Could any being without extension and form exist?

[JuanFlorencio]

Their shapes of course changes. Why do you want it fixed? The capacity to have a specific function arises from the fact that their shape changes.

Are you trying to say something here?

I read a thick book about thermodynamic.

Don’t tell me! Are you a Doctor in physics, like Bahman?

That is true. We can retrieve some of them, like memory.

We can say: “I see this table”, “I perceive that blackboard”, etcetera, and that might entitle us to say that the table is white and the blackboard is four meters long. But you cannot say (well, you can, which is what you use to do: you just say things) that you perceive this or that thought, which have such and such shape, and which is located in this or that place. Even if it was possible for you to use one of those modern machines that allow us to observe the changes in a brain to observe your own brain as you are thinking on something, you would not be able to say (well…): “I can see my thought which is produced as I see my thought”.

You say “we retrieve some mental states, like memory”, but you have not seen such supposed retrieval processes.

You are correct in your observation. A thermodynamic state can be defined once system reaches to an equilibrium. Brain however is a dynamical system far from thermodynamic equilibrium when it process something. We should be careful to don’t mix the brain state, like conscious state, with thermodynamical state.

Wasn’t it you who pretended that thoughts, experiences and consciousness are events that just happen in the brain? And isn’t the brain a material object made up of chemical substances, those that are studied within the field of thermodynamics? Why do you say now that one thing is a conscious state and another thing is a thermodynamic state?

I hope that I am clear now.

I hope you have things clearer now.

 

[EnosJadon]

If something is not necessary it does not mean that it is superfluous.

While this is indeed true, superfluous is exactly what a physical reality becomes if consciousness can exist without it. Superfluous being something which is more than what is required to fulfill a given function. If consciousness can exist in the absence of a physical source, then a physical source is more than what is required to explain the existence of consciousness. It’s more than what’s needed to fulfill the function, which makes it superfluous.

The “non-I”, which you would call “objective reality”, remains exactly the same either you call it physical or non-physical.

Correct, but what we’re debating isn’t the existence of reality, but rather the nature of reality. Is it the cause of consciousness, or an effect of consciousness?

And in both cases its existence is not necessary.

I would argue that the existence of the “non-I” is absolutely necessary to the existence of the “I”, because forming the concept of “I am” requires the concept of “What I am”, and that requires a context. A context provided by the non-I.

Now, I am calling it “the non-I”, because it is my experience that it affects me even against my will, and also because its nature is obscure to me; from which it is clear that I do not determine its existence.

Ah, but there’s more to consciousness than simply that of which you’re consciously aware. There’s the subconscious as well, and it acts independent of your awareness. For example, you dream, and are at once both the creator and the perceiver of that dream. The former can act independent of the latter. Just because you don’t will things to be, doesn’t mean that you don’t cause them to be.

As I said above, the “non-I”, either physical or non-physical, remains exactly the same, and is not necessary.

I agree that whether physical or non-physical, reality remains effectively the same. But I would argue that it’s existence, whether real or illusory, is absolutely necessary. Not only that, but I would argue that the structure of that reality betrays the source of that reality. A source much more in keeping with a human mind, than with a divine one.

But as Franz Brentano said, my conscience is always a conscience of something.

If I might correct the quote a bit, the word is “conscious”, not “conscience”. But I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I maintain that reality, whether real or illusory, is absolutely necessary to the existence of the “I”. What’s unnecessary is that that reality exist anywhere other than within the conscious mind itself.

 

[STT]

Very sketchy, but resonant of Decarte.

Is there any alternative?

 

[STT]

Are you trying to say something here?

Well, I guess so.

Don’t tell me! Are you a Doctor in physics, like Bahman?

No, I don’t have any PhD.

We can say: “I see this table”, “I perceive that blackboard”, etcetera, and that might entitle us to say that the table is white and the blackboard is four meters long. But you cannot say (well, you can, which is what you use to do: you just say things) that you perceive this or that thought, which have such and such shape, and which is located in this or that place. Even if it was possible for you to use one of those modern machines that allow us to observe the changes in a brain to observe your own brain as you are thinking on something, you would not be able to say (well…): “I can see my thought which is produced as I see my thought”.

You say “we retrieve some mental states, like memory”, but you have not seen such supposed retrieval processes.

We cannot see that process. Recalling is a strange process for me. I cannot understand it.

Wasn’t it you who pretended that thoughts, experiences and consciousness are events that just happen in the brain? And isn’t the brain a material object made up of chemical substances, those that are studied within the field of thermodynamics? Why do you say now that one thing is a conscious state and another thing is a thermodynamic state?

Because brain is a dynamic system and far from thermodynamic equilibrium most of the times.

I hope you have things clearer now.

Thanks.

 

[Vico]

Is there any alternative?

For Modern philosophies of the theory of knowledge, he represents one of major three of the Rationlists, but other types of Modern Philosophy include empericism, idealism, and historicism.

 

[MPat]

Well, I think that is simple to argue. There are two categories of objects: (1) The one which is objectively real (they have form independent of a thinker), such as human/beings and (2) The one which is not objectively real (they have form only in our experiences or when they become a part of knowledge), such as abstract object/things.

That would be rather close to a good classification. If only “have form independent of a thinker” was well defined…

Oh, and I get an impression that name “thing” would fit physical objects somewhat better…

“Catholic Answers” is a abstract object given the above definition.

Is it? You haven’t demonstrated that.

It is pretty obvious that existence or non-existence of organisations is not dependent on anyone thinking about them. Many people think about Holy Roman Empire, but it does not exist any more. It might well be that we can find five minutes when no one is thinking about some minor club, but it does not mean that the organisation is disbanded at that time.

Now, sure, you do not want to add organisations to “objectively real” group, as it would imply that legal existence is about as good as physical existence. But truth should outrank your wishes.

For that matter, even abstract objects are not that dependent on the thinker. Otherwise some “Little Johnny” would be right to claim that two and two is five (it is objectively wrong, whatever he thinks).

Spiritual beings should have forms to my opinion so they belong to the first category. Why don’t we see them unless they want, vision for example? I don’t know. I am already thinking about this.

I’m afraid I do not get what you are trying to say here… Why is being able to see an object that important here?

I meant that spiritual beings, such as Angel, should have form otherwise they cannot exist as a being but a thing.

So, here you are saying that abstract objects have no form? And yet, in the very next paragraph you will claim that they do have form:

We obviously can distinguish between abstract objects. This means that they have form. They also have extension such as “I am” or “content of a book”, the first is short and the second is very long.

I’m sorry, but that sounds like “evasive action” in more than one way.

First, my question gave clear examples: aleph-zero, imaginary unit, quaternions. You have ignored those examples and substituted your own. And yet, try to give answers for the examples I gave. Sure, that is hard (or impossible), but that’s the point: it shows that you are wrong to claim that extension is necessary for abstract objects.

Second, the “extension” you give here is obviously measured not in meters, but in characters or bits. Sorry, but that just won’t do. In other cases you claim that “form” and “shape” is one and the same. In that case, be consistent and rule out “extension” that is not length, area or volume. Or admit that your position needs some patching up.

Third, you can only get “This means that they have form.” from “We obviously can distinguish between abstract objects.” if you add a premise like “Form is necessary for us to distinguish objects.”. Where do you get it? How do you support it?

Fourth, as I have mentioned, in here you claim that abstract objects have form, yet in the previous paragraph you wrote as if they don’t have to. That won’t do. Try to keep your position consistent.

I think that the situation is clear by now considering the first comment. Please let me know if otherwise.

No, it is not clear. You still have to explain if imagining aleph-zero, imaginaly unit or quaternion is necessary for them to exist or make sense. And if it is, you still have to explain how to imagine them.

All, abstract object have a shape inside our brain when they are comprehended through experience.

What shape? Be precise. Also, how do you know they “have a shape inside our brain”?

Well, I cannot see what is the problem. Please let me know.

It would be a good place to show a dialog: “Are you sure you want to see the problem?”.

 

[STT]

That would be rather close to a good classification. If only “have form independent of a thinker” was well defined…

By this I mean that they exist indepent of experience of an agent. I am afraid I cannot make it more clearer than this. Perhaps you can define it if you understood what I mean and then we discuss your definition.

Oh, and I get an impression that name “thing” would fit physical objects somewhat better…

I agree.

Is it? You haven’t demonstrated that.

Do you agree with the definition of objects which was provided in the first comment in post #50?

It is pretty obvious that existence or non-existence of organisations is not dependent on anyone thinking about them. Many people think about Holy Roman Empire, but it does not exist any more. It might well be that we can find five minutes when no one is thinking about some minor club, but it does not mean that the organisation is disbanded at that time.

Now, sure, you do not want to add organisations to “objectively real” group, as it would imply that legal existence is about as good as physical existence. But truth should outrank your wishes.

Roman Empire as a political power which used to exists in the past is an abstract object.

For that matter, even abstract objects are not that dependent on the thinker. Otherwise some “Little Johnny” would be right to claim that two and two is five (it is objectively wrong, whatever he thinks).

Think of mathematics as underlying truth of any reality. By this I mean that you cannot find any reality that 2+2=5. This however doesn’t mean that mathematical objects exist without a thinker.

I’m afraid I do not get what you are trying to say here… Why is being able to see an object that important here?

Because it has to become a part of our experience.

So, here you are saying that abstract objects have no form? And yet, in the very next paragraph you will claim that they do have form:

I said that they have form when they are part of our experience.

I’m sorry, but that sounds like “evasive action” in more than one way.

First, my question gave clear examples: aleph-zero, imaginary unit, quaternions. You have ignored those examples and substituted your own. And yet, try to give answers for the examples I gave. Sure, that is hard (or impossible), but that’s the point: it shows that you are wrong to claim that extension is necessary for abstract objects.

Can you distinguish between aleph-zero, imaginary unit and quaternions? Yes. This means that each of them have a specific form inside your thoughts.

Second, the “extension” you give here is obviously measured not in meters, but in characters or bits. Sorry, but that just won’t do. In other cases you claim that “form” and “shape” is one and the same. In that case, be consistent and rule out “extension” that is not length, area or volume. Or admit that your position needs some patching up.

I meant that two examples occupy different amount of space in a thinker thoughts.

Third, you can only get “This means that they have form.” from “We obviously can distinguish between abstract objects.” if you add a premise like “Form is necessary for us to distinguish objects.”. Where do you get it? How do you support it?

Well, vision is a part of our experience. Objects have clear forms inside our visions. Hearing is similar to vision but it is less obvious that objects have form when we hear them. Thinking is similar to hearing. Is that clear now?

Fourth, as I have mentioned, in here you claim that abstract objects have form, yet in the previous paragraph you wrote as if they don’t have to. That won’t do. Try to keep your position consistent.

I discussed this. The abstract objects have form when they are part of our experiences.

No, it is not clear. You still have to explain if imagining aleph-zero, imaginaly unit or quaternion is necessary for them to exist or make sense. And if it is, you still have to explain how to imagine them.

I discuss them in the previous comment.

What shape? Be precise. Also, how do you know they “have a shape inside our brain”?

Any experience is related to a conscious mental state. Any mental state is related to a specific process inside the brain. Any process is related to specific function of a set of neurons. There is a one to one corespondence between the experience of abstract object and the configuration of a specific set of neurons inside our brain.

It would be a good place to show a dialog: “Are you sure you want to see the problem?”.

I hope things are clear by now.

 

[ericc]

The content of your vision should have some form. It is not vision if it is empty.

Why must that be true? Visions were seen by hundreds or thousands of people such as the Marian apparitions. Ghosts by the millions I suppose. Just because science is incapable of capturing evidence or explain some of these phenomena does not lead to the conclusion that they do not exist.

And yet you do not provide evidence that your point of view must be correct and millions others who are eyewitnesses of immaterial events are wrong. And I repeat the same question:

How did you arrive at the conclusion that immaterial beings can not exist? Please do not just repeat your assertion that extensionless and formless beings do not exist. But if your explanation rest on you not able to capturing the event, that is a separate argument entirely.

 

[STT]

Why must that be true? Visions were seen by hundreds or thousands of people such as the Marian apparitions. Ghosts by the millions I suppose. Just because science is incapable of capturing evidence or explain some of these phenomena does not lead to the conclusion that they do not exist.

You didn’t read my post carefully. I didn’t say that people’s vision is false. I only said that vision must have a form otherwise it is empty. What is empty? Something which cannot affect you.

And yet you do not provide evidence that your point of view must be correct and millions others who are eyewitnesses of immaterial events are wrong.

I didn’t say so.

And I repeat the same question:

How did you arrive at the conclusion that immaterial beings can not exist?

I didn’t say so.

Please do not just repeat your assertion that extensionless and formless beings do not exist. But if your explanation rest on you not able to capturing the event, that is a separate argument entirely.

Well, I think my argument is valid. You didn’t provide any counter argument against it, instead strive on people’s experiences that you don’t have any clue about them.

 

[ericc]

You didn’t read my post carefully. I didn’t say that people’s vision is false. I only said that vision must have a form otherwise it is empty. What is empty? Something which cannot affect you.

For discussion sake, let’s say Marian apparition. People saw something. Messages were given to those targeted. Did it affect them? Sure it did. Do Marian apparitions qualify to have extension and form?

Well, I think my argument is valid. You didn’t provide any counter argument against it, instead strive on people’s experiences that you don’t have any clue about them.

You have not proven your argument at all. I am questioning your statement that formless and extensionless beings do not exist. All I am asking is: how do you know and prove that statement is true?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Correct, but what we’re debating isn’t the existence of reality, but rather the nature of reality. Is it the cause of consciousness, or an effect of consciousness?

For the moment, it is clear to me that at any given moment I am not conscious of all the “non-I”, but only of a variable small part of it. If the “non-I” has caused me, has it been the whole “non-I” or only a part of it? How could I know? How could I avoid making assumptions to respond to that question?

And, assuming that the “non-I” (the whole or part of it) has caused me, once it has caused me, am I -in my existence as a conscience-, independent of it or I always am being sustained by the “non-I”?

If it has been only part of the “non-I” which has caused me, it must be that I am given an independent, though finite, existence, because the part of the “non-I” which is “in front of me” is never the same. Or is it that one part of the “non-I” has produced me and the other parts have the power to sustain me?

But what does it entail that a part of the “non-I” produces me as an “I”? Is it that in the act I appear conscious of that part? If so, how could I be able to be conscious of something else afterwards? If not, how could a part of the “non-I” produce me as conscious of something else?

And if it is the whole “non-I” which produces me, why is it that I am never conscious of it as a whole?

I don’t have the answers, but in my daily life I behave as if I was not the cause of the “non-I” and as if the “non-I” was not the cause of me.

While this is indeed true, superfluous is exactly what a physical reality becomes if consciousness can exist without it. Superfluous being something which is more than what is required to fulfill a given function. If consciousness can exist in the absence of a physical source, then a physical source is more than what is required to explain the existence of consciousness. It’s more than what’s needed to fulfill the function, which makes it superfluous.

If I have oranges, I can exist without apples; and if I have apples, I can exist without oranges. None of them would be superfluous in the sense you have described; but each one of them would be not-necessary.

I would argue that the existence of the “non-I” is absolutely necessary to the existence of the “I”, because forming the concept of “I am” requires the concept of “What I am”, and that requires a context. A context provided by the non-I.

I am aware that “I” and the variable “non-I” are the poles of my reality. However, though I am aware (without concept) of myself, I do not have a concept of “What I am”. Therefore, the first thing does not require the second.

Ah, but there’s more to consciousness than simply that of which you’re consciously aware. There’s the subconscious as well, and it acts independent of your awareness. For example, you dream, and are at once both the creator and the perceiver of that dream. The former can act independent of the latter. Just because you don’t will things to be, doesn’t mean that you don’t cause them to be.

I don’t think it would be adequate to resort to the theory of the subconscious at this moment. It is true that just because I am a finite being I have a determined mode of being, and that, fundamentally, it does not depend on my will. Further, it is true that I do not know myself but until I act, and therefore, that I remain hidden to myself until I act and reflect. But, as I said, in my daily life I always act on something that is already there, which is opaque and which offers resistance to me. I produce nothing from nothing. The thought that I might be producing reality without noticing it goes beyond any of my experiences.

I agree that whether physical or non-physical, reality remains effectively the same. But I would argue that it’s existence, whether real or illusory, is absolutely necessary. Not only that, but I would argue that the structure of that reality betrays the source of that reality. A source much more in keeping with a human mind, than with a divine one.

Besides perceiving the “non-I”, I can imagine other “things” and I might have certain illusions. I distinguish between illusions and the “non-I”.

If you say, “in order for a human being to be healthy it is necessary for him to eat”, I agree; but I would not conclude from that that I am necessary and that food is necessary and that the action of eating is necessary. I am aware of my finiteness and my fragility.

The “non-I” always surprises me. I cannot be its source.

If I might correct the quote a bit, the word is “conscious”, not “conscience”. But I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I maintain that reality, whether real or illusory, is absolutely necessary to the existence of the “I”. What’s unnecessary is that that reality exist anywhere other than within the conscious mind itself.

This reality which is in front of me, and of which I am aware, is opaque to me. And as I act on it more and more in a diversity of ways, I become aware, more and more, of its richness. Therefore, it is in front of me, but it is not within my mind.

 

[STT]

For discussion sake, let’s say Marian apparition. People saw something. Messages were given to those targeted. Did it affect them? Sure it did. Do Marian apparitions qualify to have extension and form?

Any sort of experience has form, whether it is vision, hearing, etc.

You have not proven your argument at all. I am questioning your statement that formless and extensionless beings do not exist. All I am asking is: how do you know and prove that statement is true?

Think of something which has extension. Now reduce extension gradually. What do you get at the end? Nothing.

 

[Richca]

Not until the person is dead.

What do you mean with the pure form? How something can have form and have not extension?

Pure spirits such as God and the angels do not have a body composed out of matter. Quantity or extension pertains to material bodies with dimensions such as length, breadth, and height. The substance, nature, or essence of God and the angels is called their form. Forms are immaterial and God and the angels are wholly immaterial beings without matter and bodies and therefore without extension. Material substances such as human beings are a composite of form and matter. This is the philosophical doctrine of hylemorphism. The form of human beings is their soul which is immaterial while their body is material composed out of matter which involves extension.

 

[IWantGod]

Any sort of experience has form, whether it is vision, hearing, etc.

Think of something which has extension. Now reduce extension gradually. What do you get at the end? Nothing.

Nothing physical.

Again, not being able to comprehend something as not having an extension in time and space is not evidence that a thing cannot exist without having extension.

As for your example, if a things essential nature is by definition an extension in space time, and then ceases to have that extension, it ceases to exist. But that fact has no bearing on whether or not it is possible for a thing to have a non-physical act of existence.

 

[ericc]

Any sort of experience has form, whether it is vision, hearing, etc.

Well, those who saw the Marian apparitions saw the form of the Virgin Mary. But is it physical? Or was it a celestial imprint on their retinas? Who knows how such things work.

A screenless 3D projection/hologram can be considered non-physical but that can be seen. Perhaps you might want to define more clearly what you mean by form and extension. Do you mean physical mass or some other thing that can be captured physically in a cage or test tube?

Think of something which has extension. Now reduce extension gradually. What do you get at the end? Nothing.

You are evading the question. Are you able to prove that formless/extensionless beings do not exist? Yes or no? The onus is not for me to prove that they do but on you to prove that they do not since you are making the allegation.

 

[MPat]

By this I mean that they exist indepent of experience of an agent. I am afraid I cannot make it more clearer than this. Perhaps you can define it if you understood what I mean and then we discuss your definition.

It is pretty obvious that “[does not] have form independent of a thinker” should at least mean that the object ceases to exist when no one is thinking of it (there is no thinker), and that the thinker gets to decide what the form is going to be. Otherwise an object clearly has form somewhat independently of the thinker. Yet, apparently, that was not what you meant, since you do not think any “Little Johnny” can decide that 2+2=5, while claiming that numbers have form “not independently of thinker”.

Do you agree with the definition of objects which was provided in the first comment in post #50?

No, I do not agree with that definition. But that’s beside the point. The point is that you also do not really agree with that definition.

Roman Empire as a political power which used to exists in the past is an abstract object.

That completely misses the point. The point is that you cannot explain what changed when the Holy Roman Empire was disbanded. In your view, it was an abstract object and it stayed an abstract object. Thus, according to you, nothing has changed. And yet, it is clear that something has changed.

Think of mathematics as underlying truth of any reality. By this I mean that you cannot find any reality that 2+2=5. This however doesn’t mean that mathematical objects exist without a thinker.

If reality exists without a thinker, then so does any “underlying truth”. And thus you cannot keep all those claims - something has to go.

Actually, there is one argument for existence of God that points out that the only available place for abstract objects (like numbers) is God’s mind. But, since you deny God’s existence, abstract objects become mysterious to you…

Because it has to become a part of our experience.

That does not answer the question. In other places you have claimed that hearing and thinking also count as experiencing, so visibility shouldn’t be special here.

I said that they have form when they are part of our experience.

That does not answer the question. You have also claimed that angels cannot be imagined and thus cannot be experienced. Are you taking that claim back?

Can you distinguish between aleph-zero, imaginary unit and quaternions? Yes. This means that each of them have a specific form inside your thoughts.

That does not answer the question. The question was not “Can you assert that something has form?”. We know that you can. In words of Hamlet, it is “as easy as lying”… No, the question was what those forms of aleph-zero, imaginary unit and quaternions actually are. You should give actual geometrical shapes, since that’s how you understand forms.

Also, that begs the question - you haven’t shown that distinguishing objects requires difference of form yet.

I meant that two examples occupy different amount of space in a thinker thoughts.

That does not answer the question. (Are you beginning to see a pattern here?) You still are not giving meters, thus we only have bits and characters. And if something can be measured in bits and not in meters, then it has no definite geometrical shape - and all kinds of problems for your philosophy follow.

Well, vision is a part of our experience. Objects have clear forms inside our visions. Hearing is similar to vision but it is less obvious that objects have form when we hear them. Thinking is similar to hearing. Is that clear now?

That does not answer the question. The question asked where do you get a premise like “Form is necessary for us to distinguish objects.”. Your answer does not address it in any way.

I discuss them in the previous comment.

That does not answer the question (yes, neither here nor above). You haven’t explained how to imagine aleph-zero, imaginary unit or quaternions. Neither have you taken back the claims that would seem to imply that imagining them is necessary.

The obvious reason for that is that none of those objects can be imagined - and that’s fine. However, your philosophy demands that imagining them would be possible…

Any experience is related to a conscious mental state. Any mental state is related to a specific process inside the brain. Any process is related to specific function of a set of neurons. There is a one to one corespondence between the experience of abstract object and the configuration of a specific set of neurons inside our brain.

Proof, please.

I’m afraid that such a bold claim (unfortunately, pseudoscientific) can only be sustained if you will avoid learning anything about even the most simplified of artificial neural networks (that is, perceptrons)…

I hope things are clear by now.

Yes, they are, but in another way.

In your profile you write: “Religion: Seeking the Truth”. If you really are seeking the truth, you should try to find out the weakest points of your current “best guess”. Instead, you keep trying to evade the challenges directed at them. That’s a terrible strategy for seeking. In fact, it is not a very good strategy of defence either (a couple of “I don’t know.” would have looked much better).

So, if you are still going to evade difficult questions and challenges, I’m afraid that there isn’t much we can expect to get from this discussion…

 

[STT]

Pure spirits such as God and the angels do not have a body composed out of matter. Quantity or extension pertains to material bodies with dimensions such as length, breadth, and height. The substance, nature, or essence of God and the angels is called their form. Forms are immaterial and God and the angels are wholly immaterial beings without matter and bodies and therefore without extension. Material substances such as human beings are a composite of form and matter. This is the philosophical doctrine of hylemorphism. The form of human beings is their soul which is immaterial while their body is material composed out of matter which involves extension.

Think of Angels for example. We believe that they think. Thinking however is a process. This process deals with information. You need form/shape to keep and process information . And you need extension in order to have form. This means that Angels cannot think because they have no form and extension. Therefore they are not a being.

 

[STT]

Nothing physical.

Again, not being able to comprehend something as not having an extension in time and space is not evidence that a thing cannot exist without having extension.

As for your example, if a things essential nature is by definition an extension in space time, and then ceases to have that extension, it ceases to exist. But that fact has no bearing on whether or not it is possible for a thing to have a non-physical act of existence.

You need to explain what is wrong with my argument: “Think of something which has extension. Now reduce extension gradually. What do you get at the end? Nothing.” This argument clearly explain that something without extension cannot exist.

 

[STT]

Well, those who saw the Marian apparitions saw the form of the Virgin Mary. But is it physical? Or was it a celestial imprint on their retinas? Who knows how such things work.

I have visions so I know how they look likes. Some sort of them are like hologram. You can even touch them or to be touched in some other sort.

A screenless 3D projection/hologram can be considered non-physical but that can be seen. Perhaps you might want to define more clearly what you mean by form and extension.

Form means shape and extension means spatiality.

Do you mean physical mass or some other thing that can be captured physically in a cage or test tube?

No.

You are evading the question. Are you able to prove that formless/extensionless beings do not exist? Yes or no? The onus is not for me to prove that they do but on you to prove that they do not since you are making the allegation.

Any being has to have these things in common, form, extension and stuff. You need extension and stuff to have form. You cannot have a being without form. Just think of Angels. We believe that they think. Thinking however is a process. This process deals with information. You need form/shape to keep and process information . And you need extension in order to have form. This means that Angels cannot think because they have no form and extension. Therefore they are not a being.

 

[Vico]

I have visions so I know how they look likes. Some sort of them are like hologram. You can even touch them or to be touched in some other sort.

Form means shape and extension means spatiality.

No.

Any being has to have these things in common, form, extension and stuff. You need extension and stuff to have form. You cannot have a being without form. Just think of Angels. We believe that they think. Thinking however is a process. This process deals with information. You need form/shape to keep and process information . And you need extension in order to have form. This means that Angels cannot think because they have no form and extension. Therefore they are not a being.

Descartes argues that a substance may be complete insofar as it is a substance but incomplete insofar as it is referred to some other substance together with which it forms yet some third substance. This can be applied to mind and body as follows: the mind insofar as it is a thinking thing is a complete substance, while the body insofar as it is an extended thing is a complete substance, but each taken individually is only an incomplete human being.
iep.utm.edu/descmind/#H5