DeepSight:


Same thing, different words, the light is being reflected through materials (yes, minerals!). Physical materials. Blocking some light, letting some light through to form a pattern.

And going with this same analogy, then if clouds block a part of the sky and you can see the unblocked part which forms a pattern, then hey presto, that is also an immaterial thing that you have seen? Come on! Same thing apples to a shadow, for goodness sake!

There is no "immaterial thing" you are seeing.
You cannot see an immaterial thing.

What is a shadow made of?

LordReed:


The image is not the light. How can you not understand this?

Of course I do. See my example above with clouds in the sky.
If clouds block out a part of the sky and the unblocked part forms a pattern, have you seen an immaterial thing?

No I am not. I said visual hallucination not optical illusion those are 2 different things. A visual hallucination is called so because it is a visual perception of something that is not there. There is a perception a thing in real objective space even though there is nothing there and it is indicated that the visual cortex is stimulated so it is not merely the mind playing tricks, there is a material component.

Well you yourself have said "something that is not there."
Hence it is not a "thing.

Much less an "immaterial thing!"

I said it is a trick of the mind, and you have mentioned the visual cortex being stimulated. The visual cortex is not the eye. The eye never saw anything. You dont know it, but you are affirming what I said. How can you not see this?

Capsice?

DeepSight:

And mind you, be further warned that if you insist that hallucinations are actually "things" which are "seen" then you just might be conceding to the real existence of ghosts.

Depends on what you mean by ghost. If you mean that people hallucinations of people that are not present in real space then yeah ghosts "exist". But if you mean some independently operating being then you'll have to provide evidence for that.

LordReed:


What is a shadow made of?

It doesn't exist. It is just the pattern of blocked light against a surface.
All that you are seeing is the refection of lesser light, period.

DeepSight:


It doesn't exist. It is just the pattern of blocked light against a surface.
All that you are seeing is the refection of lesser light, period.

LMAO! How can shadow not exist when you are looking at it? Jeez, talk about absurdity.

What the heck is lesser light?

A shadow is immaterial, it is not made of material, it is a pattern produced when light is blocked. This is so elementary I wonder how you are struggling with it. Are you overthinking these things?

LordReed:


LMAO! How can shadow not exist when you are looking at it? Jeez, talk about absurdity.

What the heck is lesser light?

A shadow is immaterial, it is not made of material, it is a pattern produced when light is blocked. This is so elementary I wonder how you are struggling with it. Are you overthinking these things?

You are simply seeing whatever physical surface is there, simply in lesser light.

You really should carefully interrogate your statements - because you are saying that when light is blocked from a surface, we have seen an immaterial thing, I have warned you to be careful, but you are not paying any heed - at the end of the day, when I list your absurdities so far, you will throw up your hands in exasperation and say you never said such.

I shouldn't have to struggle so hard to help you with such simple precepts. A shadow is not a thing.
Take a look at this image?
Where is the shadow?

What you are looking at is simply the part of the wall which is covered from light.
It remains the wall and the floor that you are seeing - simply in lesser light.

You are not seeing any immaterial thing which is by itself a shadow.
Exactly the same as the analogy of the clouds blocking a part of the sky.

Settle down and be reasonable.
Its so awfully simple: you are frightening me.

DeepSight:


Of course I do. See my example above with clouds in the sky.
If clouds block out a part of the sky and the unblocked part forms a pattern, have you seen an immaterial thing?

What pattern is formed my the unblocked part of the sky? I don't know what this means

Well you yourself have said "something that is not there."
Hence it is not a "thing.

Much less an "immaterial thing!"

I said it is a trick of the mind, and you have mentioned the visual cortex being stimulated. The visual cortex is not the eye. The eye never saw anything. You dont know it, but you are affirming what I said. How can you not see this?

Capsice?

The person is having a hallucination, the hallucination itself is immaterial even though he can perceive it as visual stimuli. Are is a hallucination now material? Even if it is only in the mind is the mind material? You seem to be rambling now.

LordReed:


The person is having a hallucination, the hallucination itself is immaterial even though he can perceive it as visual stimuli. Are is a hallucination now material? Even if it is only in the mind is the mind material? You seem to be rambling now.

You are the one rambling good sir. In proof of the fact that one may see an immaterial thing, you brought up an example of a hallucination which you admit is not there and you also admit is not seen by the eye (you said visual cortex is stimulated).

