Is There an Immaterial Reality or Not?
Jerry Patterson
manners and self-confidence to discuss the existence or non existence
of an immarterial reality on earth?
...
Blessings,
Jerry
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/jerry53
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Is (are) there a pro-choice/pro-abort poster(s) here with enough
>manners and self-confidence to discuss the existence or non existence
>of an immarterial reality on earth?
Translation: "Why won't anyone talk with me according to my demands and not
disagree with me?"
--PLH, Jerry must have watched a bit too much Baby Huey
elizabeth
> Is (are) there a pro-choice/pro-abort poster(s) here with enough
> manners and self-confidence to discuss the existence or non existence
> of an immarterial reality on earth?
But it's immaterial. So why bother? It either exists or it doesn't,
either way, it's a sobering thought. It might be interesting to try
to prove the existance of something that doesn't exist, though.
ChildfreeinPhilly
"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkn12b...@eris.io.com...
LOL. He is getting SO tired and old right about now. This issue has been
discussed and discussed, and just because he can't get HIS way...oh hell.
Who the fuck cares anymore? Sheesh!!!
--
"A patriot is a person willing to defend his country and citizens from its
government".
~Thomas Jefferson~
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!!
http://www.nlg.org/wtc/knowrights3.htm
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
JP
Apparently you are not accustomed to reasoned exchanges. If I replied
with the same rancor to your statement as you did to mine, it would be
quite cutting and I would sense in me a betrayal of my search for
truth.
Why does the notion of immaterial existence frighten you so? It is
nearly self-evident that it exists in you, yet you are fearful. Why?
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
JP
Immaterial means, firstly, not consisting of matter; incorporeal.
Secondly, it means of no substantial consequence; unimportant. My use
of the word is self-evidently is in the first sense.
Immaterial has nothing to do with the notion of existence since,
because it is acknowledged, it must exist! Your interest in
contradictions is truly interesting. Are you accepting the offer to
discuss immaterial reality?
Jerry
Ray Fischer
>Is (are) there a pro-choice/pro-abort poster(s) here with enough
>manners and self-confidence to discuss the existence or non existence
>of an immarterial reality on earth?
Yes, such things exist. Knowledge is the notable example.
Order is another.
Now what?
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
rfis...@sonic.net into you -- Nietzsche
elizabeth
why not define unreal material first?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:szkn12b...@eris.io.com...
>> Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> writes:
>> >Is (are) there a pro-choice/pro-abort poster(s) here with enough
>> >manners and self-confidence to discuss the existence or non existence
>> >of an immarterial reality on earth?
>> Translation: "Why won't anyone talk with me according to my demands and not
>> disagree with me?"
>>
>> --PLH, Jerry must have watched a bit too much Baby Huey
>LOL. He is getting SO tired and old right about now. This issue has been
>discussed and discussed, and just because he can't get HIS way...oh hell.
>Who the fuck cares anymore? Sheesh!!!
Jerry obviously does -- seems to me he's more interested in getting
attention than actually discussing anything. (Last time I looked, this was
an abortion newsgroup, not one about the meaning of life.)
--PLH, but what do I know? I'm literate
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 03:02:54 GMT, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>>Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> writes:
>>>Is (are) there a pro-choice/pro-abort poster(s) here with enough
>>>manners and self-confidence to discuss the existence or non existence
>>>of an immarterial reality on earth?
>>Translation: "Why won't anyone talk with me according to my demands and not
>>disagree with me?"
>>
>>--PLH, Jerry must have watched a bit too much Baby Huey
>Apparently you are not accustomed to reasoned exchanges. If I replied
>with the same rancor to your statement as you did to mine, it would be
>quite cutting and I would sense in me a betrayal of my search for
>truth.
Good for you. I'd still appreciate a faintly coherent explanation of why we
should all do as YOU say, though.
>Why does the notion of immaterial existence frighten you so? It is
>nearly self-evident that it exists in you, yet you are fearful. Why?
You're no mind-reader, Jerry. You don't know what I'm afraid of. (You also
don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but you *are* accomplishing
something, even if not quite what you may have intended: you're doing a
wonderful job of convincing people that you're an idiot.)
--PLH, and I just get to watch from the seats on the glass
Jerry Patterson
>Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<4j0rttouast5e8c56...@4ax.com>...
>
>why not define unreal material first?
JP
"Unreal material" is a contradiction. Unless you are speaking
metaphysically, then the correct term is matter, but it is real. What
do you mean by "Unreal material?"
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
Fischer) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>Is (are) there a pro-choice/pro-abort poster(s) here with enough
>>manners and self-confidence to discuss the existence or non existence
>>of an immarterial reality on earth?
>
>Yes, such things exist. Knowledge is the notable example.
>Order is another.
>
>Now what?
