Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > General Boards > General Chat Message Board
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Photo Album Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-07-2017, 01:10 AM   #1
ohnoitsbonnie
Banned
 
ohnoitsbonnie's Avatar
 
Location: somerville, nj
Posts: 23,387
Default Tangible or intangible?

You need to choose which you prefer, but you can have both

 
ohnoitsbonnie is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 01:11 AM   #2
ohnoitsbonnie
Banned
 
ohnoitsbonnie's Avatar
 
Location: somerville, nj
Posts: 23,387
Default

Is love tangible? Heat is something we constantly make while alive. When you hold your beautiful rat daughter, do you feel her heat and fur and relaxed muscles? Her love radiates through her body

 
ohnoitsbonnie is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 01:14 AM   #3
ohnoitsbonnie
Banned
 
ohnoitsbonnie's Avatar
 
Location: somerville, nj
Posts: 23,387
Default

When you smell a good one that makes you nostalgic or whets your appetite those molecules of aromatic compounds truly do exist. Are the thoughts and therefore brain chemicals they spark tangible? Could I hold a lb of oxytocin in my hands?

 
ohnoitsbonnie is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 01:55 AM   #4
Disco King
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Disco King's Avatar
 
Location: "The worst poster on this board by far." -- The worst poster on this board by far
Posts: 4,242
Default

I don't know if it's possible to have tangibles without intangibles, because it seems that tangible things must have properties, and properties are intangible.

If your mug is red, you can touch your red mug. But you can't touch the mug's "redness."

Processes also seem to be intangible. One can pluck a flower's petals, but one cannot pluck photosynthesis. Your brain is physical, but thought isn't; it's the consequence of the physical, something your physical brain does.

This seems true regardless of whether these "intangibles" are simply the result of mental and linguistics constructs that group physical things into "concepts" that are more useful fictions than ontological realities, or if abstract entities are as ontologically "real" as non-abstract ones. It seems either is compatible with physicalism, because if the consequences of the physical can be non-physical, the world can still be reduced to the physical, keeping physicalism safe.

 
Disco King is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 01:56 AM   #5
Disco King
Apocalyptic Poster
 
Disco King's Avatar
 
Location: "The worst poster on this board by far." -- The worst poster on this board by far
Posts: 4,242
Default

There's something fishy about my argument... I feel like there's a flaw somewhere in there that should unravel the entire thing, but I don't know what it is.

 
Disco King is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 07:16 AM   #6
LaBelle
Minion of Satan
 
LaBelle's Avatar
 
Location: Banned
Posts: 7,615
Default

The Bonnie's back in town!!


 
LaBelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 07:20 AM   #7
LaBelle
Minion of Satan
 
LaBelle's Avatar
 
Location: Banned
Posts: 7,615
Default

To answer the question, I prefer the tangible.

I like to touch, smell, etc...

 
LaBelle is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 08:54 AM   #8
reprise85
Submortal
 
reprise85's Avatar
 
Location: Now, I'm not a professional psychologist, but I am an amateur psychologist. And I think that your spontaneous eye-watering may have something to do with your father.
Posts: 27,671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco King View Post
I don't know if it's possible to have tangibles without intangibles, because it seems that tangible things must have properties, and properties are intangible.

If your mug is red, you can touch your red mug. But you can't touch the mug's "redness."

Processes also seem to be intangible. One can pluck a flower's petals, but one cannot pluck photosynthesis. Your brain is physical, but thought isn't; it's the consequence of the physical, something your physical brain does.

This seems true regardless of whether these "intangibles" are simply the result of mental and linguistics constructs that group physical things into "concepts" that are more useful fictions than ontological realities, or if abstract entities are as ontologically "real" as non-abstract ones. It seems either is compatible with physicalism, because if the consequences of the physical can be non-physical, the world can still be reduced to the physical, keeping physicalism safe.
You can't pluck photosynthesis, but it is physical process. You can't touch redness, but the perception of redness is based on the cones in your eyes, which are physical things. And are thoughts not physical at some level? We seem to not have a way to measure them (except vaguely in some cases), but that doesn't mean it's not a physical process.

Just devil's advocate, this stuff hurts my brain

 
reprise85 is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 03:26 PM   #9
ohnoitsbonnie
Banned
 
ohnoitsbonnie's Avatar
 
Location: somerville, nj
Posts: 23,387
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poots View Post
that's just the hantavirus talking
Norway rats can carry hantaviruses but Clover and Victoria and Barnaby have been raised in capitivity and do not spread nor carry any diseases that a domestic cat or dog could not also.

 
ohnoitsbonnie is offline
Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 03:27 PM   #10
ohnoitsbonnie
Banned
 
ohnoitsbonnie's Avatar
 
Location: somerville, nj
Posts: 23,387
Default

Everything made of matter, even thoughts, is real and tangible. Weird right.

 
ohnoitsbonnie is offline
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Machina II Copies Selling Again Spira|_ Smashing Pumpkins/Billy Corgan Discussion 29 03-21-2017 04:04 AM
How much drugs was Big Willie on when he wrote the Machina Mystery? BurtSampson Smashing Pumpkins/Billy Corgan Discussion 61 09-23-2016 05:52 PM
The Zeitgeist Mystery MEGA THREAD bunny Pumpkins Archive 334 01-27-2013 07:39 PM
Adore vs. Mary Star of the Sea Oedipa Mass Pumpkins Archive 41 11-28-2007 08:17 AM
Adore Survivor V xezton Pumpkins Archive 30 11-12-2007 05:22 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright 1998-2014