Political Crossfire Forums

[Howe]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Howe wrote: I am not sure I understand your definition.

Take words on a page. You can interact with them because you can erase them or obliterate them.

Take pain. You can take a pill.
such things are tangible, they interact with reality.

Something like a lepricon is intangible, it does not exist in reality. It may exist in a dimension that is not reality, but it cannot interact with us.

Now, you are talking about a subset of intangibles. That could not have been the intent of the original question.

Not all intangibles are make-believe. Goodwill is an intangible asset. Shares of a corporation are intangibles (which are merely referenced on a sheet of paper). Intangibles are concepts that are intellectual - that you cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Howe wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Howe wrote: I am not sure I understand your definition.

Take words on a page. You can interact with them because you can erase them or obliterate them.

Take pain. You can take a pill.
such things are tangible, they interact with reality.

Something like a lepricon is intangible, it does not exist in reality. It may exist in a dimension that is not reality, but it cannot interact with us.

Now, you are talking about a subset of intangibles. That could not have been the intent of the original question.

Not all intangibles are make-believe. Goodwill is an intangible asset. Shares of a corporation are intangibles (which are merely referenced on a sheet of paper). Intangibles are concepts that are intellectual - that you cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear. this is an argument of semantics. By your definition, intangibles do exist (if they didn't, we wouldn't be able to name them when we experience them). By mine, it makes no difference whether or not they exist.
lets just stop it at that.

[Fido]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: Howe wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: Howe wrote: I am not sure I understand your definition.

Take words on a page. You can interact with them because you can erase them or obliterate them.

Take pain. You can take a pill.
such things are tangible, they interact with reality.

Something like a lepricon is intangible, it does not exist in reality. It may exist in a dimension that is not reality, but it cannot interact with us.

Now, you are talking about a subset of intangibles. That could not have been the intent of the original question.

Not all intangibles are make-believe. Goodwill is an intangible asset. Shares of a corporation are intangibles (which are merely referenced on a sheet of paper). Intangibles are concepts that are intellectual - that you cannot see, touch, taste, smell or hear. this is an argument of semantics. By your definition, intangibles do exist (if they didn't, we wouldn't be able to name them when we experience them). By mine, it makes no difference whether or not they exist.
lets just stop it at that.

The problem is that with the intangible, we cannot touch it so we cannot quantify it even while we can qualify it. Nothing cannot be measured, and yet people measure space, or rather, across space. It has consequences in the sense that distance equals time, and energy. So, it is possible for things to have meaning without mass. It is possible for stuff to empty of substance and full of importance. So much of what humanity is, is intangible that to deny the existence of the intangible is to deny our own existence. We cannot do it. The rational and the scientific will never be able to grasp together or alone the meaning and magic of mankind.

[Atlas Bergeron]

and why is that? Is this some philosophic axiom that I don't know about? Why should I believe such an absurd premise

[Fido]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: and why is that? Is this some philosophic axiom that I don't know about? Why should I believe such an absurd premise

I am not asking you to believe anything, but asking you to have the sense to think about it and the intelligence to know it. There are a lot of intangibles in this world, many things that touch us with out our having the ability to touch them. It is not the stuff that dreams are made of, but the stuff that is made out of dreams that makes the intangible real. So, believe what you want. Believe you have a ..... .

[The Newb]

Fido wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: and why is that? Is this some philosophic axiom that I don't know about? Why should I believe such an absurd premise

I am not asking you to believe anything, but asking you to have the sense to think about it and the intelligence to know it. There are a lot of intangibles in this world, many things that touch us with out our having the ability to touch them. It is not the stuff that dreams are made of, but the stuff that is made out of dreams that makes the intangible real. So, believe what you want. Believe you have a ..... .

arent intangibles a figment of imagination? that would then go to the fact that they are nothing but chemicals stored in the brain....

[Fido]

The Newb wrote: Fido wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: and why is that? Is this some philosophic axiom that I don't know about? Why should I believe such an absurd premise

I am not asking you to believe anything, but asking you to have the sense to think about it and the intelligence to know it. There are a lot of intangibles in this world, many things that touch us with out our having the ability to touch them. It is not the stuff that dreams are made of, but the stuff that is made out of dreams that makes the intangible real. So, believe what you want. Believe you have a ..... .

arent intangibles a figment of imagination? that would then go to the fact that they are nothing but chemicals stored in the brain....

