An Argument for the Existence of the Metaphysical

[Gertie]

I don't believe in the existence of immaterial/spiritual substances, but their structurelessness follows from the very concept of them. So if immaterial/spiritual substances existed, they wouldn't have any structure.

It would be interesting to know how that property is inferred from the very concept of them.

Which property—structurelessness? Well, isn't it obvious that a zero-dimensional object, i.e. a mathematical point, cannot have a structure?

What would be the difference between a spaceless mathematical point and nothingness?

This type of approach runs the risk of blurring mathematical descriptions with what they're describing imo, when it's not the appropriate way to address the question.

We can say phenomenal experience has structure without measuring it in the way we measure physical stuff. For example we can describe different categories of experience, like visual, emotional, memory, internal narration. We can describe them in terms of strength, a blurry memory, a mild pain. Levels of importance/mattering to us, I don't mind if you do that, or I'll kill you if you do. Or in terms of purpose and values.

It's a different type of structure and vocabulary, which reflects the nature of conscious experience, and isn't amenable to objective observation and measurement the way physical stuff is.

[Consul]

What would be the difference between a spaceless mathematical point and nothingness?

QUOTE>
"[T]o take away all Extension, is to reduce a thing onely to a Mathematical point, which is nothing else but pure Negation or Non-entity; and there being no medium betwixt extended and not-extended, no more then there is betwixt Entity and Nonentity, it is plain that if a thing be at all, it must be extended, And therefore there is an Essential Extension belonging to these indiscerpible particles of Matter[.]"

(More, Henry. The Immortality of the Soul. 1659. Edited by A. Jacob. Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1987. Preface, p. 7)
<QUOTE

Well, others would object that he's just begging the question. They would argue that a mathematical point may have no intrinsic properties, but it has extrinsic ones at least by standing in relations to other points and being integrated into point-based structures. Therefore, by having extrinsic or relational properties, points are something rather than nothing.

Moreover, they would continue to argue, points play a role in physics too, because most physicists work under the assumption that space and time are continuous and consist of an (uncountable) infinity of points (corresponding to the mathematical series of real numbers).
Whether they are right is another question. They may be wrong, because another theoretical possibility is that space or time is point-based and discrete rather than continuous, such that the number of space- or time-points is finite rather than infinite. Furthermore, space and time might instead be continuous and non-point-based or discrete and non-point-based. In the former case, space or time is "atomless gunk", i.e. it has extended proper parts ad infinitum, such that it doesn't fundamentally consist of any points. In the latter case, space or time fundamentally consists of "granules", i.e. minimal extended parts (intervals rather than instants in the case of time) which don't have any proper parts themselves, and are thus mereologically simple. (Note that mereological simplicity doesn't entail zero-dimensionality, because a three-dimensional thing can be simple in the sense of not being composed of any smaller parts.)

[Consul]

…Moreover, they would continue to argue, points play a role in physics too, because most physicists work under the assumption that space and time are continuous and consist of an (uncountable) infinity of points (corresponding to the mathematical series of real numbers).…

I forgot to mention that many physicists believe that the ultimate elementary particles are physical points. Again, if they are right is another question.

[gad-fly]

So as we arrive at the brain, it would make logical sense that there is an even higher level of command that is above the brain, closer to the absolute origin for the movement of one’s fingers. If not, how else could the brain have decided to send the command in the first place? One might say that this simply means that the brain is the head of the hierarchy, that it is the absolute origin, and that it possesses the unique power of independent self-motivation required to issue an original command. The next paragraph will explain why this is impossible.

All actions performed by an organism are the result of motivation.

All actions are not necessarily the result of motivation. action can arise randomly. In the absence of strongly identifiable and enforceable motivation, the brain being the highest command can select motion or no motion, without the need to explain why this brain is different from the next given the same circumstance. It is as simple as that. Like a four year old, you may keep asking me why, without thinking, until I am exhausted or defeated.

Imagine yourself at crossroads. Your brain should command you to be stuck and frozen, right? Not necessarily. Your imagination of some metaphysical higher command is no more than self-ingratiating escape into a sinkhole.

[Count Lucanor]

They would argue that a mathematical point may have no intrinsic properties, but it has extrinsic ones at least by standing in relations to other points and being integrated into point-based structures. Therefore, by having extrinsic or relational properties, points are something rather than nothing.

