Give that consciousness is embodied, and anyone who disagrees is clearly referring to their own deficiency in that regard, are we ourselves material or simply made of materials?
I am just thinking how humans use and consume materials and resources, and contribute to the economy,a human's relationship with different materials and objects. Whether material is source of philosophy truth over other things i haven't really delve on it. that is a more abstract philosophy.
the use value of a certain material really depends on two things
(a) what is possible when the human uses the object/material (possible use and function)
(b) what can the object become and transform into
invention is really coming up with different possible uses of an object/material.
question i want to know the answer"
why human use materials and resource
how do humans use materials and resources
why we need certain materials and resources
these are all motivations of why we choose to buy something
(The fields of behavioral economics and consumer psychology can explain and satisfy these questions and especially the very last question at greater breadth / depth.)
In short we all have a mix of subjective and objective senses of the meaning of value and utility, yet we cannot erase the co-dependence of the subject with the object, i.e. an object without a subject, without a use, the use of which is entirely subjective, while not actually useless, may appear useless until the application has been realized.
Materials and resources I view as very different, though even though either one can identify as the other - A material can be a resource, and a resource can be a material, yet subjective associations with each definition when applied in reality can affect which it is considered.
For simplicity and to attempt to answer Cog's question in my own way I'll stick to the original attempts at conceptualization of the meaning and value of being material versus being made of materials while attempting to also answer your questions on motivations towards buying/adoption/purchase decisions in connection to materials.
One area that comes to mind of a modern proliferation of the term "material" is Google's system of Material Design. Before this design system arose (and I clearly and vividly remember this, i.e. what Google looked like before and after the efficient implementation of this highly complex yet beautiful, unique, and scientific representation of design) Google was primarily deemed as being represented as a fun brand perhaps mainly by its' dynamic logo on its' homepage, which acted as a changing art wall. The concept was based on reflecting 3-Dimensional reality on 2D interfaces. It's representation of materials in closer reality to the comfort of what we are used to experiencing in our current realities becomes essentially soothing, yet behind it all there are objective measures for how each user interface or user experience component was created in order to then be scalable across multiple ever-changing devices, mobile and web, and now beyond.
The application of a definitively "more material" effect to existing materials lacking material effects resulting in experiencing a better reality led to the design system's widespread adoption.
When will we choose, then, Material Design over other systems of design when we choose to use products? When will we choose other systems of design over Material Design when we choose to use products? It comes down to science and math, which help to objectify art in a way such that it becomes standardized. Pixel ratios can be altered in order to achieve superior aesthetic resonance. Whatever design system achieves superior aesthetic resonance, whatever materialization of materials helps elicit the response of comfort in reality, is what we will always choose.
We are all made of materials from the beginning of time and before time, even before the beginning of evolution. If the material is the chicken, we are the egg, so to speak. And the cycle continues, and you can continue to argue which comes first if you want.
Yet humans do not aspire to be material - We scoff at it - How can we be defined by objects which are not animated, not lively, like ourselves?
Yet, inherently, we are material and dependent on constant materialization. Without materialization, we would not have innovation, and we would not have advancement and progress within humanity.
Our ability to have consciousness requires that upon self-reflection, we humanize materials in order to materialize materials and materialize humanity, in order to simply progress ourselves as individuals and as a humanity beyond existing limitations.
In fact, we as humanity have become conditioned so much to hate the concept of materials because we fear it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialization
Even merriam webster's dictionary "officially" defines "materialization" as associated with a ghost or apparition, with essentially the displacement of human existence with an everlasting looming spirit.
That's freaky.
I'll just end here, because, why not.
Actually, I mean, if you're open minded, you can see the concept of apparitions or ghosts as spirits or spiritual, and then proceed to redefine the connotation alternatively, however to argue that connotation with the mainstream / public may be far more difficult.