Abi does the eye have any other method of seeing things which doesn't involve the detection of light?
Serious, LordReed, you are scaring the hell out of me.

DeepSight:
I shouldn't have to struggle so hard to help you with such simple precepts. A shadow is not a thing.
Take a look at this image?
Where is the shadow?

What you are looking at is simply the part of the wall which is covered from light.
It remains the wall and the floor that you are seeing - simply in lesser light.

You are not seeing any immaterial thing which is by itself a shadow.
Exactly the same as the analogy of the clouds blocking a part of the sky.

Settle down and be reasonable.
Its so awfully simple: you are frightening me.

You are frightening yourself and overthinking simple concepts. When we say a thing we not always referring to tangible objects thus we can conceive of immaterial things like justice and other concepts. How is it that a shadow is not a thing simply because it not a tangible object?

I am beginning to be convinced you have jumped the shark by reason of too much esoteric thinking to the point you are no longer satisfied with reality.

DeepSight:


You are the one rambling good sir. In proof of the fact that one may see an immaterial thing, you brought up an example of a hallucination which you admit is not there and you also admit is not seen by the eye (you said visual cortex is stimulated).

Abi does the eye have any other method of seeing things which doesn't involve the detection of light?
Serious, LordReed, you are scaring the hell out of me.

The hallucination itself is what we are talking about not the thing that isn't there. The person is having a hallucination, is the hallucination material or immaterial?

LoLz. Is this how you are going to dodge giving your definitions and evidence? By devolving this discussion into non-issues?

LordReed:


What pattern is formed my the unblocked part of the sky? I don't know what this means

Same pattern as blocking light may cast on a wall or the ground!
How can you fail to see that it is the wall or the ground you are still looking at? ? ? ?

Just as you can fail to see it is the sky you are still looking at!
Look at the image below.

What is the unblocked part of the image, if not simply the sky?
In your illogical analogy, what we are observing here is an immaterial thing called a circle right?

Thus it is with a shadow. If my body blocks light from a wall, the wall is still what I am looking at, and it is very physical, it is not immaterial. The part of the wall I am looking at is simply in lesser light.

We are on page 4 and DeepSight still hasn't produced the definitions and evidence. How much longer is this going to take? LoLz

LordReed:


The hallucination itself is what we are talking about not the thing that isn't there. The person is having a hallucination, is the hallucination material or immaterial?

I have not quibbled with its nature, I have not even said it does not exist, my issue is simply that it is by no means seen with any physical eye. Or do physical eyes see things without reflection of light?

LoLz. Is this how you are going to dodge giving your definitions and evidence? By devolving this discussion into non-issues?

I am not dodging anything and I really mean it when I say you are frightening me.
Because if we cannot get past such a tiny and simple thing, what hope is there for a discussion of the spiritual - which is even more intangible?

DeepSight:


Same pattern as blocking light may cast on a wall or the ground!
How can you fail to see that it is the wall or the ground you are still looking at? ? ? ?

Just as you can fail to see it is the sky you are still looking at!
Look at the image below.

What is the unblocked part of the image, if not simply the sky?
In your illogical analogy, what we are observing here is an immaterial thing called a circle right?

Thus it is with a shadow. If my body blocks light from a wall, the wall is still what I am looking at, and it is very physical, it is not immaterial. The part of the wall I am looking at is simply in lesser light.

My question was what is a shadow made of and your response was it doesn't exist. Explain how you can see what doesn't exist.

LordReed:
We are on page 4 and DeepSight still hasn't produced the definitions and evidence. How much longer is this going to take? LoLz

Not a problem, I am committed to it, even if I have now become quite certain that it may turn out to be a waste of my time if we cannot get past shadows. Later in the day, I must attend to the necessities of life now.

LordReed:


My question was what is a shadow made of and your response was it doesn't exist. Explain how you can see what doesn't exist.

You see the wall. Or whatever surface is there.
That is indisputably what you see.

Later. Busy now. Will be back to describe spirit so we can carry on.

DeepSight:


I have not quibbled with its nature, I have not even said it does not exist, my issue is simply that it is by no means seen with any physical eye. Or do physical eyes see things without reflection of light?



I am not dodging anything and I really mean it when I say you are frightening me.
Because if we cannot get past such a tiny and simple thing, what hope is there for a discussion of the spiritual - which is even more intangible?

Which is why it is necessary to settle definitions early. Your definitions don't seem to follow what I know or you seem to conflate so many things I don't understand how you make simple things into complex conundrums.