Moreover, they would continue to argue, points play a role in physics too, because most physicists work under the assumption that space and time are continuous and consist of an (uncountable) infinity of points (corresponding to the mathematical series of real numbers).
Whether they are right is another question. They may be wrong, because another theoretical possibility is that space or time is point-based and discrete rather than continuous, such that the number of space- or time-points is finite rather than infinite. Furthermore, space and time might instead be continuous and non-point-based or discrete and non-point-based. In the former case, space or time is "atomless gunk", i.e. it has extended proper parts ad infinitum, such that it doesn't fundamentally consist of any points. In the latter case, space or time fundamentally consists of "granules", i.e. minimal extended parts (intervals rather than instants in the case of time) which don't have any proper parts themselves, and are thus mereologically simple. (Note that mereological simplicity doesn't entail zero-dimensionality, because a three-dimensional thing can be simple in the sense of not being composed of any smaller parts.)

The issue in discussion was the possibility of a "spaceless mathematical point", not the possibility of mathematical points, which of course will be in space.

[Tom Butler]

It is facinating how the discussion about a topic can morph. It would be interesting to me to discuss metaphysics but I hesitate to start another thread.

I skimmed this thread to see that the current direction concerns the fundamental nature of nonphysical space and the idea of motivation.

From my study, motivation seems to be the most fundamental aspect of existence. The motivation for first cause is a fundamental metaphysical question kin to how big is reality. As an engineer, I am more or less compelled to bound models in some reasonably rational way. In Your Immortal Self, I defined reality as a field which is modeled as a conceptual domain. A field is characterized as a concept’s zone of influence. Life fields are modeled as the building blocks of reality beginning with Source as the top field. As such, Source’s life field and the reality field are the same.

The initial and still prime motivation for Source is modeled as curiosity in the cosmology. In this model, as an aspect of the reality field, the prime motivator for each of us is to satisfy that curiosity.

The entire Implicit Cosmology is developed around the two concepts of curiosity and reality as a singularity. That is, if you argue that we are literally all aspects of a single source, then we are only separated by perception.

Not being a psychologist, I can only speculate that, after we get past the influence of instincts, much of our behavior is explainable as the motivation to understand experience (fulfill curiosity).

Some parapsychologists explain the Psi Field as a nonlocal, nonphysical medium of propagation for the influence of thought. (my words) In the study if ITC, we have come to think the Psi Field (greater reality, reality field) as conceptual, rather than objective. This works well if the Psi Field is conceptual.

I should say that nonlocality of the Psi Field is a reasonably well establish concept based on current research. The reason metaphysics tickle my engineering brain is that it is potentially actionable.

[3017Metaphysician]

Hey all, I'm new to this forum. I come here with an argument that I believe pretty decently refutes the materialistic perspective and suggests the existence of immaterial phenomena.

It is evident, by our basic ability to command our body as we like, that metaphysical, or “immaterial” phenomena exists, and has a tangible impact on the physical, or “material” world. Every function an organism performs, whether voluntary or involuntary, comes from the ‘control center’ of the body, the brain. (And in the case of unicellular organisms the nucleus has an identical function.) The brain issues orders to the muscles to contract and detract using electrical impulses, this much has been proven using purely empirical methods focusing on the physical world. But naturally, as science and philosophy grow more and more fundamental, a crucial question arises: Where is the absolute origin of biological commands, and what is its nature?

If the reader were to do a simple voluntary physical action, such as raising their arm or moving their fingers, we can sketch out a simplified system of causality by tracing the source of the command further and further back. In our simplified model, the movement of one's fingers is a direct result of muscle contraction in one's hand, which can then be traced back to the nervous system, ultimately to the brain. But once we reach the brain, the trail stops. We can no longer physically observe the path that the command takes. The route of command up to this point has been a hierarchical system of commander and commanded, of cause and effect. So as we arrive at the brain, it would make logical sense that there is an even higher level of command that is above the brain, closer to the absolute origin for the movement of one’s fingers. If not, how else could the brain have decided to send the command in the first place? One might say that this simply means that the brain is the head of the hierarchy, that it is the absolute origin, and that it possesses the unique power of independent self-motivation required to issue an original command. The next paragraph will explain why this is impossible.