JP
I certainly agree that immaterial reality exists too. What is next?
Perhaps we can bypass much rigorous detail by simply going to the
subject of humans. If you prefer, however, we can go back and start
from a much less developed immaterial reality.
The difference between a dead human body (DB) and a live human body is
clearly the existence of an immaterial reality that animated the body.
Do you agree with that or do you disagree? If you agree, we can
proceed; if you disagree, we can discuss the nature of your
disagreement.
Jerry
balie
6alttt8mvgnslj8te...@4ax.com, "Jerry Patterson"
<jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> The difference between a dead human body (DB) and a live human body is
> clearly the existence of an immaterial reality that animated the body.
> Do you agree with that or do you disagree? If you agree, we can
> proceed; if you disagree, we can discuss the nature of your
> disagreement.
You seem to be saying that the death of the physical form is the death of
the immaterial resource. Or, just because you cannot see tangible evidence
that the immaterial resource isn't present because there is no human form
that it no longer exists. The notion of an immaterial resource rest on the
"truth" that the immaterial resource exists whether we can measure it or
not.
For example, does an indigenous person of Papua/New Guinea have this
immaterial resource even if she doesn't believe that one exists?
Question: are you interacting with me the human being or the immaterial
resource while you respond to this e-mail, or some other derivation?
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>Is (are) there a pro-choice/pro-abort poster(s) here with enough
>>>manners and self-confidence to discuss the existence or non existence
>>>of an immarterial reality on earth?
>>
>>Yes, such things exist. Knowledge is the notable example.
>>Order is another.
>>
>>Now what?
>
>The difference between a dead human body (DB) and a live human body is
>clearly the existence of an immaterial reality that animated the body.
One is dead, the other alive. It's taken you a couple weeks to
come this far. Tehre is no "immaterial reality that animated the
body". Life, at its basic level, is chemical processes. When
certain key processes cease, the body is dead.
Is there a point to this or are you going to spend another couple
weeks doing the next baby step?
Jerry Patterson
>On 10/30/2001 12:04 PM, in article
>6alttt8mvgnslj8te...@4ax.com, "Jerry Patterson"
><jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>> The difference between a dead human body (DB) and a live human body is
>> clearly the existence of an immaterial reality that animated the body.
>> Do you agree with that or do you disagree? If you agree, we can
>> proceed; if you disagree, we can discuss the nature of your
>> disagreement.
>
>You seem to be saying that the death of the physical form is the death of
>the immaterial resource. Or, just because you cannot see tangible evidence
>that the immaterial resource isn't present because there is no human form
>that it no longer exists. The notion of an immaterial resource rest on the
>"truth" that the immaterial resource exists whether we can measure it or
>not.
JP
You are getting technical here so I must answer in a technical manner.
The physical form either possess life or it does not. It is not a
matter of the physical body dying, it is a matter of the physical body
possessing life.
The only physical existence that can [support] possess life is that
physical existence which has the potential for possessing life. For
instance, a rock, water, dirt, etc., are not such physical existent.
>For example, does an indigenous person of Papua/New Guinea have this
>immaterial resource even if she doesn't believe that one exists?
JP
Certainly. By this time you must surely know that when I use the term
"immaterial existence," I am referring to life. The reason for this is
that so many people are unable or afraid to define life.
>Question: are you interacting with me the human being or the immaterial
>resource while you respond to this e-mail, or some other derivation?
JP
Pick one and I will agree. I think the most accurate reference to
[human] life is to refer to a soul (Aristotle). I don't use that
terminology because it seems to provoke so many knee-jerk reactions.
In an effort to minimize such reactions, I use abstract terminology
that is quite valid but is largely inert to those sensitivities.
The problems have been twofold: 1) Few people posting here seem to be
acquainted with abstract thinking, and 2) if terminology deemed
religious is used, then that is rejected as biased.
In brief, it has been an uphill battle. You seem to be the only person
posting here to have the intellectual insight to ask such an important
question.
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
<snip>
>>Apparently you are not accustomed to reasoned exchanges. If I replied
>>with the same rancor to your statement as you did to mine, it would be
>>quite cutting and I would sense in me a betrayal of my search for
>>truth.
>
>Good for you. I'd still appreciate a faintly coherent explanation of why we
>should all do as YOU say, though.
JP
Good for you too. I don't think anyone should do what I say. It is you
who make that assertion and so you should make the coherent
explanation.
>>Why does the notion of immaterial existence frighten you so? It is
>>nearly self-evident that it exists in you, yet you are fearful. Why?
>
>You're no mind-reader, Jerry. You don't know what I'm afraid of. (You also
>don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but you *are* accomplishing
>something, even if not quite what you may have intended: you're doing a
>wonderful job of convincing people that you're an idiot.)
