Mageth

And I'm still unclear on why a perceived attribute of an object such as its "color" would be "spiritual" while an attribute such as its size or distance would not, which seems to be Volker's position.

Nowhere357

Agreed. I mentioned allowances.

Agreed. Good interpretation.

Agreed. I think it's clear that both "sound" and "color" CAN be understood to require subjective awareness.

The plate is not an "observer", unless of course the plate has subjective awareness. (I see no reason to assume it does.)

Consider this: what color is on the plate, before you turn the lights on? What if you turned on a colored light? Clearly, what is on the plate is physical matter which reflects light. "Color" requires subjective awareness.

Subjective awareness ("spirit") is a part of the natural universe, and so is not supernatural. Subjective awareness ("spirit") is not physical. Why should non-physical existence imply supernatural?
Example: "1+1=2" is a concept, and has no physical existence. In no way does "1+1=2" imply the supernatural. The problem is the baggage associated with the word "spirit" (as you have noted). The problem also is that some people accept that baggage uncritically, creating miscommunication, and that is what I rail against.

Consider: some folks come to this forum as they began to reject theism. The word "spirit" has personal meaning to these people, and they are likely to use the word. After their visit here, will their skeptic abilities have grown, or will they have been turned off by the nasty attitudes and negativity - and the dogma?
I think he never answered. I was glad to see the question posed. At this point I doubt he'll be back.

I think I see your point: that he's implying "spiritual existence" can exist without the body? In that case, I mostly agree. However, I saw no such implication, in this thread. It's that baggage, again.

BTW, I know little about metaphysics (what I've seen has left me unimpressed). In your opinion, is there nothing of value in the entire field?


I agree, with these caveats: this is a likely place for newcomers, and the original posters viewpoint should always be taken into account, as we formulate our replies.

I want to believe that freethinkers reject preconceptions as a matter of principle (as much as possible).

More than fair. Thank you, Mageth. A genuine pleasure.

Nowhere357

Really, I think the same thing can be said about ANY of the words which involve subjective awareness: mind, consciousness, self, etc. The whole concept seems full of traps.

I don't know what Volker's agenda is/was. I don't recall him refusing to consider other terms, however. Did I miss that?

Mageth

No prob. A pleasure on my part, too.

Subjective awareness ("spirit") is a part of the natural universe, and so is not supernatural. Subjective awareness ("spirit") is not physical. Why should non-physical existence imply supernatural?

I agree with you, obviously, but I'm not sure what Volker's stand is on this; hence my comments.

My only other comment is about "observer". One could argue (and I think this is sometimes done in quantum physics) that an "observer" does not necessarily require conscious awareness. Under a broad definition, an "observer" could be anything registering an effect from an event, such as a meter, a photographic plate or a tape recorder. Hence, my request for clarification on what Volker means by "observer."

As an example, and perhaps a better one than a photographic plate, a microbe may react to light in certain ways. Likewise, a plant may react to light, for example by turning towards the sun, or folding up its leaves when the sun goes down. Is a microbe, or a plant, neither of which I don't typically associate with "conscious awareness", any less an "observer" of the light than I am?

I agree, with these caveats: this is a likely place for newcomers, and the original posters viewpoint should always be taken into account, as we formulate our replies.

I want to believe that freethinkers reject preconceptions as a matter of principle (as much as possible).

Very good points. Human nature's a bitch sometimes!

Nowhere357

There was a comment earlier in the thread, about "qualia", I think. Probably size and distance are not qualia, while color is. That is, size and distance are relative quantities, while color is a perceived quality. I think I'll enter keyword "qualia" and go study.

Mageth

I forgot:

BTW, I know little about metaphysics (what I've seen has left me unimpressed). In your opinion, is there nothing of value in the entire field?

"Metaphysics" is another loaded term, as it may have different meanings to different people. For example, this site (II) promotes "metaphysical naturalism", "a term coined by philosophers for any worldview that holds that nature is all there is." (Go to the SecWeb home page and search the SecWeb for "metaphysical naturalism" and you'll get a lot of hits, if you want to learn more (assuming you're not already familiar with the concept).)

Back to metaphysics, under the Foldoc definition of metaphysics, I'd have to say there is much of value in the field. I'd say, in fact, we've been discussing metaphysics on this thread under this, a general philosophical definition.

Under the typical "new age" definition (The science of the supernatural), I'd say there's little or nothing of value.

My usage was intended to invoke the "new age" definition, not the philosophical one. As such, I perhaps should have used "supernatural" instead of "metaphysics" for clarity.

Nowhere357

Good points. So a photo plate can resolve the quantum indetermancy- a technical "observer".

Then the microbe or plant observes the light, yes. But I doubt they have a subjective awareness of "color", and I'm sure the photo plate has no awareness of anything at all. I guess all subjective awarenesses are observers, but not vice-versa.

Thanks for the Foldoc link - I'll be using it.