Tijme for speculation.

I ran across an interesting quote today by a person who is not necessarily on the same side of the fence that I am on. I am not yet convinced of his standing at the time of this quote. At any rate, the author of this quote "Bertrand Russell" is quoted as speaking of some unknown thing, force, entity, (whatever adjective might be best fitting). The point of this thread is to gain input from both sides of the religion fence and see if a mutual consensus can be reached regarding what Bertrand Russell was actually speaking about yet did not specifically name. Here is the quote.


"The stuff of which the world of our experience is composed is, in my belief, neither mind nor matter, but something more primitive than either. Both mind and matter seem to be composite, and the stuff of which they are compounded lies in a sense between the two, in a sense above them both, like a common ancestor.
(Bertrand Russell, The Analysis of Mind p. 11, 1921)" Note: I found the article at this location http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Mind.htm

lease excuse the human typographical error in the title. First word should read "Time".

 

Darn it. I was really hoping and expecting some of the members to give it their best shot. But I guess no-one has any idea of what this esteemed gentleman was talking about.

In my opinion, it sounds almost like something I read about in the Bible one time.

 

Views on religion[edit]
Russell described himself as an agnostic, "speaking to a purely philosophical audience", but as an atheist "speaking popularly", on the basis that he could not disprove the Christian God similar to the way that he could not disprove the Olympic Gods either. [74] For most of his adult life Russell maintained that religion is little more than superstition and, despite any positive effects that religion might have, it is largely harmful to people. He believed that religion and the religious outlook serve to impede knowledge and foster fear and dependency, and are responsible for much of the war, oppression, and misery that have beset the world. He was a member of the Advisory Council of the British Humanist Association and President of Cardiff Humanists until his death.[75]
From the Wiki article.

Well known as an atheist and logician, he stands as one of the primary examples of everything you disdain.

 

Interesting comment and opinion on what you think is "everything you disdain", but does not in any way address the topic of the thread.... what do you suppose Bertrand Russell was speaking about in his unnamed thing that (in a sense) surpasses mind and matter?

 

The point you made is it reminds you of something from the bible.
What was it?
I will comment on that.

 

The point of the thread is to comment on what Bertrand Russell stated. Not what I or anyone else speculates he might have been speaking about.

 

Quantum mechanics. Matter and energy have a common "ancestor".

 

I am going to be so boring as to do what I always end up doing with statements like these, complain about definitions.

I find the words "The stuff of which the world of our experience is composed" to be very vague and not really say anything. There are certainly ways you can interpret that which would make me agree and others which would make me not agree. Similarly, words like "mind" and "matter", I'm not sure he's using in the way that I use them. There is also a question about what can be considered more primitive and certainly what above means in this context.

I believe, actually, I'm quite sure that I can construct an abstract concept that fits the description. It is also not hard to produce profound sounding soundbites concerning this concept. I do however not believe that this leads to some greater understanding of the world, it'd make no difference but making dictionaries thicker.

The art of making your way through these made up concepts and abstractions (and hippies who just make words up to sound cool) is made considerably harder by introducing analogies and likings. Proper definitions should, in my opinion, come first.

 

If that is all, then the quote is clipped before expounding on what he means.
As a stand-alone statement it is useless to support anything.
Perhaps that is why your thread has gotten zero traction.

 

That is the first rule of logic. Agreement of terms.

 

I suppose then that your comments on this thread amount to "zero traction".

 

If you are thanking me for keeping your thread from being completely ignored, you're welcome.
Any response to what you asked for?
I answered the question you posed to me.

 

No! You evaded the question and purpose of this thread.

 

So this thread has a "purpose" ...what is it?

 

As you can see above, I answered your question and you are evading my answer.

 

Stated in the OP. To gain the input of others (the views of others) on the possible meaning of or what is the unnamed thing that Russell spoke about. That is why the thread title is focused on 'speculation'. No-one is being asked to show 'proof' of anything about Russells comment. Just sheer speculation.

 

Wrong again. Your first post spoke about the religious standing of Russell and your opinion of what you presume that I disdain.

Your second post addresses the quality of the quote in that you don't believe it contains enough data so as to make it useless to support anything. That was followed by your opinion of why the thread has no traction. No-one was asked to use it to support anything. Again not addressing the purpose of the thread but instead deflecting.

Your next post there is only your sarcasm regarding what I might have been doing in my former post, followed by another question whose answer is apparent to the reader of this thread.

Still no response from you regarding 'what' the thing was that Russell spoke about. Just deflections.

 

I clearly stated that Russell's quote was clipped before any rational conclusion as to what he was referring to can be surmised.
What did you miss?

 

I missed a valid input from you as to what you think he might have been speaking about. Ya know... a speculation.

 

The title of your thread supports exactly what I'm saying.

 

In other words, you are fearful of making a speculation.

 

Time for further reading, I would say: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2529/2529-h/2529-h.htm#link2H_4_0004

 

Fear is not relevant, and just your unsupported attempt to smear.
I see no evidence to base one on.
Neither do you, or you wouldn't be looking for mere speculation.

 

Excellent!
Speculation no longer necessary.
All one needs is the interest to actually find the answer, and not clip the answer short and rob it of any meaning at all.

 

It's some weird-sounding stuff, to say the least. It seems he's addressing the philosophical psycho-babble of the time..

Few things are more firmly established in popular philosophy than the distinction between mind and matter. Those who are not professional metaphysicians are willing to confess that they do not know what mind actually is, or how matter is constituted; but they remain convinced that there is an impassable gulf between the two, and that both belong to what actually exists in the world. Philosophers, on the other hand, have maintained often that matter is a mere fiction imagined by mind, and sometimes that mind is a mere property of a certain kind of matter. Those who maintain that mind is the reality and matter an evil dream are called "idealists"—a word which has a different meaning in philosophy from that which it bears in ordinary life. Those who argue that matter is the reality and mind a mere property of protoplasm are called "materialists." They have been rare among philosophers, but common, at certain periods, among men of science. Idealists, materialists, and ordinary mortals have been in agreement on one point: that they knew sufficiently what they meant by the words "mind" and "matter" to be able to conduct their debate intelligently. Yet it was just in this point, as to which they were at one, that they seem to me to have been all alike in error.

Given what we know about the mind and matter today, I can't see any of this as even being particularly relevant anymore. The mind is a construct of the brain, and we perceive different forms of matter according to what our sensory organs tell our brain, which in turn converts those signals into something to be interpreted by the mind. The mind draws on memories and imagination to then form some mental construct of the matter being perceived.