DeepSight:


You see the wall. Or whatever surface is there.

PS: It should occur to you that without a surface, you see no shadow.
No surface, no shadow.

So its just a part of a surface blocked from light, and you are calling that an immaterial thing.
How can a blocked part of a physical surface be an immaterial thing.

Tomorrow, if I say that LordReed said that if we block light from physical things, we see an immaterial thing, you will scream blue murder.

Anyway, let me not be tempted. Later in the day, as I said.

DeepSight:


You see the wall. Or whatever surface is there.
That is indisputably what you see.

Later. Busy now. Will be back to describe spirit so we can carry on.

I see the surface and I also see the shadow. If the shadow doesn't exist how am I seeing it?

LordReed:


I see the surface and I also see the shadow. If the shadow doesn't exist how am I seeing it?

Its only the surface you are seeing. Its just a part of the surface in lesser light. I have already said this, really gat to run now. Will be back,
Try and study the example of the sky and clouds I gave you, Its the same.

DeepSight:


PS: It should occur to you that without a surface, you see no shadow.
No surface, no shadow.

So its just a part of a surface blocked from light, and you are calling that an immaterial thing.
How can a blocked part of a physical surface be an immaterial thing.

Tomorrow, if I say that LordReed said that if we block light from physical things, we see an immaterial thing, you will scream blue murder.

Anyway, let me not be tempted. Later in the day, as I said.

Yes because you use one specific thing to generalise. You seem to always want to fallaciously take a quality from one specific subset and apply it to a broader subset and then attribute the result to me.

It was you who said shadow doesn't exist, yet you can't tell how I am seeing something that doesn't exist.

DeepSight:


Its only the surface you are seeing. Its just a part of the surface in lesser light. I have already said this, really gat to run now. Will be back,
Try and study the example of the sky and clouds I gave you, Its the same.

So does the shadow exist now are you withdrawing your statement that shadow doesn't exist?

LordReed:


So does the shadow exist now are you withdrawing your statement that shadow doesn't exist?

Jesus No! certainly not!
Look I really dont know how something so simple has become a problem for you, but a shadow is not a thing, not even an immaterial thing. You cannot simply block light from a surface and then call it a thing, declare it a separate immaterial thing. It is not. Your mind simply discerns a shape from a part of a surface in lesser light as opposed to a part of the surface bathed in greater light. At all times, what you are looking at is that same surface, simple.

I truly must attend to other things, I will be back after hours.
Cheers.

DeepSight:


Jesus No! certainly not!
Look I really dont know how something so simple has become a problem for you, but a shadow is not a thing, not even an immaterial thing. You cannot simply block light from a surface and then call it a thing, declare it a separate immaterial thing. It is not. Your mind simply discerns a shape from a part of a surface in lesser light as opposed to a part of the surface bathed in greater light. At all times, what you are looking at is that same surface, simple.

I truly must attend to other things, I will be back after hours.
Cheers.

How can I see something that doesn't exist?

LordReed:


How can I see something that doesn't exist?

For the umpteenth time, what you are seeing is the surface.
No surface, no shadow.

To say that a shadow is a thing is like saying that a part of a cassette tape on which no sound is recorded is a separate immaterial thing. Only the tape exists. The absence of sound on it does not form a distinct immaterial thing.

In the same way, the absence of light on a surface does not form a separate immaterial thing.

We can, and we do observe all sorts of shapes from the interplay of light. This does not been that we are observing distinct immaterial things. We are simply seeing the interplay of light on surfaces. Both the light and the surfaces are material things.

If you insist on your position, you will be saying in effect that the absence of light on a given surface creates a separate immaterial thing. I trust you should be able to see how this does not add up. You do not wind up with a separate immaterial thing simply by blocking light from a surface. All that you will have there is simply the same surface - just devoid of light, or with less light, thats all.

Kindly reflect closely on the words I have underlined above. Those words should explain what I am trying to convey to you.

DeepSight:


For the umpteenth time, what you are seeing is the surface.
No surface, no shadow.

To say that a shadow is a thing is like saying that a part of a cassette tape on which no sound is recorded is a separate immaterial thing. Only the tape exists. The absence of sound on it does not form a distinct immaterial thing.

In the same way, the absence of light on a surface does not form a separate immaterial thing.

We can, and we do observe all sorts of shapes from the interplay of light. This does not been that we are observing distinct immaterial things. We are simply seeing the interplay of light on surfaces. Both the light and the surfaces are material things.

