A Question...

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m glad we agree on those parts.

What do you mean though, that ‘learning’ is not your preferred method? I understand that you believe that there we are sentient because God gave us a soul. Fine. But then, how does the sentient soul integrate with the nonsentient mind? Show me the bridge between the spiritual and the physical.

Archistrage

and isnt that the rub?

truth is, i dont know. no man does, or can.

non-physical phenomenon dont lend themselves to the scientific method. yet the mere fact that some phenomenon, such as free will, exist, but cannot be accounted for under any possible physical theory, belies the common idea that science has a universal utility.

science is a poor tool for metaphysical invetigation.

 

[James_S_Saint]

truth is, i dont know. no man does, or can.

How is it that all men seem to know what it is and isn’t that “all men can know”? :ehh:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How is it that all men seem to know what it is and isn’t that “all men can know”? :ehh:

in this particular case its because the phenomenon involves factors that arent all physical and therefore not subject to the scientific method.

 

[James_S_Saint]

in this particular case its because the phenomenon involves factors that arent all physical and therefore not subject to the scientific method.

No one knew anything before the Scientific Method??

The Scientific Method is a limited way of verifying proposed knowledge. Science does not yield knowledge, but rather verifies hypotheses and yields evidence of something else to hypothesize about.

Many men knew of many things very long before there was such a thing as Scientific Method. The metaphysicists from thousands of years ago knew of things that Science has yet to figure out. Some, Science has confirmed.

The true metaphysicist is above Science and uses Science only as a means to confirm what he might already know through reasoning. But others, not so versed in reasoning, must have a demonstration, thus Science is a demonstration method for those who cannot see clearly with their minds. Science helps the blind as glasses help the visually impaired (or more appropriately, a microscope).

But how is a blind man to judge what it is that a sighted man can or cannot see or even know whether he needs glasses?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But others, not so versed in reasoning, must have a demonstration…

the key word being “others.”

 

[archistrage]

and isnt that the rub?

truth is, i dont know. no man does, or can.

non-physical phenomenon dont lend themselves to the scientific method. yet the mere fact that some phenomenon, such as free will, exist, but cannot be accounted for under any possible physical theory, belies the common idea that science has a universal utility.

science is a poor tool for metaphysical invetigation.

See, I disagree with that.

A) I believe that there might be a physical reason for free will, that came from evolution. However, I’m just theorizing in that area, so please don’t hold me to it.

B) Even if free will is purely from the soul, the fact that there is a physical manifestation of it in our universe, means that there is a physical response that interacts with it.

However I do agree that it is probably impossible for man to know what it is. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek to try, and to learn about it. What a fantastic journey that would be.

Please understand, that I do believe learning things, as many things as possible. I believe that the Truths the Church teaches are absolute, and provide a firm foundation for learning about nature, and thus about God. Think about it. Every scientist, every physicist, yearns for some universal constant that all their theories and equations can be based off of. That constant is God.

Archistrage

 

[warpspeedpetey]

See, I disagree with that.

A) I believe that there might be a physical reason for free will, that came from evolution. However, I’m just theorizing in that area, so please don’t hold me to it.

free will is inconsistent with both a deterministic universe, and an indeterministic universe. either way the universe operates the mere appearance of free will precludes physical causation. in a deterministic universe, you have no volition, each state of a system is inalterably leads produces the next. in an indeterministic system. you would still have no volition, because there would be no causality.

B) Even if free will is purely from the soul, the fact that there is a physical manifestation of it in our universe, means that there is a physical response that interacts with it.

However I do agree that it is probably impossible for man to know what it is. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek to try, and to learn about it. What a fantastic journey that would be.

i agree, there must be an interface and it is unlikely to be explored by scientific means.

Please understand, that I do believe learning things, as many things as possible. I believe that the Truths the Church teaches are absolute, and provide a firm foundation for learning about nature, and thus about God. Think about it. Every scientist, every physicist, yearns for some universal constant that all their theories and equations can be based off of. That constant is God.

the infamous fudge factors. that might well be what they stem from.

 

[grannymh]

This is an idea that popped into my head the other day, and I thought it would give you guys something to think on.

Are human beings sentient because we have a soul, or did God give us a soul after we had become sentient?

I think it is the latter, because I believe in the Big Bang theory, therefore there must have been humans before Adam.

What do you guys think?

Archistrage

All animals are sentient in some degree. The human species is different in kind from all other animals because in addition to being sentient, the human being, at conception, has an immaterial, immortal spiritual soul with the powers of intellect and will.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[archistrage]

free will is inconsistent with both a deterministic universe, and an indeterministic universe. either way the universe operates the mere appearance of free will precludes physical causation. in a deterministic universe, you have no volition, each state of a system is inalterably leads produces the next. in an indeterministic system. you would still have no volition, because there would be no causality.

You see, this is a problem. You are holding to a theory that man believes about the Universe, which is contradicting to what is actually happening within the Universe. Sorry, but Reality always supersedes Theories. By definition, a theory is a guess. Hopefully, an educated guess, meaning that there is evidence in nature to suggest it to be true. But if you twist the facts that nature provides to fit your theory, and not the other way around, then you are essentially slapping God in the face, saying that you know better than he does.

Archistrage

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You see, this is a problem. You are holding to a theory that man believes about the Universe, which is contradicting to what is actually happening within the Universe. Sorry, but Reality always supersedes Theories. By definition, a theory is a guess. Hopefully, an educated guess, meaning that there is evidence in nature to suggest it to be true. But if you twist the facts that nature provides to fit your theory, and not the other way around, then you are essentially slapping God in the face, saying that you know better than he does.

Archistrage

im just explaining why free will cant have a physical causation. im not sure what you mean by this. what theory is contradicting whats happening? and what facts am i twisting?

no one is slapping G-d in the face. what are you talking about?

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*free will is inconsistent with both a deterministic universe, and an indeterministic universe. either way the universe operates the mere appearance of free will precludes physical causation. in a deterministic universe, you have no volition, each state of a system is inalterably leads produces the next. in an indeterministic system. you would still have no volition, because there would be no causality.
*

You see, this is a problem. You are holding to a theory that man believes about the Universe, which is contradicting to what is actually happening within the Universe. Sorry, but Reality always supersedes Theories. By definition, a theory is a guess. Hopefully, an educated guess, meaning that there is evidence in nature to suggest it to be true. But if you twist the facts that nature provides to fit your theory, and not the other way around, then you are essentially slapping God in the face, saying that you know better than he does.

Archistrage

Observances of nature’s operations, which include intellect and will in the human being, give the facts of reality. The evidence is human nature which does exist as a reality. Human nature is the part of the universe and therefore it exists as reality. The reality of human nature is based on the facts nature, space and time, provides.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[yppop]

I’m glad we agree on those parts.

What do you mean though, that ‘learning’ is not your preferred method? I understand that you believe that there we are sentient because God gave us a soul. Fine. But then, how does the sentient soul integrate with the nonsentient mind? Show me the bridge between the spiritual and the physical.

Archistrage

Archistrage.
You seem like a person that knows how to engage in a discussion by asking questions, so I will contribute my thoughts relative to your questions. Let me begin with a quote by Teilhard de Chardin in “The Phenomenon of Man” pg.56

“It is impossible to deny that, deep within ourselves, an ‘interior’ appears at the heart of beings, as it were seen through a rent. This is enough to ensure that, in one degree or another, this ‘interior’ should obtrude itself as existing everywhere in nature from all time. Since, the stuff of the universe has an inner aspect at one point of itself, there is necessarily a double aspect to its structure, that is to say in every region of space and time–in the same way, for instance, as it is granular: co-extensive with their Without, there is a Within to things” –

Upon this single quotation I have built a personal philosophy of life and I have done it, in my view at least, without seriously contradicting either science or my Catholic religion. Teilhard’s quote induced me to answer the question you are asking: how is the spiritual commingled with the material? I have worked out a model that answers the question to my own satisfaction but (to my knowledge) to no one else’s satisfaction in this forum. The answer is based on a model described in this forum in an abbreviated thesis described in the thread entitled “God Exist, But How?” now on page 9.

Here is a brief summary of my thoughts that are pertinent to your questions:

Like Teilhard I believe the cosmos is immersed in a sea of the spirit. So when matter corpusculates, i.e., when if forms a corpus, a particle of the universal spirit, the nomos, is captured by each cell to give it life. I refer to the particle of the spirit that is captured by a cell as bios. I won’t go into how I explain life on the basis of my model, but will jump to the next step in the path of actualization and point out that when a multicellular corpus is formed, another particle of the spirit is captured and concentrates in the brain. The brain consists of a multitude of cells (neurons) immersed in a particle of the spiritual that I refer to as nous.

Sentience is associated with the cellular bios; consciousness is associated with the cephalic nous. All living things are sentient; only multicellular animals possess consciousness. Consciousness allows animals learn to some degree; only humans think. So what can we say about the mind, about the soul?

As animals, we humans behave perceptually. That means most of our time is spend reacting to sensory (name removed by moderator)uts. However humans are the only member of the animal kingdom that can behave rationally, we can think and what makes thinking possible is language. Language is an inherited trait; it is organized in the neuronal circuitry of the brain, thus forms the “material” aspect of the mind. Only humans have symbolic language; only humans have minds. Language and other symbols are stored in the neuronal circuits; “meaning” and “qualia” are stored in the nous. Thus the mind is the interface between the material brain and the spiritual nous. The mechanism that links the material and the spiritual is a form of the holonomic mechanism described in the thread referenced above. The human’s ability to manipulate symbols (mainly words) to extract meaning from the nous then to act is called free will. Free will allows a person to control perceptual behavior and to act rationally and even transcendently. In addition to the ability of the nous to store meanings and qualia, it also deals with concepts and abstractions. As a result, the nous takes on a form unique to each individual; we call this unique form: the soul. Only humans have souls.

So, in my view, there is no direct connection between sentience and the soul. Sentience is an emergent property of the cells. The soul is an emergent property of the mind, the interface between the material brain and the spiritual nous. (Nous is manifested as consciousness).

Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

I won’t go into how I explain life on the basis of my model,

But please DO try to find the time and place.

{gotta love people who can actually make sense.}

 

[archistrage]

Warpspeedpetey: I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you said.

Yppop: I believe I understand what you believe, because I have a theory similar to that. However I do disagree with it. I think that you are looking to hard at a ‘melding’ between the physical and spiritual world. I believe that God created the physical world as it is for a purpose in and of itself, that we may come to know him through his love and grace reflected in Nature in its entirety. I agree to a certain extent that there is a spiritual part, not just to all life as you say, but to all of creation.

Archistrage

 

[Just_Lurking]

A fertilized (human) egg receives its soul long before it becomes sentient.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeedpetey: I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you said.

okey doke, i was little confused.