>
>--PLH, and I just get to watch from the seats on the glass
JP
Good for you again. I am, indeed, no mind reader. It is the language
used that suggests fear.
The ad hominem attack you launch by calling me an idiot is the last
refuge of reason lost. Are you now saying you will define life? I will
gladly respond.
Jerry
Ray Fischer
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>>>Apparently you are not accustomed to reasoned exchanges. If I replied
>>>with the same rancor to your statement as you did to mine, it would be
>>>quite cutting and I would sense in me a betrayal of my search for
>>>truth.
>>
>>Good for you. I'd still appreciate a faintly coherent explanation of why we
>>should all do as YOU say, though.
>
>Good for you too. I don't think anyone should do what I say.
That makes you pro-choice.
End of discussion. Please exit stage left.
balie
qr1uttglo82grngs5...@4ax.com, "Jerry Patterson"
<jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:42:53 GMT, balie <ba...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/2001 12:04 PM, in article
>> 6alttt8mvgnslj8te...@4ax.com, "Jerry Patterson"
>> <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The difference between a dead human body (DB) and a live human body is
>>> clearly the existence of an immaterial reality that animated the body.
>>> Do you agree with that or do you disagree? If you agree, we can
>>> proceed; if you disagree, we can discuss the nature of your
>>> disagreement.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that the death of the physical form is the death of
>> the immaterial resource. Or, just because you cannot see tangible evidence
>> that the immaterial resource isn't present because there is no human form
>> that it no longer exists. The notion of an immaterial resource rest on the
>> "truth" that the immaterial resource exists whether we can measure it or
>> not.
>
> JP
> You are getting technical here so I must answer in a technical manner.
> The physical form either possess life or it does not. It is not a
> matter of the physical body dying, it is a matter of the physical body
> possessing life.
You didn't respond to my point and this is circular logic. Does the
immaterial resource exist whether or not it is currently residing within me?
IOW, is the immaterial resource there if you cannot see me, or measure my
presence in some way?
> The only physical existence that can [support] possess life is that
> physical existence which has the potential for possessing life. For
> instance, a rock, water, dirt, etc., are not such physical existent.
>
>> For example, does an indigenous person of Papua/New Guinea have this
>> immaterial resource even if she doesn't believe that one exists?
>
> JP
> Certainly. By this time you must surely know that when I use the term
> "immaterial existence," I am referring to life. The reason for this is
> that so many people are unable or afraid to define life.
How you define a soul/IR is what is in question? Other than to say such a
resource exists you have offered no evidence that it does. This is typically
referred to as superstition.
>> Question: are you interacting with me the human being or the immaterial
>> resource while you respond to this e-mail, or some other derivation?
>
> JP
> Pick one and I will agree. I think the most accurate reference to
> [human] life is to refer to a soul (Aristotle). I don't use that
> terminology because it seems to provoke so many knee-jerk reactions.
> In an effort to minimize such reactions, I use abstract terminology
> that is quite valid but is largely inert to those sensitivities.
They are two very different concepts. If you are interacting with my soul/IR
then this form is merely a vessel and is off little consequence.
> The problems have been twofold: 1) Few people posting here seem to be
> acquainted with abstract thinking, and 2) if terminology deemed
> religious is used, then that is rejected as biased.
I'm not other people.
Abstract thinking, however, is not above and beyond logic, reasoning, and
critical analysis. You seem to want philosophy to be above what my profs
earned good money teaching me. Without evidence, you are not discussing a
universal law, but a hypothesis or theory. And without evidence to
demonstrate these "truths," this is simply another person's opinion.
I'm quite comfortable discussing the concept of a soul. To be more specific,
an abortion kills only the physical form -- it does not kill the soul. IOW,
the immaterial resource still must exist, although mere humans have no way
of measuring its presence.
Which raises a contradiction -- natural death, or unnatural death. In the
case of cancer, or an unintended industrial accident the human form is still
destroyed. If the soul survives with or without the presence of the physical
form, what difference does it make if the body has died?
> In brief, it has been an uphill battle. You seem to be the only person
> posting here to have the intellectual insight to ask such an important
> question.
Thank you, and I think you aren't giving people enough credit. This debate
has a very long history within this newsgroup and people are sometimes
reluctant to engage for a variety of reasons.
What isn't clear in what I have read in your posts is the need to define
life. Murder has been illegal in most societies, taking human life has not
always been viewed as murder though.
Kant and consequentialism are seriously flawed philosophies and it sounds
like that is what you espousing here.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On 29 Oct 2001 15:32:42 -0800, efra...@hotmail.com (elizabeth) wrote:
>>Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message news:<4j0rttouast5e8c56...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>why not define unreal material first?