I certainly agree with you with the understanding that the situation in the brain is slightly more complicated than nothing but chemicals. If human beings can take intangibles and turn them into realities then in the mind they must have some reality. But for most concepts, ideas, imaginations, or dreams, they end where they begin. There are a lot of intangible concepts in our minds, and if I only mention a few, like God, justice, equity, and liberty you can tell that many people spend their adult lives and give all their labor to makings these concepts real. If the giving of life could give life to concepts they would all be as alive as you or me. But rather than give a true life or reality to concepts, people instead, by giving their lives give the concept meaning and value. Ultimately our lives make all that is real real.
And I like fig newtons of the imagination. They are good with real coffee.

[The Newb]

right which is the concept of this thread, i am christian and do believe in god as the only true intangible

however if we look at it from a scientific veiwpoint, that could not be....

heres what i mean:

god has taken on many forms throughout the years of civilization, and of those forms, all are similar, yet different by religious aspects, and preached word. all of these differences have been born of an idea ( back to the chemical aspect of brain function ) so we must atribute some form of substance to religion, and the ideas behind it....would you not agree?

[Atlas Bergeron]

The Newb wrote: right which is the concept of this thread, i am christian and do believe in god as the only true intangible

however if we look at it from a scientific veiwpoint, that could not be....

heres what i mean:

god has taken on many forms throughout the years of civilization, and of those forms, all are similar, yet different by religious aspects, and preached word. all of these differences have been born of an idea ( back to the chemical aspect of brain function ) so we must atribute some form of substance to religion, and the ideas behind it....would you not agree?
I would. Religion is by and large a creation of man

[mojo]

Of course intangibles exist.

Take for instance 2+2=4. Can we measure or quantify the number 2. A number is not a real thing, it is an abstract principle. It is a statement of fact that is universally agreed upon.

Sure you put 2 apples and another 2 apples together to make 4 apples. But those things are apples not numbers. That is why we can have concepts such as calculus and trigonometry.

[Gus]

Hmm, ask yourself "do I exist?" and I think you will find the answer.

The interesting thing is the implications of that...does this give birth to a soul?

[The Newb]

mojo wrote: Of course intangibles exist.

Take for instance 2+2=4. Can we measure or quantify the number 2. A number is not a real thing, it is an abstract principle. It is a statement of fact that is universally agreed upon.

Sure you put 2 apples and another 2 apples together to make 4 apples. But those things are apples not numbers. That is why we can have concepts such as calculus and trigonometry.

that number was originally an idea of a persons which has been passed on for generations

the "idea" of concepts as intangibles does pose a theory, but those concepts are nothing more than an idea that has been transfered from one to another, calculous, trig, all ideas, concepts, and theories that started inside the brain and are locked there, and transfered to others via learning or the exchanging of ideas such as this forum

[The Newb]

Gus wrote: Hmm, ask yourself "do I exist?" and I think you will find the answer.

The interesting thing is the implications of that...does this give birth to a soul?

yes i exist, i am a real tangible object

a soul would be an idea no?

[Fido]

The Newb wrote: right which is the concept of this thread, i am christian and do believe in god as the only true intangible

however if we look at it from a scientific veiwpoint, that could not be....

heres what i mean:

god has taken on many forms throughout the years of civilization, and of those forms, all are similar, yet different by religious aspects, and preached word. all of these differences have been born of an idea ( back to the chemical aspect of brain function ) so we must atribute some form of substance to religion, and the ideas behind it....would you not agree?

I don't attribute more substance to religion that to other systems of conception. All ideas have potential, and some time that potential grows into something. Like the Quaker women said to her husband who had the bright idea of asylums for the insane: Husband; thy brain has had many children, but I fear this one is an idiot. -It is hard to not ascribe life to ideas in the mind when they become, or can become, realities all can see.

Yet, even there is a flaw. It is in the question of whether we have conceived of God, or God has created us. If we accept the limitless power of God then God exists before all ideas, apart from ideas, and no idea can describe God. Looking at God from this perspective it is fully possible that we live only in the mind of God, and that existence is an idea God gives us as an attribute in his mind, and that even the expanse of the universe could be only image. So, I try to live as if God does not exist because the thought that God does exist cannot be limited by reason or arbitrary rules on my part. Either God is all powerful, in which case he would have little need to turn his ideas into realities, or he gave us our own world to be gods in if we could discern a godlike purpose for mankind, which I would consider the creation of positive realities out of our dreams to be. It is easier to be good without God than with God just as it is easier for a child to pick up their room when they understand no one will do it for them. For too many, the thought that God is taking care of things for them means they don't have to.

