You’re telling me that answers.com says that because the particles of matter are so small that you can’t observe them, that they’re not matter, because you have to observe them with your nose?
So we’re back to talking about language instead of objects? I though I said that already like right when I joined this conversation. Someone else did the same thing.
Inventors have “ideas” or thoughts/reflections in their minds. Are their inventions considered to be a part of matter or matter BEFORE they are created in physical form, before they come to fruition?
What you just said, for me, is like putting the cart before the horse.
You became matter at conception. Before that time, you were simply an “idea” or a non-idea. lol
This actually might go back to the scent of the rose ~~ matter or non matter.
Ideas “rise up” from the mind like the scent of the rose rises up. I think that one can even equate an idea to a scent - can one say that an idea is like a sensation or a scent given off by the mind? It is the brain’s or the mind’s achievement before becoming physical reality of some sort.
Yes, what you say is logical BUT you can just as well say: Without mind, sometime in the future without the utilization of mind, there will be no matter.
Michelangelo looked at the block of marble and saw an “idea” within it. That idea later formed the matter or material from which David sprung in a matter of speaking.
But what he saw was the immaterial or idea within the material.
So stop doing it. If smelling something is a result of matter stimulating your nostrils by moving into them, then why make that metaphor in defense of mind body duality?
Perhaps if you start by learning what a metaphor is. Then perhaps one day you’ll discover who was scrambling and who was straightening … and the use and limits of metaphor.
… none of which has to do with the point that odor is not a molecule (over-materialization).
There are better arguments for your position than the ones you’re giving. Do you want to swap and you be the one reducing mind to matter and I’ll take the opposite stance?
So you’ve resorted to telling me that I need to understand a metaphor? James, don’t let your ego ruin this conversation.
[/quote]
Your ego had already beat me to it.
No there are not. You are simply not following.
What do you think the “opposite stance” is? And what makes you are in opposition to me?
If you think that one side or the other in the mind/body debate can defeat the other, then you’re not understanding the nature of the problem or the means by which it must be addressed.
To play this game, you can’t actually believe that the problem can be resolved. It’s an exercise in critical thinking and constructing arguments. Ad homs are evidence of poor arguments.