Are we persons or particles?

[tonyrey]

Persons don’t exist as far as science is concerned but most scientists believe in human rights. So how do we fit into the atomic scheme of** things**?

Materialists believe we are composed of particles and nothing else. They use their mind to prove their mind doesn’t exist. A bizarre enterprise! Surely the truth is that we have a mind as well as a brain. Our brain is composed of particles but we are more than particles. Particles are not conscious or rational or purposeful but we are. They don’t have a right to life but we do.

 

[GEddie]

Persons don’t exist as far as science is concerned but most scientists believe in human rights. So how do we fit into the atomic scheme of** things**?

Materialists believe we are composed of particles and nothing else. They use their mind to prove their mind doesn’t exist. A bizarre enterprise! Surely the truth is that we have a mind as well as a brain. Our brain is composed of particles but we are more than particles. Particles are not conscious or rational or purposeful but we are. They don’t have a right to life but we do.

I have never heard a materialist say that “the mind does not exist”. In all fairness though, I don’t know that many materialists.

Most materialists would say that yes, we do have a mind, but it is part of the mortal body (i.e. the brain) rather than a faculty of an ongoing soul. In materialism, when your head stops working, it’s just sleepy time for good. In the Christian view, your mind will be reawakened when you are reassembled in Heaven.

We are more than particles; but we need the particles in order to be HUMAN persons. We are not spirits, nor intended to be. We will lose the particles, which belong to time and entropy; but in Eternity we will be fitted with something better. “There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1Co 15).

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Persons don’t exist as far as science is concerned but most scientists believe in human rights. So how do we fit into the atomic scheme of** things**?

Materialists believe we are composed of particles and nothing else. They use their mind to prove their mind doesn’t exist. A bizarre enterprise! Surely the truth is that we have a mind as well as a brain. Our brain is composed of particles but we are more than particles.

Not all materialists. As I have said many times, I don’t believe particles and nothing else or supernatural deities are the only two possible options.

Our mind is an emergent phenomenon. We are particles, that much is true. We are also an emergent process. Evidence for this is that if that processes is interrupted it can never be re-established and we die. Each one of us is a transitional phase in a process that has been uninterrupted for billions of years.

To me, that is far more beautiful, more humbling and more life affirming than a dogmatic adherence to a collection of iron age stories about a megalomaniacal creator performing alchemy and parthenogenesis with rib bones and dust.

 

[JDaniel]

Persons don’t exist as far as science is concerned but most scientists believe in human rights. So how do we fit into the atomic scheme of** things**?

Materialists believe we are composed of particles and nothing else. They use their mind to prove their mind doesn’t exist. A bizarre enterprise! Surely the truth is that we have a mind as well as a brain. Our brain is composed of particles but we are more than particles. Particles are not conscious or rational or purposeful but we are. They don’t have a right to life but we do.

Tony:

Well, it would appear that some composites have a greater capability to reciprocate than other composites. I suppose that’s why they have greater portion of inured rights. It is very interesting that the proportionately smaller the composite the proportionately smaller the inured rights become. E.g., adult humans, it appears, have the maximum quantity and quality of rights. Small children have less value and, therefore, a smaller portion of rights. The smaller yet a child is, and he/she has no rights - except and unless the mother’s rights are trampled upon and he/she happens to be in too close a proximity.

I guess I would tend to believe that we are just particles, based upon the disparate treatment.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

I have never heard a materialist say that “the mind does not exist”. In all fairness though, I don’t know that many materialists.

Most materialists would say that yes, we do have a mind, but it is part of the mortal body (i.e. the brain) rather than a faculty of an ongoing soul.

Plenty of materialists say the mind is just the activity of the brain and thoughts are produced by neural impulses. In other words they believe we are biological machines and no more than that! They don’t regard the mind as an entity…

 

[JDaniel]

Plenty of materialists say the mind is just the activity of the brain and thoughts are produced by neural impulses. In other words they believe we are biological machines and no more than that! They don’t regard the mind as an entity…

We are merely functional aggregates. I have first order faith that we’re more than that.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

Our mind is an emergent phenomenon.

That does not explain what the mind actually is…

We are particles, that much is true.

The question is whether we are just particles.

We are also an emergent process. Evidence for this is that if that processes is interrupted it can never be re-established and we die.

You are assuming that physical death terminates our existence.

Each one of us is a transitional phase in a process that has been uninterrupted for billions of years.

That tells us nothing about the origin and cause of the process or why it has been steadily progressive.

To me, that is far more beautiful, more humbling and more life affirming than a dogmatic adherence to a collection of iron age stories about a megalomaniacal creator performing alchemy and parthenogenesis with rib bones and dust.