>"Unreal material" is a contradiction. Unless you are speaking
>metaphysically, then the correct term is matter, but it is real. What
>do you mean by "Unreal material?"
Maybe it's like the sign on the inbound onramp to the Southwest Freeway from
Westpark (which happens to enter the freeway all of 800 feet before the
inbound offramp to Chimney Rock, the consequences of which you can visualize):
"Yield to Existing Traffic", which is pretty sound advice, I'd say -- I'd be
more worried about the headcases behind the wheel that yield to traffic that
*doesn't* exist!
--PLH, it's never a dull moment in the nation's fourth-largest city
Patrick L. Humphrey
>On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:40:47 GMT, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
><snip>
>>>Apparently you are not accustomed to reasoned exchanges. If I replied
>>>with the same rancor to your statement as you did to mine, it would be
>>>quite cutting and I would sense in me a betrayal of my search for
>>>truth.
>>Good for you. I'd still appreciate a faintly coherent explanation of why we
>>should all do as YOU say, though.
>Good for you too. I don't think anyone should do what I say. It is you
>who make that assertion and so you should make the coherent explanation.
Maybe I've had 30+ years of experience listening to people pushing your line.
>>>Why does the notion of immaterial existence frighten you so? It is
>>>nearly self-evident that it exists in you, yet you are fearful. Why?
>>You're no mind-reader, Jerry. You don't know what I'm afraid of. (You also
>>don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but you *are* accomplishing
>>something, even if not quite what you may have intended: you're doing a
>>wonderful job of convincing people that you're an idiot.)
>>
>>--PLH, and I just get to watch from the seats on the glass
>Good for you again. I am, indeed, no mind reader. It is the language
>used that suggests fear.
Trouble is, it suggests that to you. Maybe if you quit assuming everyone
else saw it the same way, you'd get somewhere.
>The ad hominem attack you launch by calling me an idiot is the last
>refuge of reason lost. Are you now saying you will define life? I will
>gladly respond.
This is an abortion newsgroup. Do try to keep up, won't you?
--PLH, one of them literate hillbillies
Jerry Patterson
JP
I seems we suffer from different vocabularies. When I use the term
"immaterial resource" it exists by virtue of it being a resource, or
means, if you will. If a resource did not exist, it would not be
available for use. When this resource departs the body, we say the
body is dead.
When the immaterial resource exists in you, yes it exists in you. If I
cannot see you, and you are alive, that resource certainly exists in
you. If I cannot see you and you are dead, that immaterial resource
does not exist in you. Its presence or non presence in you is an
objective truth and is therefore not dependent upon my knowing
it.Therefore, my not seeing you does not mean that resource (soul)
does not exist whether it is in your body or not in your body.
Objective truth means the conformity of the mind to objective reality.
I apologize if I assumed too much understanding for my words.
>> The only physical existence that can [support] possess life is that
>> physical existence which has the potential for possessing life. For
>> instance, a rock, water, dirt, etc., are not such physical existent.
>>
>>> For example, does an indigenous person of Papua/New Guinea have this
>>> immaterial resource even if she doesn't believe that one exists?
>>
>> JP
>> Certainly. By this time you must surely know that when I use the term
>> "immaterial existence," I am referring to life. The reason for this is
>> that so many people are unable or afraid to define life.
>
>How you define a soul/IR is what is in question? Other than to say such a
>resource exists you have offered no evidence that it does. This is typically
>referred to as superstition.
JP
For my usage here "immaterial life" = "soul." When I say that a
immaterial resource animates the body that is surely not a vague
expression. Some elements of animation are: metabolism, movement,
reasoning, choosing, reproduction of cells, circulatory system, etc,.
That evidence is clear to any competent observer. There is clearly no
evidence of superstition here.
>>> Question: are you interacting with me the human being or the immaterial
>>> resource while you respond to this e-mail, or some other derivation?
>>
>> JP
>> Pick one and I will agree. I think the most accurate reference to
>> [human] life is to refer to a soul (Aristotle). I don't use that
>> terminology because it seems to provoke so many knee-jerk reactions.
>> In an effort to minimize such reactions, I use abstract terminology
>> that is quite valid but is largely inert to those sensitivities.
>
>They are two very different concepts. If you are interacting with my soul/IR
>then this form is merely a vessel and is off little consequence.
JP
There are no two different concepts in my terminology. I don't share
your conclusion since it does not proceed from the premise.
The soul _is_ an immaterial resource. We think, choose, judge, and
react by virtue of its presence within us. When we correspond on this
media we certainly are doing so with our souls and bodies.
The body, to which you refer as of little consequence, is animated by
our souls and it therefore of great consequence. It is by virtue of
our bodies that we express our thinking, choices, judgements, and
reactions to conditions.
