nerve firings ARE ideation; now you are implying it is just THE SOURCE of ideation. But there is a huge difference between "X", and "the source of X".
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 8:30:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 1:09:19 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.

But does the house really have properties at all since it is not material?

Yes.

Also, in the case of imagination I don't think that the house has to have the same properties as the brain nerves, just that the brain nerves have to physically represent the house you are imagining.

Well, perhaps there is a correlation between the nerve firings and the imagination, but that doesn't mean nerve firings ARE imagination. It is obvious that this isn't the case.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 9:47:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:30:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/5/2014 1:09:19 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.

But does the house really have properties at all since it is not material?

Yes.

So then your point of view would be that properties do not have to be physical, that is if I imagine a red house then a property of that house is that it is red, even if it is not actually red. Actually, in the sense that that house is not physically manifested in reality and does not possess the property of being red.

Also, in the case of imagination I don't think that the house has to have the same properties as the brain nerves, just that the brain nerves have to physically represent the house you are imagining.

Well, perhaps there is a correlation between the nerve firings and the imagination, but that doesn't mean nerve firings ARE imagination. It is obvious that this isn't the case.

There isn't just a correlation between nerve firings and imagination, nerve firing are the actual physical representation of imagination. However, I agree, they are not one in the same.
Nolite Timere
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:39:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

You are not imagining the empire state building, It's an actual material object. The only reason you have an image of it in your brain is because you have either seen a picture of it or have seen it in person.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:40:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 8:12:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:40:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
That seriously might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Clearly you haven't read anything by Ann Coulter.

Give an example of something she has written that is dumb.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 10:48:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 8:28:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:06:59 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.

Ok. How does a house's having properties nerve firings don't have prevent nerve firings from being the source of ideation?

Nice switching of the goal posts. First you say that the materialist would say that nerve firings ARE ideation; now you are implying it is just THE SOURCE of ideation. But there is a huge difference between "X", and "the source of X".

I think you're finding a discrepancy, in which one doesn't exist. We can argue about this, and while we're at it, we can argue over whether a lake is water or the source of water.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:03:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 10:48:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:28:33 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/5/2014 8:06:59 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/5/2014 2:48:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:22:43 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

A materialist would say ideation is nothing more than nerve firings.

But that is self-evidently not true. When I imagine a "house", that "house" has properties that nerve firings don't have.

Ok. How does a house's having properties nerve firings don't have prevent nerve firings from being the source of ideation?

Nice switching of the goal posts. First you say that the materialist would say that nerve firings ARE ideation; now you are implying it is just THE SOURCE of ideation. But there is a huge difference between "X", and "the source of X".

I think you're finding a discrepancy, in which one doesn't exist. We can argue about this, and while we're at it, we can argue over whether a lake is water or the source of water.

A lake is water....Anyway, I guess according to your logic, a lighter IS the flames it is the source of? Come on now lol This is a clear discrepancy.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:04:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 10:39:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

You are not imagining the empire state building, It's an actual material object.

But the image in my head of the empire state building isn't material.

The only reason you have an image of it in your brain is because you have either seen a picture of it or have seen it in person.

So? That doesn't change the fact that the image in my head itself is immaterial.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2014 11:10:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/5/2014 11:04:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/5/2014 10:39:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:38:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my imagination, I imagine the empire state building. However, the representation of the empire state building is not material. Ergo, everything is not material, because if it was, then everything in my imagination would have to be material as well.

You are not imagining the empire state building, It's an actual material object.

But the image in my head of the empire state building isn't material.

The only reason you have an image of it in your brain is because you have either seen a picture of it or have seen it in person.

So? That doesn't change the fact that the image in my head itself is immaterial.

You are stating the blatantly obvious
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%