Answer181

	Sign In Sign-Up

Answer181

Question181

Are you a materialist or do you think anything can exist > that is neither energy nor matter?

That's a vague question at best, and leads to a lot of possible equivocation. I'm certainly not a "materialist" in the sense of seeking physical pleasures and wealth and whatnot; I collect abstracts like philosophy, poetry, literature and other non-material things. At the same time, I don't think anything exists in a *physical* sense besides energy and matter - that is, I don't think non-matter/energy concepts can have a direct effect on the world around one. The influence of abstract concepts is all inside our own heads - but that influence, of course, should never be underestimated. (Rosa "April" Williams #1723)

I guess that would depend on which definition for "thing" would be relevant here. I can think of several "things" that are neither energy nor matter: beauty, love, numbers, etc. Hell, even "Truth, Justice, and the American Way."

I guess that's the whole point of materialism, though, isn't it? It divides things into two classes: real things, and abstract things. Those six things I mentioned above are all abtract concepts, and are defined in relation to concrete things. As I see it, non-materialists tend to take what a materialist would call an abstract object and insist that it exists, independent of any material object, yet somehow *different* from an abstract object.

It stinks of mysticism, of course. They don't like the idea of a soul to be tied so directly with the physical body, for example, that it ceases to exist when the body dies. So they claim a soul is something beyond the physical, yet not an abstract concept defined solely by its relationship with physical objects, but somehow something entirely different, something greater. I guess it eases their minds to think that they, at least in part, are more than a collection of chemicals, behaving according to natural laws. (Carl Funk #1229)

The short answer is: Yes I'm a materialist and no, there is no evidence for anything existing outside of energy and matter.

That being said, there are such things as feelings, emotions, desires, etc., which do not fit neatly into either category. If I watch a beautiful sunset, see an old masterpiece painting, listen to Bach or Mozart, or have a pretty girl smile at me, I do have certain reactions. Whether they are just biochemical reactions to external stimuli or not, I enjoy them. The other side of the coin is that sometimes things happen that anger or sadden me. Why? They do. More chemical reactions? Probably yes, but the feelings are real.

Perhaps some day we will figure out all of the physical and chemical reactions in the human brain, but until then, and even after, I will just enjoy them. (John Hachmann #1782)

Difficult question. I believe that there are things that cannot be measured, but whether or not they exist depends on the definition of existance. My love for my children exists for me, but is only observable in a very subjective way. My passion for children's causes exists and is only evident by my actions, though my motives cannot be proven. I believe the most important things in life are not material. (ClayeSkye #4)

What is "materialist"? What is "anything"? What is "energy"? What is "matter"?

Let's go backwards.

"Matter" are things made of quarks or leptons. There are things beyond that. For example, any photon.

"Energy" is a basic property of any particle (physical object), and it is equivalent with mass (thus it also gravitates). Quarks and leptons have it, but the carriers of interactions, like gluons and photons, too. Some particles almost certainly don't have rest mass, like photons (quantums of electromagnetic radiation).

Now what is a "thing" that "exists"? Particles are, for sure. "Mind", "emotions", "patriotism" can be too - now, these are not matter and don't have energy, but they are constructs (of the brain, of the mind) based on matter. But what about integer, real or complex numbers? They "exist" somehow, but aren't based on matter or energy: all they require are the axioms of set theory and logic to generate them. And, what about "spacetime"? Shouldn't we say it exists, warped even in vacuum?

With the many question marks in the above, I'm not sure I'm a "materialist". If I narrow it down on whether I believe in things that are made of something that is neither quark, lepton, GUT boson or spacetime, and maybe doesn't have energy, yet interacts with us - well I don't believe, but won't close it out --- "weak materialist", am I? (Daneel a#323)

I think I qualify as not being a materialist - I'm just very vague about it, but I do have some dualistic leanings. I can re-explain my stand if anyone wants me to. Different people have called what I try to explain a belief in a soul, if however a body-dependent soul (which ceases to exist when I die). That makes no difference to me as no one seems to know what soul is either, but I can't really be bothered with the term, myself. I just think that there's this aspect of humans and human mind that we will never be able to fully understand, but taking an undefined thing or phenomena and give it an undefined name, such as "soul" make no difference in the perception to me. Sometimes I wish I knew some fellow atheist with fairly similar ideas and leaning - but I don't count on that happening. I'll estimate that about 99%, of all atheists are also materialists. Bleh! It's hard to find equals when your position is so odd... (Nikitta #1759)

Are you a materialist

Basically.

> or do you think anything can exist that is neither energy nor matter?

I'm not sure where to classify something like a meme, for example. It's hard to call it matter or energy, although it needs creatures comprised of both to create it and transmit it. (raven1 #1096)

IMO, this is a trick question. There is little or no evidence for "things" that are not derived from some aspect of energy or matter, but we (and by "we" I mean science) have been fooled before, notably by that whole business about the "ether" 100 years ago or so.

At the moment I consider myself a pure materialist, since I consider even the most ethereal manifestations (such as "love") to be nothing more than the intricate interplay between energy and matter. But that does not mean something couldn't come along that would change my mind. (chibiabos)

Well, I hate to nitpick (actually, that's a lie, I LOVE to nitpick) but if something did exist that was neither matter nor energy, how would we ever know about it? Both our senses and our instruments detect either matter or energy, how would you build a machine to detect something immaterial and non-energetic in nature?

And what does it mean to use the verb "to exist" when modifying a hypothetical something that is neither matter or energy? In other words, "to exist" is generally taken to mean "occupying and/or propogating through space, possessing characteristics of some sort, or being immediately detectable to a conscious entity; e.g., emotions and thoughts." That's just a quick definition off the top of my head, so if it's kinda half-assed please forgive me. If something was "neither matter nor energy" can it even be said to "exist" in any meaningful sense of the word? I suspect there's a logical short-circuit there.

To conclude, I would have to say that, as physical/energetic beings with physical/energetic minds and means of perceiving the world we can never know of anything that is so fundamentally and utterly apart from us. In other words, I don't think we can say that no such thing exists, but that we should instead say "we have no rational grounds for believing in such a thing." Just like leprechauns. (Raptor514)

For most practical purposes I am a materialist.

I am not sure how to think about the existence of concepts - mathematical and logical "objects" for example. They are not physical but they do exist in some objective sense - I am still trying to work that out.

In ethical terms I am certainly not a materialist - I don't value material wealth and comforts above all things - love, friendship, beauty, justice are more important to me than money. (Mark Richardson #1095)

Click here to return to master question page.