If the body were of little or no consequence, then societies would
not, as an example, pass laws concerning murder. Such laws and others
preserve societies. There are theological reasons supporting such laws
too, but they are for a different discussion.
>> The problems have been twofold: 1) Few people posting here seem to be
>> acquainted with abstract thinking, and 2) if terminology deemed
>> religious is used, then that is rejected as biased.
>
>I'm not other people.
JP
You certainly are not. I had reference to some other posters.
>Abstract thinking, however, is not above and beyond logic, reasoning, and
>critical analysis. You seem to want philosophy to be above what my profs
>earned good money teaching me. Without evidence, you are not discussing a
>universal law, but a hypothesis or theory. And without evidence to
>demonstrate these "truths," this is simply another person's opinion.
JP
I certainly agree. As a matter-of-fact, thinking is abstract in the
since it has no dimensions. Proper thinking must have conformance to
the rules of logic. Logic is a sub-category of classical philosophy.
I don't know what you mean. Making money is not a measure of good or
correctness. Are you saying that the animation of your body is not
evidence? Are you saying that is a(n) hypothesis? The animation of
bodies is not simply an opinion. As I wrote previously, objective
truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. It is different from
reality.
Why don't you invite your profs to participate in this discussion?
That you exist and are animated is a truth!
>I'm quite comfortable discussing the concept of a soul. To be more specific,
>an abortion kills only the physical form -- it does not kill the soul. IOW,
>the immaterial resource still must exist, although mere humans have no way
>of measuring its presence.
JP
I don't want to get into the notion of abortion yet because we have
yet to achieve agreement on terminology. The fact that abortion or any
other act cannot kill the soul is not relevant to the issue of
abortion. Please, let us reach agreement on the reality of and the
meaning of life first.
>Which raises a contradiction -- natural death, or unnatural death. In the
>case of cancer, or an unintended industrial accident the human form is still
>destroyed. If the soul survives with or without the presence of the physical
>form, what difference does it make if the body has died?
JP
I don't perceive a contradiction. The soul is responsible for choices.
What do you think happens to the soul after it leaves the body? That
question is rhetorical for now. We are not yet ready to pursue these
issues yet as we have not arrived at a common vocabulary.
>> In brief, it has been an uphill battle. You seem to be the only person
>> posting here to have the intellectual insight to ask such an important
>> question.
>Thank you, and I think you aren't giving people enough credit. This debate
>has a very long history within this newsgroup and people are sometimes
>reluctant to engage for a variety of reasons.
JP
That only you asked the question because you didn't understand is an
undeniable fact. But that is not the issue. My point about some other
posters has to do with the fact of ill-mannered ongoing name-calling.
I give no credit to that and when that has happened it terminated
debate. The reality is that you are the only one I know of who has
engage in a debate here!
>What isn't clear in what I have read in your posts is the need to define
>life. Murder has been illegal in most societies, taking human life has not
>always been viewed as murder though.
JP
Exactly!!! Murder has not been defined as taking human life? I don't
think our fore bearers would have imagined that this debate would ever
exist in their wildest dreams. However, I want to stay with our
subject of life, thank you.
>Kant and consequentialism are seriously flawed philosophies and it sounds
>like that is what you espousing here.
JP
I agree about consequentialism. And so is proportionalism flawed. I am
in little agreement with Kant.
Jerry
PS Please feel free to <snip> this message as it is getting very long.
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> writes:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:40:47 GMT, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>>wrote:
>
>><snip>
>
>>>>Apparently you are not accustomed to reasoned exchanges. If I replied
>>>>with the same rancor to your statement as you did to mine, it would be
>>>>quite cutting and I would sense in me a betrayal of my search for
>>>>truth.
>
>>>Good for you. I'd still appreciate a faintly coherent explanation of why we
>>>should all do as YOU say, though.
>
>>Good for you too. I don't think anyone should do what I say. It is you
>>who make that assertion and so you should make the coherent explanation.
>
>Maybe I've had 30+ years of experience listening to people pushing your line.
JP
No doubt you have. I have no _line_. I have only reasons and if folks
don't want to exchange with me or read my messages, then they should
simply ignore them. My understanding of good content is the exchange
with "balie." (spelling?)
>>>>Why does the notion of immaterial existence frighten you so? It is
>>>>nearly self-evident that it exists in you, yet you are fearful. Why?
>
>>>You're no mind-reader, Jerry. You don't know what I'm afraid of. (You also
>>>don't know what you're trying to accomplish, but you *are* accomplishing
>>>something, even if not quite what you may have intended: you're doing a
>>>wonderful job of convincing people that you're an idiot.)
>>>
>>>--PLH, and I just get to watch from the seats on the glass
>
>>Good for you again. I am, indeed, no mind reader. It is the language
>>used that suggests fear.