If you insist on your position, you will be saying in effect that the absence of light on a given surface creates a separate immaterial thing. I trust you should be able to see how this does not add up. You do not wind up with a separate immaterial thing simply by blocking light from a surface.

Kindly reflect closely on the words I have underlined above. Those words should explain what I am trying to convey to you.

You still haven't shown me me how I am seeing something that doesn't exist. You categorically said shadow doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist how am I seeing it? How can I see something that doesn't exist? Your answers indicate that shadow exists so unless you are withdrawing the statement that shadow doesn't exist then you answer is a not an answer to my question.

Do you know morse code? Do the silences between each blip in a code fragment have meaning or not? Are you also going claim that they don't exist or that the code fragment is a material thing?

LordReed:


You still haven't shown me me how I am seeing something that doesn't exist.

It is the surface you are seeing, simple. I have repeated this now too often for it to serve any purpose to repeat it further. I have also explained as best I can that the absence of light on a surface cannot thereby create a separate immaterial thing. I dont believe we can help one another any further on this subject. We will have to leave it where it is and each reader can come to his own conclusions regarding the subject.

Do you know morse code? Do the silences between each blip in a code fragment have meaning or not? Are you also going claim that they don't exist or that the code fragment is a material thing?

A code is a code and a silence can be meaningful in a code. Thats because there are established artificial rules for reading a code. This does nothing to suggest that the absence of light on a surface is an immaterial thing of its own. Suggesting that a silence in a code is a separate immaterial thing is just as bad as suggesting that a zero in a given number is a separate immaterial thing. This too is absurd, notwithstanding that on account of the artificial rules governing numbers, that zero has a meaning within that specific set of numbers. This does not make it by itself a separate immaterial thing. Not least because you are dealing with an artificial set governed by artificial rules.

When I return, I will be going straight to the description of spirit. I dont think we have anything more to offer one another on this subject of seeing immaterial things. For the avoidance of doubt, my position remains that one does not see immaterial things with the physical eyes. This is inherently absurd.

DeepSight:


It is the surface you are seeing, simple. I have repeated this now too often for it to serve any purpose to repeat it further. I have also explained as best I can that the absence of light on a surface cannot thereby create a separate immaterial thing. I dont believe we can help one another any further on this subject. We will have to leave it where it is and each reader can come to his own conclusions regarding the subject.

How can the shadow be the surface and the same time be non existent? You are contradicting yourself.

A code is a code and a silence can be meaningful in a code. Thats because there are established artificial rules for reading a code. This does nothing to suggest that the absence of light on a surface is an immaterial thing of its own. Suggesting that a silence in a code is a separate immaterial thing is just as bad as suggesting that a zero in a given number is a separate immaterial thing. .

Is the morse code fragment material or immaterial? Are numbers material or immaterial? Is zero material or immaterial?

LordReed:


How can the shadow be the surface and the same time be non existent? You are contradicting yourself.

I am not contradicting myself because I simply said that what you are seeing is the surface, and you do not deny this. The surface without light, or lesser light, simple. It remains the surface. Look, "shadow" is just a word which we use to convey the idea of that same surface from which light is blocked. The mere fact that we have a word to convey that also does not make it a separate immaterial thing. We have such words as "nothingness" do we not.

I gave you an analogy that I thought would have put this to bed. I said that to say that a shadow is a thing is like saying that a part of a cassette tape on which no sound is recorded is a separate immaterial thing. Only the tape exists. The absence of sound on it does not form a distinct immaterial thing. If we had a word for an empty cassette tape, then you would have the same problem, because you would say I am contradicting myself by calling it an empty cassette tape and also calling it that word.

In the same way, the absence of light on a surface does not form a separate immaterial thing.

Seriously, we cant move forward on this. Let us leave it where it is. Every reader can derive his own conclusions. Pushing the matter at this stage will only lead to repetition ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Is the morse code fragment material or immaterial? Are numbers material or immaterial? Is zero material or immaterial?

I would suggest that you answer these questions yourself first. If I disagree, or have something to add, I will do so. Let that be your own assignment, seeing as I have my own assignment already - the description of spirit. Besides the first part of your tripartite question is very badly conceived.

By way of a little hint though, of course zero by itself, in a pure conceptual sense, refers to nothingness.
Does nothingness exist?
Maybe you may wish to consult the renowned iidiot, Lawrence Krauss on this subject.

As for numbers, they are representational.

