Matter does not make sense unless it is defined as a subjective experience.

Shut your eyes and block your ears. Now define matter.

The kinaesthetic definition of matter is key. as it locates matter in terms of intensity and location of experience, highlighting its dynamic variability, its proprioceptive computational output.

To this kinaestheic definition now add the auditory definition. It nhances the kinaesthetic apprehension with the sensation of stereo spatiallity. Matter thus becomes spatially dynamically distributed intensity.

Finally when one adds vision to the experience, the definition of matter is not only enhanced but transformed.

Matter suddenly has intensity localised in form, but not all intensity. Dynamic variability is localised in variable form, but not all dynamic variability. Heat intensity suddenly has a "radial" relationship to a localised form: we call it radiation, and some objects seem to affect others through clear regions without visible connected forms: we call it gravity.

We can understand that matter may impact on our senses through intensity, localised in form or not localised apparently. But also dynamic matter may impact on us through the wave motion within its localised form. Thus the debate about whether light, a form of matter, is a wave or a particle is irrelevant in this conception, that is it is immaterial. matter possesses all these attributes in intensity variation.

What about an immaterial reality, a spititual world that we perceive through our "soul" or spirit? Such a world makes no sense at all. My subjective experience is entirely formed and based on sensation processed and computed and output as a total experience. Sensation i have just defined as matter. Thus to define it as spirit is to be inconsistent, or to analogise one for the other. Either everything is immaterial or it is material or it is both. Whichever description we choose the definition is subjective but based on the common computation model.

Suppose i reject the computqation model, then i am able to have any model i care to accept. This is granted,but if a model leads one to inconsistencies or harmful behaviours or disempowered states one alo has a choice to accept a more empowering one. For me the computational model has proven to be the most powerful, and in this case it is immaterial to set apart an invisible realm that cannot interact with the material.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s