All actions performed by an organism are the result of motivation. Typically, this motivation is the survival and propagation of the organism and the organism's species. The organism wants to survive, that is its motivation. The materialist would say that the organism is made up entirely of matter, that each function of the organism can be empirically proven to be material and physical. Essentially, the materialist claims that the organism is indistinguishable from matter, that it is merely an organized system of physical things and thus, only an extension of the physical world as a whole. This begs the question, then, how can matter possess intrinsic motivation, or in other words, how can matter want? How can a mere clump of atoms decide that it wants to survive, wants to proliferate and expand? While it is true that matter follows fundamental laws of physics, such that magnetic opposites attract and the entropy in the universe will tend to increase and so on, to cite fundamental laws of physics to argue that matter can in fact possess intrinsic motivation would be to argue that life itself is something that matter tends to approach. There are no laws that I know of that state that atoms tend to make intricate systems of life whose goal is to create even more intricate systems of life. It is for this reason that pure matter, at least as it pertains to biological life, cannot want anything, and therefore cannot be the origin of biological commands.

Wielding the knowledge that matter in a biological system does not possess intrinsic motivation, we can now revisit the system of casualty introduced in the second paragraph with new clarity. As I previously said, it is impossible for the brain to be at the end of the command hierarchy, and, with the newly established proof, the reason is abundantly clear. The brain is a material object, and thus cannot generate original commands, or, motivations, independently. If the brain isn’t the end of the hierarchy, then what is commanding the brain to command the body? This leaves only one source from which the command hierarchy can originate from. If the brain is the final purely material level of the hierarchy, then the subsequent level must be an external, immaterial phenomenon. Beyond the ostensible veil of physical reality, there exists a deeper, metaphysical force that dictates, at the very least, the motivations and actions of complex biological life.

It is important to note that this conclusion is not supported simply because it's an irrefutable explanation for something that empirical science has failed to yet explain. It’s rather supported because it's rooted in an observation of the fundamental nature of matter itself, specifically it's capacity to "want". Matter has no wants, only tendencies, governed by laws of the universe, such as the four fundamental forces. However, once matter starts to have its own intrinsic motivations, goals such as survival and self-propagation that are not inevitable tendencies of matter or laws of the universe, that is when matter turns to life, which can only be commanded by something that is immaterial and thus capable of possessing intrinsic motivation for its own sake. It isn't just a natural consequence of the laws of the universe anymore. One would have to argue that the formation of life itself is a force of the universe to refute this. The biological instinct to survive might be explained by an unfathomably complex cascade of biochemical reactions, but in the end, the goal of that cascade is to aid in the organism’s survival. Why is survival a goal in the first place? If matter can’t set goals, then what can? No amount of scientific discovery can ever change the fact that matter itself cannot possess the intrinsic motivation to create life. It is a fundamental principle of matter.

Hello Top!

You present a very compelling case in your OP. And having read through the thread, there were equally 'convincing arguments' that at some level, abstract structures and metaphysical phenomena in fact do exist. And they exist in a way that is dependent on matter. Meaning, if conscious life forms and biological organisms, evolved from inanimate matter are we still dependent on inanimate matter in some way? It may not be an either/or proposition, both can be integrated into a world view very easily and practically from observation, experience, intuition, inference and self-awareness or quite simply, our intellect. I think the physical and metaphysical seem to be dependent upon one another.

Similar to this relationship between mind and matter is the objective-subjective apperception of our reality; a some-thing usually requires both an object and a subject to be perceived by the senses. Of course, that doesn't preclude the actual quality of 'motivation' as has been discussed in your thread because that is a quality of the subject herself. Accordingly, I like to use the Schopenhauer concept of Metaphysical Will, as that distinguishes higher levels of intellect and self-awareness from lower life forms and other primates and inanimate matter (in the same way 'motivation' does). It further distinguishes ourselves in ways of obvious biological life forms in that the intellect/motivation itself is something beyond the understanding of such inanimate matter.

In any case, whether it is metaphysical languages of mathematics, music, love, the will and other intellectual and sentient features of conscious life, we seemingly cannot escape the abstract nature of our reality and existence. Not that this is a theist/atheist argument, but ironically enough, some atheists take a structuralist view of same: Structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

Being a big fan of Kant, his metaphysics was spot on in recognizing similar abstract features of self-awareness by initially positing the notion of transcendence relative to actual things in themselves. Hence the synthetic a priori.

Anyway, that's my take on things, thanks for the opportunity to contribute. Please feel free to parse, or poke-holes in any of those arguments or ideas.