>
>Trouble is, it suggests that to you. Maybe if you quit assuming everyone
>else saw it the same way, you'd get somewhere.
JP
If I assume "everyone else saw it the same way," I would not be
posting. I left high school and college locker rooms a long time ago.
If someone does not want to participate in abstract reasoning they
should simply ignore those posts; not reply with name-calling.
>>The ad hominem attack you launch by calling me an idiot is the last
>>refuge of reason lost. Are you now saying you will define life? I will
>>gladly respond.
>
>This is an abortion newsgroup. Do try to keep up, won't you?
JP
Please see the above. Understanding the act of abortion requires
abstract reasoning unless one accepts its value in terms of religious
faith. It seems that most posters here accept neither religious faith
nor abstract reasoning to resolve the issue. Some seem to accept only
political and name-calling terms for responses. Below?
>--PLH, one of them literate hillbillies
Jerry
Jerry Patterson
wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> writes:
>--PLH, it's never a dull moment in the nation's fourth-largest cityJP
JP
I certainly agree about your fine traffic example. But "unreal" means
that it doesn't exist in reality. Material means that which has form,
and means it necessarily exists in reality.
Jerry
balie
jo30utoulkoluvqmg...@4ax.com, "Jerry Patterson"
<jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
The resource is what you are calling life. IOW, life has left the physical
form, but it still exists. Only the form dies, not the resource.
By analogy, assume a mug of hot coffee is an animated being. The empty mug
is just the vessel. Add the hot coffee and it becomes an animated being.
Destroy the mug and the resource is still there, it still exists. It may not
be in the same form that we would otherwise observe, but the hot coffee is
still there.
So the question remains, what is being destroyed in an abortion other than
the physical form. Based on your explanation thus far the resource, or life
still exists.
> When the immaterial resource exists in you, yes it exists in you. If I
> cannot see you, and you are alive, that resource certainly exists in
> you. If I cannot see you and you are dead, that immaterial resource
> does not exist in you. Its presence or non presence in you is an
> objective truth and is therefore not dependent upon my knowing
> it.Therefore, my not seeing you does not mean that resource (soul)
> does not exist whether it is in your body or not in your body.
>
> Objective truth means the conformity of the mind to objective reality.
> I apologize if I assumed too much understanding for my words.
Thus far you have been discussing subjective reality.
>>> The only physical existence that can [support] possess life is that
>>> physical existence which has the potential for possessing life. For
>>> instance, a rock, water, dirt, etc., are not such physical existent.
>>>
>>>> For example, does an indigenous person of Papua/New Guinea have this
>>>> immaterial resource even if she doesn't believe that one exists?
>>>
>>> JP
>>> Certainly. By this time you must surely know that when I use the term
>>> "immaterial existence," I am referring to life. The reason for this is
>>> that so many people are unable or afraid to define life.
>>
>> How you define a soul/IR is what is in question? Other than to say such a
>> resource exists you have offered no evidence that it does. This is typically
>> referred to as superstition.
>
> JP
> For my usage here "immaterial life" = "soul." When I say that a
> immaterial resource animates the body that is surely not a vague
> expression. Some elements of animation are: metabolism, movement,
> reasoning, choosing, reproduction of cells, circulatory system, etc,.
> That evidence is clear to any competent observer. There is clearly no
> evidence of superstition here.
Which raises the question of whether or not the soul existed prior to
animating my body, or was the soul created at that instant. You might want
to exercise caution here, as your answer could wind up supporting the notion
of traveling souls similar to one soul inhabiting several human vessels.
IOW, the soul not being unique.
>>>> Question: are you interacting with me the human being or the immaterial
>>>> resource while you respond to this e-mail, or some other derivation?
>>>
>>> JP
>>> Pick one and I will agree. I think the most accurate reference to
>>> [human] life is to refer to a soul (Aristotle). I don't use that
>>> terminology because it seems to provoke so many knee-jerk reactions.
>>> In an effort to minimize such reactions, I use abstract terminology
>>> that is quite valid but is largely inert to those sensitivities.
>>
>> They are two very different concepts. If you are interacting with my soul/IR
>> then this form is merely a vessel and is off little consequence.
>
> JP
> There are no two different concepts in my terminology. I don't share
> your conclusion since it does not proceed from the premise.
>
> The soul _is_ an immaterial resource. We think, choose, judge, and
> react by virtue of its presence within us. When we correspond on this
> media we certainly are doing so with our souls and bodies.
That is a subjective opinion. You haven't demonstrated that I have this
immaterial resource. I do not subscribe to the concept, and until it can be
demonstrated empirically I have no reason to consider your assumptions as
truth.
I am content with saying that I don't have all the answers in defining life,
and explaining at this point in time.