DeepSight:


I am not contradicting myself because I simply said that what you are seeing is the surface, and you do not deny this. The surface without light, or lesser light, simple. It remains the surface. Look, "shadow" is just a word which we use to convey the idea of that same surface from which light is blocked. The mere fact that we have a word to convey that also does not make it a separate immaterial thing. We have such words as "nothingness" do we not.

I gave you an analogy that I thought would have put this to bed. I said that to say that a shadow is a thing is like saying that a part of a cassette tape on which no sound is recorded is a separate immaterial thing. Only the tape exists. The absence of sound on it does not form a distinct immaterial thing. If we had a word for an empty cassette tape, then you would have the same problem, because you would say I am contradicting myself by calling it an empty cassette tape and also calling it that word.

In the same way, the absence of light on a surface does not form a separate immaterial thing.

Seriously, we cant move forward on this. Let us leave it where it is. Every reader can derive his own conclusions. Pushing the matter at this stage will only lead to repetition ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

You haven't answered the question. How can shadow be the surface and be nonexistent. Explain this magic of how something can be and yet not be.

I would suggest that you answer these questions yourself first. If I disagree, or have something to add, I will do so. Let that be your own assignment, seeing as I have my own assignment already - the description of spirit. Besides the first part of your tripartite question is very badly conceived.

By way of a little hint though, of course zero by itself, in a pure conceptual sense, refers to nothingness.
Does nothingness exist?
Maybe you may wish to consult the renowned iidiot, Lawrence Krauss on this subject.

As for numbers, they are representational.

Nope, you need to answer the questions since I posed them. I can always give my answer but after you have, I insist.

LordReed:


You haven't answered the question. How can shadow be the surface and be nonexistent. Explain this magic of how something can be and yet not be.

I havent said that the surface is nonexistent. You are strawmmaning me, perhaps deliberately. What I have said is that what you are seeing is only a surface. I further explained that "shadow" is merely a word and I specifically elaborated by saying that - If we had a word for an empty cassette tape, then you would have the same problem, because you would say I am contradicting myself by calling it an empty cassette tape and also calling it that word.

There's really nothing I can do or say further on this matter. Its a tad exasperating though, that you bypass and ignore my laborious explanations only to wind back to the same question and insist that I have not answered it. If you have a unique word for an empty cassette tape, my friend, that is analogous to what you call a shadow.

The absence of sound on a surface is one, and the absence of light on a surface is the other.

I am afraid that I may have nothing more to say even if you keep harping on this, because I have explained exactly what I mean quite clearly. Our respective posts are above for posterity and for anyone to arrive at his own conclusions regarding them. That should suffice.

Nope, you need to answer the questions since I posed them. I can always give my answer but after you have, I insist.

This is not fair because I have given you many posers that you havent answered yet - indeed you have said you will answer them only when I describe spirit. I should be able to tell you something similar, that I will answer them only when you describe matter or something similar. Nevertheless I am full of grace, so here goes. But after this please note I many not have the inclination to quibble any further on the subject of seeing immaterial things.

Answers -
Morse Code - Badly framed question because a code is an artificial set of rules. It may be delivered by patterns of representation, it may be written down, it may be spoken or otherwise transmitted by sound, at all events it remains an artificial set of rules to represent or convey thoughts, words, numbers, ideas etc. None of this changes it essentially from a language even if an encrypted one. I say it is a badly framed question because it approximates to asking if a language is a material thing or an immaterial thing.

Numbers - Numbers are representational of quantity, volume, size, length and the like. They are an immaterial construct, and do not exist in and of themselves as a thing. The number 7 is not a thing. It is neither a material thing nor an immaterial thing. It doesn't have any independent existence save with reference to representation of quantities, volumes, sizes, etc.

Zero - Is simply another representation. A word, if you like, which we use to conveniently express the idea of nothing.

And you see, what you have done with morse code as an example is just as bad as picking on a zero in a number and insisting that it is a separate immaterial thing. When we have zero in a number - for example, 1100, what we are conveying is that we have one unit of a thousand, one unit of a hundred, no units of tens and no singular units. It would be madness to then pick those zeroes and say that they amount to a separate immaterial thing. That is what would in fact be a contradiction and that is exactly what you have done with morse code, and the silences therein (or spaces therein).

I have been graceful. I think you should return the favor. I should be proceeding to discuss spirit later in the day, and please note as I have said that I may have nothing further to say on this matter of seeing the immaterial. At least not for now.