Do you believe in zombies?

[JimL]

Never said it was. But it's in the body, Jim? Where in the body?

CP, if it's not an existing thing in and of itself, then as an existing thing in and of itself, it isn't anywhere. Life isn't a thing that's in the body, life is descriptive of the nature of the body.

[Sparko]

CP, if it's not an existing thing in and of itself, then as an existing thing in and of itself, it isn't anywhere. Life isn't a thing that's in the body, life is descriptive of the nature of the body.

Then why is not a corpse alive?

[JimL]

Then why is not a corpse alive?

Because when it's organs cease function, when it's blood and oxygen no longer circulate, it becomes what we call dead.

[Sparko]

Because when it's organs cease function, when it's blood and oxygen no longer circulate, it becomes what we call dead.

You said that life was descriptive of the nature of a body. A corpse is a body, so why is it not alive?

[Cow Poke]

Because when it's organs cease function, when it's blood and oxygen no longer circulate, it becomes what we call dead.

Life leaves. The body wasn't a corpse when it had life.

[Sparko]

Life leaves. The body wasn't a corpse when it had life.

and even after it is a corpse there is still life in the body. Otherwise you couldn't do things like organ transplants.

[JimL]

You said that life was descriptive of the nature of a body. A corpse is a body, so why is it not alive?

Yes, what I said was that the term "life" is descriptive of the nature of a "functioning" or "living body", just like "death" is a term descriptive of the nature of a "non functioning" or "dead body." You don't think of "death" as an existing thing in and of itself do you?

[JimL]

Life leaves. The body wasn't a corpse when it had life.

No, life doesn't leave, silly, after a time the living body slowly withers, then dies, thats all.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, what I said was that the term "life" is descriptive of the nature of a "functioning" or "living body", just like "death" is a term descriptive of the nature of a "non functioning" or "dead body."

So?

You don't think of "death" as an existing thing in and of itself do you?

"Dark" is the absence of light, as death is the absence of life. When a body has life, where is it? Is it just in the heart? Brain? Left baby toe? And what shape is it?

[Cow Poke]

No, life doesn't leave, silly, after a time the living body slowly withers, then dies, thats all.

And life is gone! You're playing silly word games, Jim.

[Sparko]

Yes, what I said was that the term "life" is descriptive of the nature of a "functioning" or "living body", just like "death" is a term descriptive of the nature of a "non functioning" or "dead body." You don't think of "death" as an existing thing in and of itself do you?

No what you said is "life is descriptive of the nature of the body."

"Life is descriptive of a living body" is merely a tautology.

[JimL]

So?
So, it's a descriptive term, it isn't a thing in itself.


"Dark" is the absence of light, as death is the absence of life. When a body has life, where is it? Is it just in the heart? Brain? Left baby toe? And what shape is it?

Light is an existing thing in itself, we call it photons, darkness, death, and life are not existing things. So, the analogy fails. A body doesn't have life, that's just a way of talking, a body is either alive and kicking, or it's not living.

[JimL]

No what you said is "life is descriptive of the nature of the body."

"Life is descriptive of a living body" is merely a tautology.

Life and death can both be descriptive of the nature of a body, just depends which state the body is in, but neither life or death are things in themselves.

[Teallaura]

So your body is located in this 3 dimensional world but your spirit isn't. Now c'mon Tea, you know that doesn't make sense whether one is a materialist or an immaterialist. If the spirit is with the body, then whether immaterial or not, it would need be located in the same dimensional world as the body. If your argument is that the spirit is none local, then you can't argue that it is with the body which is local.

It does make sense, Jim. This isn't where the analogy fails. Three dimensional beings occupy two additional dimensions - space and time. Space is not violated by the occupation - X amount of material occupying Y amount of space does NOT eliminate the space (removes it from use by other three dimensional objects yes, eliminate, no). Space is still within the material, yet it occupies no location.

If you prefer to think of it as occupying a location, then stick it between atoms - plenty of room, no perceptible difference since the soul is immaterial and doesn't interact as an atom would. Think Shadowcat - it doesn't obey the 'two material objects cannot occupy the same space' rule by cheating and slipping between the atomic space.

That's NOT a correct view of the immaterial but your other choices are an a priori assumption of materialism that will not work or a fallacious assumption of the conclusion.

FYI: 'Immaterialist' isn't really a thing - I can't think of any other school of thought that can't deal with the immaterial at all - so 'immaterialist' would basically be 'anyone who isn't a materialist'.

[Teallaura]

Light is an existing thing in itself, we call it photons, darkness, death, and life are not existing things. So, the analogy fails. A body doesn't have life, that's just a way of talking, a body is either alive and kicking, or it's not living.

Um, rethink this - to be 'alive' is a state of being involving the condition of life - it's a losing argument to say a body is alive but has no life.

And honestly, I think this isn't a great analogy anyway. Their point is that life pervades the body - it occupies the same location yet you can't really point to a specific 'life' spot'. The body is alive but lipids aren't - and it gets harder to define from there. A materialist isn't going to accept that 'life' has independent reality - it's a condition, not a thing. That makes it nearly impossible to get the idea across to a materialist - it's also where materialism itself starts unraveling as a worldview because it can't deal with the reality of condition once this line gets crossed.