The notion that purposeless, inanimate dust has magically produced rational beings with a capacity for love is the ugliest soul-destroying fantasy one can imagine because it destroys the meaning, value and purpose of life by reducing us to fortuitous combinations of particles which have appeared for no reason whatsoever…

 

[Several_Flies]

“We” as individuals aren’t particles, we are made up of particles. Just like everything else that is made up of particles, but they aren’t particles since a particle is a smaller fraction of something divisible.

We are persons, and persons are made up of particles.

Not sure what the great drama is here.

 

[tonyrey]

We are merely functional aggregates. I have first order faith that we’re more than that.

God bless,
jd

jd, your faith is justified. A person is an entity rather than an aggregate which lacks unity, continuity, autonomy and purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

“We” as individuals aren’t particles, we are made up of particles. Just like everything else that is made up of particles, but they aren’t particles since a particle is a smaller fraction of something divisible.

We are persons, and persons are made up of particles.

Not sure what the great drama is here.

How could a collection of particles be aware of themselves and control themselves?

 

[Moonstruck888]

That does not explain what the mind actually is…

No one can explain that.

The question is whether we are just particles.

Particles and energy, yes. That is what we are.

You are assuming that physical death terminates our existence.

I’ve yet to talk to a dead person who could falsify that hypothesis.

That tells us nothing about the origin and cause of the process or why it has been steadily progressive.

It hasn’t been steadily progressive.

The notion that purposeless, inanimate dust has magically produced rational beings with a capacity for love is the ugliest soul-destroying fantasy one can imagine because it destroys the meaning, value and purpose of life by reducing us to fortuitous combinations of particles which have appeared for no reason whatsoever…

Why? What’s so big about love? Biochemically, feeling love is no different from eating a chocolate bar or having a very satisfying sneeze.

 

[tonyrey]

That does not explain what the mind actually is…

Precisely!

The question is whether we are just particles.

Particles and energy, yes. That is what we are.

How do you reach that dogmatic conclusion when you cannot even explain what the mind actually is?

You are assuming that physical death terminates our existence.

I’ve yet to talk to a dead person who could falsify that hypothesis.

Do you believe only what you can see, hear, taste, smell and touch?

That tells us nothing about the origin and cause of the process or why it has been steadily progressive.

It hasn’t been steadily progressive.

If it had been unsteady you wouldn’t be here to come to that conclusion!

The notion that purposeless, inanimate dust has magically produced rational beings with a capacity for love is the ugliest soul-destroying fantasy one can imagine because it destroys the meaning, value and purpose of life by reducing us to fortuitous combinations of particles which have appeared for no reason whatsoever…

Why? What’s so big about love? Biochemically, feeling love is no different from eating a chocolate bar or having a very satisfying sneeze.

Your reduction of love to a biochemical reaction confirms my conclusion that your hypothesis deprives life of meaning, value and purpose. Thank you very much!

 

[Moonstruck888]

How do you reach that dogmatic conclusion when you cannot even explain what the mind actually is?

Because everything in the Universe is matter and energy, and minds, explicable or not, are in the Universe.

Do you believe only what you can see, hear, taste, smell and touch?

In a way. I believe we can invent and build prosthetic sensory devices that can enhance our five natural senses.

If it had been unsteady you wouldn’t be here to come to that conclusion!

There have been at least three mass extinctions that I know of. Indeed an estimated 99% of all the organisms that have ever existed are extinct, so no, it certainly has not been a steady progression.

Your reduction of love to a biochemical reaction confirms my conclusion that your hypothesis deprives life of meaning, value and purpose. Thank you very much!

That totally depends what you find meaningful and valuable. I don’t need a stern father figure to tell me what to value. I don’t need a cathecism of superstitious assertions to assign meaning.

I don’t need to live vicariously. I can manage without invisible crutches to hold me up.

 

[lemondiesel]

How could a collection of particles be aware of themselves and control themselves?

The same way A atom(s) “know” to bond to B atom(s).

 

[edwest2]

Persons don’t exist as far as science is concerned but most scientists believe in human rights. So how do we fit into the atomic scheme of** things**?

Materialists believe we are composed of particles and nothing else. They use their mind to prove their mind doesn’t exist. A bizarre enterprise! Surely the truth is that we have a mind as well as a brain. Our brain is composed of particles but we are more than particles. Particles are not conscious or rational or purposeful but we are. They don’t have a right to life but we do.

That persons exist is obvious, regardless of what scientists think. The error occurs when scientists use their titles and knowledge to deny the identity of man in his fullness. The present problem is scientists injecting purely speculative and ideological conclusions into biology textbooks as opposed to simply sticking with facts.

