Definition
Describing in philosophical terms what a non-physical entity actually is (or would be) can prove problematic. A convenient example of what constitutes a non-physical entity is a ghost. Gilbert Ryle once labelled Cartesian Dualism as positing the "ghost in the machine". However, it is hard to define in philosophical terms what it is, precisely, about a ghost that makes it a specifically non-physical, rather than a physical entity. It is not the supposed ability of ghosts to penetrate solid matter, as neutrinos can do that, and lack of mass is also exhibited by photons. Most tellingly, were the existence of ghosts ever be demonstrated beyond doubt, in terms of the physicalist/dualist philosophical debate (at least) that would actually place them in the category of physical entities.
This problem of definition is a problem for the physicalist school of philosophy. Without any definition of non-physical entities, physicalism would be a trivially true philosophical position that everyone could subscribe to, but that would thereby lack much in the way of significance. So physicalist philosophers usually defer to physics, and the natural sciences, for a definition of what is physical and what is non-physical.
Read more about this topic: Non-physical Entity
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“Mothers often are too easily intimidated by their children’s negative reactions...When the child cries or is unhappy, the mother reads this as meaning that she is a failure. This is why it is so important for a mother to know...that the process of growing up involves by definition things that her child is not going to like. Her job is not to create a bed of roses, but to help him learn how to pick his way through the thorns.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)
“One definition of man is “an intelligence served by organs.””
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)