Kurieuo wrote:Justhuman wrote:Kurieuo wrote:JH, can you explain why would "incorporeal" and "spiritual" would be considered immaterial?
Quite simply, if something isn't "material" than it is "immaterial". We could say math is non-physical, yet then, some might like to say math is part of the physical laws. Yet, I made an argument earlier, if one is a physicalist, and math forms part of that picture, then by necessity math must have exists without us humans thinking it.
Because 'incorporeal' and 'math' aren't on the same level to share them under common denominator.
They are totally different types of immateriality.
I pointed out earlier that you attach "immaterial" with "incorporeal" and "spirits" however. Such is understandable, since it can be used for such. Yet, as I also said, it simply means not material. Technically speaking, "spirits" aren't considered "material" and therefore are classified as "immaterial." Similarly, "math" is also something not material, you can't find it as an object here and there, rather you must abstract it -- abstract things are therefore also "immaterial". Therefore, math by all qualifications is immaterial.
I don't mean this to sound condescening, though it'll now sound that way if it wasn't going to. But, you seem to be confused somewhere and drawing false inferences on par with: All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates which is an invalid inference. There correct categorical syllogism would be: All men are mortal. Socrates a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. But, I'm sure I don't have to point all this out, it's just predicate logic 101.
So then, we turn to "immaterial" to see what you are trying to have everyone agree with you on (or which you feel some like myself are trying to twist or rig the language used). Just because: All spirits are immaterial, if someone (PaulS, myself, others) claim "Math" is immaterial, we're by no means saying therefore all spirits are math, or math is on par with spirits.
There is really no valid reason I can see why you would resist using categorising math as "immaterial", except that you have come to closely associate the term (wrongly) with ONLY the incorporeal or spirits. And so, in your distaste for the spiritual realm, God, etc (which you claim you don't have), you resist math which you see as more clearly real, being placed into a same category you associate with realm of fantasy.
I can see (and understand) your reasoning, but I keep on not agreeing.
It's like stating that midgets and whales are the same because they are both life.
If one is religious, that doesn't mean everyone has the same type or believe in religion. Take the amount of different believes on this platform. "Theistic evolution", "Young Earth creationist", "Gap Theory", etc...
Some will be insulted when called the wrong type of believe.
If 'immaterial' is used there should be a further distinction, as in "physical immaterial" (incorporeal) and "virtual immaterial" (math).
Again, I'm NOT distasting God or anything incorporeal. Please refrain from making that kind of conlusions. It's unnecessary.