I think we give our reality to all we fear, dream, or conceive. Intangibles have their life from the life we add to them. Some ideas have potential, but we make them real. Some ideas as realities have no life no matter how much life we add to them. Since life is limited we have to measure where we invest our lives for the most life in return, in my opinion.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: or he gave us our own world to be gods in if we could discern a godlike purpose for mankind,

You realize who first made that proposal? :lol:

[cap'n queasy]

BTW, it was the Quakers who also invented the modern idea of penitentiaries, and solitary confinement with only a Bible to read.

penitent

penitentiary

A lot of people have this idea that somehow Quakers are a "super liberal" sect because there is a type of socialist/communal movement that is popular among them in modern times, but the reality is they are a charismatic sect of bible literalists.

The reason they are nicknamed Quakers is because when the Holy Spirit came on them during their worship services they made involuntary movements.

In actuality, they are closer to Pentacostals, than any other mainline denomination. Not much difference there.

[mojo]

The Newb wrote: mojo wrote: Of course intangibles exist.

Take for instance 2+2=4. Can we measure or quantify the number 2. A number is not a real thing, it is an abstract principle. It is a statement of fact that is universally agreed upon.

Sure you put 2 apples and another 2 apples together to make 4 apples. But those things are apples not numbers. That is why we can have concepts such as calculus and trigonometry.

that number was originally an idea of a persons which has been passed on for generations

the "idea" of concepts as intangibles does pose a theory, but those concepts are nothing more than an idea that has been transfered from one to another, calculous, trig, all ideas, concepts, and theories that started inside the brain and are locked there, and transfered to others via learning or the exchanging of ideas such as this forum

An "idea" is not tangible. Whether or not it was born from a person is irrelevant. The fact is that the idea is still not something tangible but still holds the same degree of truth.

Humans are the only animal with the ability to distinguish a truth beyond there own existence. We are different because we can form concepts.

[Rozzlapeed]

Tangibility has nothing to do with existence. Tangibility only refers to the quality of being able to generate a response in biological sense organs. The fact is, everything that is relevant to this discussion all share one common characteristic: they are all conceptualized by the conscious mind, which is the sole arbiter of what constitutes existence. Reality itself is an illusion. It is nothing more than the sum total of all the observations perceived by a set of conscious entit(ies). Within the human mind, for example, ghosts might share the same existential value as NAMBLA and trees. My dead grandmother might still exist today, had she not done her best last year to convince me otherwise.

P.S. -- I find it ridiculous that the topic creator decided to make this thread, even though he has yet to convince me that I might one day observe his existence in another manner. In fact, my own participation in this thread is laughable, in light of the fact that I may not even own a computer or speak English. It's a good thing that at the end of the day, I'm content to live in irony.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Gus wrote: Hmm, ask yourself "do I exist?" and I think you will find the answer.
Bingo.

Quote:
The interesting thing is the implications of that...does this give birth to a soul?
Define Soul, ton mon opinion its just a silly concept. with no logical basis.

[Fido]

Rozzlapeed wrote: Tangibility has nothing to do with existence. Tangibility only refers to the quality of being able to generate a response in biological sense organs. The fact is, everything that is relevant to this discussion all share one common characteristic: they are all conceptualized by the conscious mind, which is the sole arbiter of what constitutes existence. Reality itself is an illusion. It is nothing more than the sum total of all the observations perceived by a set of conscious entit(ies). Within the human mind, for example, ghosts might share the same existential value as NAMBLA and trees. My dead grandmother might still exist today, had she not done her best last year to convince me otherwise.

P.S. -- I find it ridiculous that the topic creator decided to make this thread, even though he has yet to convince me that I might one day observe his existence in another manner. In fact, my own participation in this thread is laughable, in light of the fact that I may not even own a computer or speak English. It's a good thing that at the end of the day, I'm content to live in irony.

Tangible means touchable. Like objective knowledge from seeing as an object. But what if you are able to develop the sensitivity to feel with your mind. Instead of using your hands, what if you can know how freedom feels without having it to feel. What if you can think about a house, and know how it will feel when you build it. Imagination uses all the faculties of sense, but it takes a great deal of determination is some cases to give intangibles tangible reality. Then you must ask, as Muslim philosophers asked: Was the Holy Koran always in existence since it was now the eternal word of God?
Our lives are the essential link in any chain of sensation. We have made realities other generations have conceived. We know even today's dreams will be tomorrow's reality. Since life is essential to creation of reality, and essential to the sensation of reality, when was concept not real, and when did it become real, or was the concept never real, and will not ever be real. As long as people live, their concepts will be real because they are part of us, part of our chemistry, and a part of how we perceive the future, which I take as the only real time. That they have a certain convenient immateriality is in itself immaterial. If we dream it we can make it, since even our dreams are made of spare bits reality.