I can conclude based on evidence that I believe that I exist. I cannot prove
this. I think that I have said that I believe that life is on a continuum --
all life. I make no distinction between individuals, or species. Your theory
does, and I find that to be illogical.
Again, what would be different if my pet dog had this animating force? I
suspect that human beings could not consider themselves superior and that
concept is quite threatening for emotional beings who fear death.
>> I'm quite comfortable discussing the concept of a soul. To be more specific,
>> an abortion kills only the physical form -- it does not kill the soul. IOW,
>> the immaterial resource still must exist, although mere humans have no way
>> of measuring its presence.
>
> JP
> I don't want to get into the notion of abortion yet because we have
> yet to achieve agreement on terminology. The fact that abortion or any
> other act cannot kill the soul is not relevant to the issue of
> abortion. Please, let us reach agreement on the reality of and the
> meaning of life first.
Your use of the word reality is troublesome. My reality and objective
reality are not the same thing. What I believe to be true and what is truth
are not the same thing. You believe a soul exist. I don't doubt that this is
what you believe. You haven't demonstrated that this is true objectively.
It does not follow that because we cannot sufficiently demonstrate the
meaning of life that a soul must exist. This is a rudimentary error in
reasoning.
>> Which raises a contradiction -- natural death, or unnatural death. In the
>> case of cancer, or an unintended industrial accident the human form is still
>> destroyed. If the soul survives with or without the presence of the physical
>> form, what difference does it make if the body has died?
>
> JP
> I don't perceive a contradiction. The soul is responsible for choices.
> What do you think happens to the soul after it leaves the body? That
> question is rhetorical for now. We are not yet ready to pursue these
> issues yet as we have not arrived at a common vocabulary.
Another contradiction. Why should my physical form being punished for
earthly choices that are the responsibility of my soul. I'll enjoy getting
back to this point later.
Jerry Patterson
JP
I greatly respect your questions and I think we should discuss them in
due time. We are jumping from one concept to another without resolving
the more fundamental issue of definitions. This leads us to wandering
the conceptual landscape while resolving little or nothing. When you
think about it, Balie, the difficulty in making general definitions
requires the consideration of many otherwise possible exceptions.
This, in itself, clarifys the substance of discussions.
Would you kindly agree to continue our important and serious
discussion exclusively on the new thread you started? I will honor
your decision, but hope we can start anew and exclusively on your new
thread.
Jerry
balie
lp63utktdob02581c...@4ax.com, "Jerry Patterson"
<jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
I do not subscribe to any theory of an immaterial resource. It is then your
responsibility to demonstrate the evidence to support your conclusion. Using
the evidence as the conclusion is considered an error in reasoning.
This website is one that details some of the common reasoning errors.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
krisbam
> On 29 Oct 2001 15:32:42 -0800, efra...@hotmail.com (elizabeth) wrote:
>
> >Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:<4j0rttouast5e8c56...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >why not define unreal material first?
>
> JP
> "Unreal material" is a contradiction. Unless you are speaking
> metaphysically, then the correct term is matter, but it is real. What
> do you mean by "Unreal material?"
How is a soul *real*?
Krisbam
Jerry Patterson
<kri...@freemail.absa.co.za> wrote:
>
>"Jerry Patterson" <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:r8kstt0ktqlcr4tpb...@4ax.com...
>> On 29 Oct 2001 15:32:42 -0800, efra...@hotmail.com (elizabeth) wrote:
>>
>> >Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>news:<4j0rttouast5e8c56...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> >why not define unreal material first?
>>
>> JP
>> "Unreal material" is a contradiction. Unless you are speaking
>> metaphysically, then the correct term is matter, but it is real. What
>> do you mean by "Unreal material?"
>
>How is a soul *real*?
>
>Krisbam
JP
It is real because you think and act.
Jerry
Ray Fischer
> "krisbam"
>>How is a soul *real*?
>
>It is real because you think and act.
I bet that you even think that that makes sense.
What is a "soul"? How is it needed to allow a person
to "think and act"?
Jerry Patterson
Fischer) wrote:
>Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>> "krisbam"
>
>>>How is a soul *real*?
>>
>>It is real because you think and act.
>
>I bet that you even think that that makes sense.
>
>What is a "soul"? How is it needed to allow a person
>to "think and act"?
JP
The same as what makes you think.
What makes you think? Whatever it is, how is it dimensioned, that is
how long, wide, or tall is it? How much does it weigh? Can you time
it? Those are the tests to discover if something is physical! If it is
physical, you can answer those questions.
Jerry
Freebytes
> JP
> I agree about consequentialism. And so is proportionalism flawed. I am
> in little agreement with Kant.
>
> Jerry
>
> PS Please feel free to <snip> this message as it is getting very long.
I see very little comparison with Kant in the post of JP.
