Posted on 07/05/2003 4:20:08 PM PDT by betty boop
Whether there is an afterlife or not would be important to me and to many other people.
Aside from that there are many things which are important to us which are not material - love, friendship, art, music, etc.
Music is not material? Is that an offer to lug, six blocks and up and down two flights of narrow stairs, my contrabass and amp and music stand and sheet music and cases of associated electronic gear to and from our next gig and pay for drycleaning the concert black clothes?
Whereas your music has a physical existence, I doubt if everyone likes it the same. I doubt they all "hear" it the same either. So, IMHO, although your music has an objective existence it has a subjective quality which is not material.
Would you be interested in an afterlife that was "non-material?" Some people seem to think of an afterlife as something ethereal, ephemeral, and non-substantial, but I think an, "afterlife," (which I guess ought to be called, after-death) existense needs to have some kind of materialness to it. Who wants to be a ghost?
Aside from that there are many things which are important to us which are not material - love, friendship, art, music, etc.
I know people say that, and it sounds sentimentally fine, but it is just not true. I want my friends to be real, material people that I can enjoy real material things with, like meals, or even conversation, sitting in material chairs and drinking material drinks.
The love of my life is quite material and I would not have her any other way. All of the things I do for her require material things, even the paper I write my love notes on.
What art is non-material? How does one produce music with non-material instruments. How does music (sound) get propagated through non-material space. If you listen to much music, as my wife and I do, there are material CDs played on a material stereo.
The sentiment you expressed is an impossible one. Without matter, all these values would be impossible.
Hank
That is certainly part of the reason why I find Grandpierre's thesis so refreshing. Certainly just about all of us know that there is a difference between life and non-life. However, Grandpierre brings that difference to life. Life certainly works against the laws of non-life - it makes liquids defy gravity, it mixes simple chemical compounds in fantastic ways which the physical laws are totally unable to accomplish. It also changes and transforms the physical universe in which it inhabits - to fit its purposes. And this last is the most important difference in my view between life and non-life, it has purpose, it has a goal something which cannot be said of non-living matter. It is therefore something totally different which adds a new dimension to the Universe.
You are quite welcome.
I reveal the truth only to those who seek it. To all others, the truth will not be understood no matter how plain it is made.
Which Bible verse I quoted is the one you think is "twisting away?"
You have no idea what I believe. God knows. Why should I care what you think I believe?
I am glad I am not your investment counselor also.
See, we agree on something.
You are becoming what my wife calls iiii, so post one more time to have the last word. Have a lovely evening.
Hank
Interestingly enough, after posting the Dallis Willard article "The Absurdity of Thinking in Language," I read a little of Hellen Keller's assessments about her congitive states before being informed by language. (Was it K, who mentioned her too, in that thread?) She reported being without what might be called "higher thought" refering as I recall, to physical hunger and touch and not much more. However, if that's all she thought of her previous thoughts, it seems she missed something --the innate, intuitive (supernatural, as bb would remind) capability to begin to use language, and out of her extremely truncated abilities to relate with the world around her -- and merely out of sequences of stimuli of the senses of touch? Hmm................
(Later, unfortunately, she seemed so captivated by "consciousness" that she became a Swedenborgian.)
BTW, if you haven't read the Pattee article yet, it's more on the same subject and gives some historical context:
From what you've reported in another thread, there must be something in this for you, other than a prophet motive.
Really? Has anybody done it? Will the next computer we buy be conscious of itself? Will it yell at us for turning it off? How would such a thing be derived? Consciousness implies that it can think for itself and indeed has a will of its own. Now people can indulge in wishful thinking, but from that to show how such a thing can be achieved, is a very long way.
If appreciating music is entirely physical, then why would I like a certain piece in a certain setting but not in another? Or why would I like it on the first playing, present replay, not like it on the second?
No, it is not material. Sound may be material, but music is not. Just like the letters on a page may be material but a poem is not. Think about it.
You are welcome to your opinion though! I'm glad you have one. Mine is over here.
True and that is what I would consider the difference between 'poor' art and 'great' art. Great art will touch the hearts of many more people than poor art. Art is IMHO a means of communication and as such its greatness depends on how well it communicates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.