Our physical composition cannot be fully described by science.

God bless,
Ed

 

[tonyrey]

How do you reach that dogmatic conclusion when you cannot even explain what the mind actually is?

You making at least two assumptions:

1. There is nothing but the** physical** universe.
2. Minds have a **physical **origin.

Do you believe only what you can see, hear, taste, smell and touch?

In a way. I believe we can invent and build prosthetic sensory devices that can enhance our five natural senses.

Does our power of invention come from our senses? If so how?

If it had been unsteady you wouldn’t be here to come to that conclusion!

There have been at least three mass extinctions that I know of. Indeed an estimated 99% of all the organisms that have ever existed are extinct, so no, it certainly has not been a steady progression.

Progress is not determined by the percentage of extinctions but by the degree of development. By any standards the transformation of a simple cell into a person is an incredible achievement. The very fact that despite all the odds life has survived on a violent, catastrophic planet is formidable evidence that it is not fortuitous.

Your reduction of love to a biochemical reaction confirms my conclusion that your hypothesis deprives life of meaning, value and purpose. Thank you very much!

That totally depends what you find meaningful and valuable. I don’t need a stern father figure to tell me what to value.

You are changing the subject. If all human activity is the result of meaningless, valueless and purposeless biochemical reactions life is also meaningless, valueless and purposeless. Your valuations are futile attempts to impose value on that which is valueless. Not only that. In “your” scheme of things “your” valuations are not “yours” at all. They are caused by biochemical reactions. In “your” scheme of things “you” are just a cog in the machine of nature and have no choice whatsoever. You think and do what you are compelled to think and do…

I don’t need a cathecism of superstitious assertions to assign meaning.

You don’t need a catechism but you need a rational source of meaning.
Where do you obtain the power to assign meaning?

I don’t need to live vicariously. I can manage without invisible crutches to hold me up.

What do you hold yourself up with? The things you can see, hear, taste, smell and touch?

 

[tonyrey]

How could a collection of particles be aware of themselves and control themselves?

Please explain how atoms know how to bond to other atoms and how they control themselves.

 

[tonyrey]

That persons exist is obvious, regardless of what scientists think. The error occurs when scientists use their titles and knowledge to deny the identity of man in his fullness. The present problem is scientists injecting purely speculative and ideological conclusions into biology textbooks as opposed to simply sticking with facts.

Which is - to use the expression used by Dawkins a propos of religious education - child abuse!

 

[Moonstruck888]

You making at least two assumptions:

1. There is nothing but the** physical** universe.
2. Minds have a **physical **origin.

1. If there was anything else in the Universe than physical, after 14 billion years it would have shown up by now.
2. See (1).

Does our power of invention come from our senses? If so how?

We learn by association, which is based on sensory data.

Progress is not determined by the percentage of extinctions but by the degree of development. By any standards the transformation of a simple cell into a person is an incredible achievement. The very fact that despite all the odds life has survived on a violent, catastrophic planet is formidable evidence that it is not fortuitous.

The basic layout of our physical makeup has hardly changed since the developement of the first eukaryotes. As a matter of fact, 90% of the cells that make up you and I are microbial eukaryotes.

You are changing the subject. If all human activity is the result of meaningless, valueless and purposeless biochemical reactions life is also meaningless, valueless and purposeless. Your valuations are futile attempts to impose value on that which is valueless. Not only that. In “your” scheme of things “your” valuations are not “yours” at all. They are caused by biochemical reactions. In “your” scheme of things “you” are just a cog in the machine of nature and have no choice whatsoever. You think and do what you are compelled to think and do…

ROTFL!!!

I enjoy living and I don’t care two damns about these absurdities. Life is a mystery. Why waste time trying to solve it when you should be living it?

You don’t need a catechism but you need a rational source of meaning.

Not really no. I don’t need a rational source of anything. I don’t know how I was born, how I grew up, how I am now entering middle age and how eventually I will become old and die. I don’t even need to think about these things. The process continues whether I try to rationalize it or not. All I need do to obtain wisdom is to sit and wait.

Where do you obtain the power to assign meaning?

From a system of ethical and moral imprints that have been vouchsafed me by a combination of genetically inherited traits and assimilated life experience.

What do you hold yourself up with? The things you can see, hear, taste, smell and touch?

Why not?

Generally, you find the happiest people are the ones who don’t ask these accursed questions. Contented people are happy to sit around feeling content. Searching high and low for some kind of meaning, in my opinion, reeks of desperation.

 

[Several_Flies]

How could a collection of particles be aware of themselves and control themselves?

Because the collection of said particles form a human person with a brain. The brain also made of particles is the central processing unit that sapience arises from.