Freebytes of Sector
Freebytes
> I greatly respect your questions and I think we should discuss them in
> due time. We are jumping from one concept to another without resolving
> the more fundamental issue of definitions. This leads us to wandering
> the conceptual landscape while resolving little or nothing. When you
> think about it, Balie, the difficulty in making general definitions
> requires the consideration of many otherwise possible exceptions.
> This, in itself, clarifys the substance of discussions.
>
> Would you kindly agree to continue our important and serious
> discussion exclusively on the new thread you started? I will honor
> your decision, but hope we can start anew and exclusively on your new
> thread.
>
> Jerry
>
I think it is a good time to <snip>. You have already stated your
definitions, have you not? If so, assume we agree with them and make your
points and conclusions. There is really no point in wasting time arguing
about the definition of concepts when you have provided a definition.
Either we agree or disagree with the definition. If we agree, you can make
your point. If we disagree, the only course you have is to change your
definition of a concept. By doing that, you make it seem as though facts
can be changed.
Freebytes of Sector
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@newbolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Jerry Patterson <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>> "krisbam"
>>>>How is a soul *real*?
>>>
>>>It is real because you think and act.
>>
>>I bet that you even think that that makes sense.
>>
>>What is a "soul"? How is it needed to allow a person
>>to "think and act"?
>
>The same as what makes you think.
I don't have much patience for such childish games. Answer the
question or andmit that you haven't the faintest notion.
Jerry Patterson
JP
Yes, I have stated my definitions. All I have found are rejections of
my definitions. I do not want to assume acceptance of my definitions
for the sake of discussion since that is an acknowledgement of a
contingency. There is no contingency in reality! If a definition of a
reality is correct, it should not be changed. This subject deals
directly with reality and is not as tolerant of defective definitions
as is, for instance, the rules of a game.
This issue has come to a point on the thread "Jerry and the immaterial
resource."
Jerry
Freebytes
fear that you might be correct. So, simply state your entire argument.
Freebytes of Sector
"Jerry Patterson" <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:oit8uto6ink8967av...@4ax.com...
Krisbam
->No one has denied your definitions either because they will do neither for
->fear that you might be correct. So, simply state your entire argument.
I am not the on fearing about whether or not I'll have control over what happens within your own body.
Krisbam
->
->Freebytes of Sector
->
->"Jerry Patterson" <jer...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
->news:oit8uto6ink8967av...@4ax.com...
->> On Sat, 03 Nov 2001 21:34:49 GMT, "Freebytes" <*@*.com> wrote:
->>
->> >> JP
->> >> I greatly respect your questions and I think we should discuss them in
->> >> due time. We are jumping from one concept to another without resolving
->> >> the more fundamental issue of definitions. This leads us to wandering
->> >> the conceptual landscape while resolving little or nothing. When you
->> >> think about it, Balie, the difficulty in making general definitions
->> >> requires the consideration of many otherwise possible exceptions.
->> >> This, in itself, clarifys the substance of discussions.
->> >>
->> >> Would you kindly agree to continue our important and serious
->> >> discussion exclusively on the new thread you started? I will honor
->> >> your decision, but hope we can start anew and exclusively on your new
->> >> thread.
->> >>
->> >> Jerry
->> >>
->> >> >> PS Please feel free to <snip> this message as it is getting very
->long.
->> >
->> >I think it is a good time to <snip>. You have already stated your
->> >definitions, have you not? If so, assume we agree with them and make
->your
->> >points and conclusions. There is really no point in wasting time arguing
->> >about the definition of concepts when you have provided a definition.
->> >Either we agree or disagree with the definition. If we agree, you can
->make
->> >your point. If we disagree, the only course you have is to change your
->> >definition of a concept. By doing that, you make it seem as though facts
->> >can be changed.
->> >
->> >Freebytes of Sector
->> >
->> JP
->> Yes, I have stated my definitions. All I have found are rejections of
->> my definitions. I do not want to assume acceptance of my definitions
->> for the sake of discussion since that is an acknowledgement of a
->> contingency. There is no contingency in reality! If a definition of a
->> reality is correct, it should not be changed. This subject deals
->> directly with reality and is not as tolerant of defective definitions
->> as is, for instance, the rules of a game.
->>
->> This issue has come to a point on the thread "Jerry and the immaterial
->> resource."
->>
->> Jerry
->
->
Jerry Patterson
That sounds fine to me. I have claimed that humans (and other
creatures also) possess an immaterial resource which animates the(ir)
body(ies).
At no time on this forum was there an opportunity to expand on the
meaning of "immaterial resource" since no one would agree or no one
subscribed to the existence of an immaterial resource or claimed to
understand the word "animates."
I think your idea is very good.
Jerry
On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 02:21:37 GMT, "Freebytes" <*@*.com> wrote: