Of Holes and A-Holes

[genkaus]

I say that holes are a good example of something that both exists and is immaterial.

Not really, as you demonstrate yourself in the next statement.

A hole is known with respect to something material but is not itself material.

Here is the relevant definitions of 'material' from freedictionary:
1. Of, relating to, or composed of matter.
2. formed or consisting of matter;

You take only half of the definition - the part about consisting or composed of matter - and ignore the part about what gives it its form. Since a hole is defined by and exists in relation to something material, it is material as well.

It is possible to know about something that is indeed immaterial through observation of something that is material.

Your examples could use work, but the argument is correct nevertheless.

Ideas are immaterial.
Laws of nature are immaterial. But we know of them from observation of something material. But, keep in mind that here, by immaterial, I do not mean spiritual.

The main concern I have with bringing this up is to show that someone can deduce the existence of immaterial things from material things. Likewise people can deduce the existence of material objects from personal experience which is not a material thing. Thus people can go back and forth trying to define material things, like brains, and immaterial things, like minds, in terms of the other without reaching any conclusion as to which is primary. They thus remain forever stuck in paradox.

No, actually, there is no paradox here - the material comes first. You need a brain to develop before your mind can develop. Your first ideas develop from and about the things that already exist. The laws of nature develop from the observation of existing reality.

You need the immaterial thing called mind/experience to know about the material things, but the existence of those material things does not depend on your knowledge of them. On the other hand, without any material to be conscious of (or to form the underlying framework of consciousness), the immaterial wouldn't exist.

The simpler solution is to accept both materiality and immateriality are part of one larger reality that is a hypostatic union of both.

Is it simpler? Really?