R
- Status
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Oh good comeback. That’s me shot down in flames.
R
RobNY
Guest
The human soul is the human soul precisely because it ordinarily requires the human body for its function.
This is all beside the point.
Is this meant to be a conclusion from what is above?
-Rob
R
RobNY
Guest
I was being punny up above. Let me explain.
The ‘genetic fallacy’ is literally the error of taking something’s origin as a reason to discredit it. For instance, someone might say, “oh, I’m a vegetarian!” And you could respond, “well, Hitler and the Nazis invented vegetarianism!” Uh, ok. Regardless, it obvious has no direct relation to the moral standing of vegetarianism.
Even if we should suppose that genes are a causally complete explanation for why an intellect now exists, it does not follow that the intellect is “in the genes” in any relevant sense. It was caused by the genes, if that is the case, but it isn’t “in them” and certainly isn’t identical with them.
Regardless of the origin of the intellect-- even if we assume the intellect is wholly the product of a billions-year-long evolutionary process-- it is a separate question what its nature is.
-Rob
I
inocente
Guest
I once read an article in a science magazine, only a speculation and probably wrong, but very entertaining.
It said that our reasoning is not particularly rational. When we do 2 + 6, we don’t use registers like a computer, we just know that symbol 2 and symbol 6 relate to symbol 8 because we learned that back at school.
= We learn rules that make us appear rational.
Plus, the different regions of the brain work in parallel, each having their own thoughts. Feedback between them makes corrections and develops the thoughts. When that isn’t enough, for example with me now trying to explain this idea, particular thoughts are promoted into the conscious. The conscious picks the most useful take and that feeds back to the other regions. Consciousness is needed to learn something but then we can do it unconsciously (like driving home listening to the radio, and then not remembering anything about the journey).
= The mind is a community - “I” don’t really exist as such, “I” is an illusion.
Probably wrong, but entertaining to think of the mind (soul?) as a selfless community.
G
grannymh
Guest
Bingo!
G
grannymh
Guest
The real question is what is human nature. The origin of the intellect is not a separate nature. Human nature is a profound and unique unification of the rational/corporeal.
G
grannymh
Guest
Here’s a bit of water to cool those flames from post 20.Oh good comeback. That’s me shot down in flames.
This sentence is one that has a lot going for it. “The human intelligence is in human bodies because that is the only place it can be. Desks, cars, paintings and computers can’t multiply. A painting needs a painter. A car needs an engineer, a desk needs a carpenter and a computer needs a programmer.”
When one keeps going with those thoughts, the result is – The human person is the pinnacle of all creatures.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is sacred.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
The human being is cowardly, grasping, rapacious, egotistical, irrasicible, self serving, agressive, violent, vindictive and cruel. Our intelligence only makes us more efficient when it comes to destruction. We are creatures of action, the age old excuse for not stopping to think.
How you can think that we are the pinnacle of all creatures is absolutely beyond me. Even the planet Venus, a Miltonian hell hole, has one aspect of paradise about it. No humans.
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
If this is the best you can do, I can fully understand why you don’t expect to find any intelligence residing in the human brain.
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
Actually, the two times you’ve posted in this thread amounted to nothing more than a rant. No one would take those posts seriously, too bad you’re the only one who’s not aware of thatIf this is the best you can do, I can fully understand why you don’t expect to find any intelligence residing in the human brain.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
It’s hardly my fault if you can’t see the point I’m trying to make. Let me spell it out for you in the form of a couple of questions.
- What possible grounds are there for thinking that human intelligence or anything about humans is supernatural when we are physically and in behaviour just like any other mammal?
- What possible reason can there be for thinking the human race is divine when we are perfectly capable of the most atrotious behaviour imaginable?
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
Humans have the same behaviour as any other mammal?
I could point out how obviously ridiculous that thought is, but I have a policy about NOT feeding the trolls
G
grannymh
Guest
I’m definitely crossing off the planet Venus from my travel schedule – no humans, no fun.
One way to get to the pinnacle of all creatures is to do a comparison study between creatures. Personally, I like to refer to my cousin Chilly Chimp who is one of the smartest beings I know. Though I have heard nasty things about chimps, Chilly is a peach of a father.
Suppose there is a raging forest fire like the ones which get out of control on the west coast. What could animals, like chimps do? Run would be the first instinct. The experienced chimps would know which routes would be quickest. The wise chimps would know which routes would be safer. Chilly, who cares for his family might not run. In fact, Chilly might turn back to get his family out of the way of uncontrollable flames and then prod them to take the best escape route.
Back to the raging fire. A man could have the same reactions to the fire as my cousin, Chilly Chimp. The difference is that humans have intellect and will. In layman’s terms, the human intellect sees the bigger picture. Our intelligence is not limited by instincts associated with our material anatomy.
Thus, looking at the bigger picture, humans can choose to be fire fighters and save lives and property. Could a chimp, on its own, devise and deliberately set backfires?
Or a person can choose to be self serving, violent, vindictive, cruel, and deliberately set a fire to as a grudge. We have the possibility of free will choice as to our actions. Our intelligence may make us more efficient, but at the same time we can choose to be totally inefficient.
Two men looked out from prison bars. One saw mud, the other stars.
Blessings,
granny
Human life is sacred.
G
grannymh
Guest
- It is the process of elimination. If the result is different than what would be expected from a material source, then it has to be immaterial. If something does not reside in the natural, then it would be called supernatural, i.e., something outside of the natural world.
- In his nature, the human person unites the material and spiritual worlds. Calling the human race divine is fish without the chips.
granny
Human life is sacred.
R
RobNY
Guest
inocente,
You’re right, it’s almost certainly wrong.
There are two extreme camps which mirror each other exactly, but I hadn’t seen the scientistic side until you just revealed it to me now.
Some extreme Aristotelians (and I don’t mean unreasonable or crazy, I just mean it’s the position furthest on the spectrum), like contemporary philosopher James Ross, will say that true addition is what intellects perform. What computers do is not addition, merely a simulation of addition.
Some extreme materialists say that it’s only what computers do that is addition-- and since human beings lack the register process, and can do addition without even using the imaginative faculty to break the units down into a group of units of a common size, the extreme materialist concludes that only computers really add-- and human beings merely simulate addition (i.e., fake it)!
It’s rather interesting and somewhat hilarious, to see how each camp is so sure of its position that it excludes the other from the start.
Against Ross, to think or do mathematics seems to be to think or do something purely syntactical. This is surely within the purview of a computer which in fact can only deal with syntactical functions (and not semantics, a la Searle’s Chinese Room).
Against the extreme materialists, they import unduly formal and materialistic criteria for judging what is to count as true ‘addition.’ There is no reason to think that because a computer must do addition in only one way that this is the only true way of doing addition (or even that this counts as a definite advantage). Indeed, the computer is limited because it can only ‘think’ in that specific way, in specific terms. The intellect, on the other hand, can add in many ways. (There is also my point from above, that the computer when said to ‘think’ or ‘add’ does so in the secondary or instrumental sense, just as the abacus does. This is a straightforwardly Aristotelian doctrine which no Catholic, or any other sort of Christian, should be worried about.)
Lastly, and this is just a note to you, the model which you say the science magazine adopts is a very popular materialist/physicalist model of the mind in that it tries to eliminate the “I” or self. It is perhaps somewhat interesting to think about-- I’ve thought enough about it frankly, and am past wondering about it-- but really is mostly monstrous on a more fundamental level. Every Christian should be wary of these contemporary theories which try to eliminate the self.
-Rob
P.S. Can you please refer me to the article, if possible? I’d like to read it and share it with some others. God bless!
You’re right, it’s almost certainly wrong.
There are two extreme camps which mirror each other exactly, but I hadn’t seen the scientistic side until you just revealed it to me now.
Some extreme Aristotelians (and I don’t mean unreasonable or crazy, I just mean it’s the position furthest on the spectrum), like contemporary philosopher James Ross, will say that true addition is what intellects perform. What computers do is not addition, merely a simulation of addition.
Some extreme materialists say that it’s only what computers do that is addition-- and since human beings lack the register process, and can do addition without even using the imaginative faculty to break the units down into a group of units of a common size, the extreme materialist concludes that only computers really add-- and human beings merely simulate addition (i.e., fake it)!
It’s rather interesting and somewhat hilarious, to see how each camp is so sure of its position that it excludes the other from the start.
Against Ross, to think or do mathematics seems to be to think or do something purely syntactical. This is surely within the purview of a computer which in fact can only deal with syntactical functions (and not semantics, a la Searle’s Chinese Room).
Against the extreme materialists, they import unduly formal and materialistic criteria for judging what is to count as true ‘addition.’ There is no reason to think that because a computer must do addition in only one way that this is the only true way of doing addition (or even that this counts as a definite advantage). Indeed, the computer is limited because it can only ‘think’ in that specific way, in specific terms. The intellect, on the other hand, can add in many ways. (There is also my point from above, that the computer when said to ‘think’ or ‘add’ does so in the secondary or instrumental sense, just as the abacus does. This is a straightforwardly Aristotelian doctrine which no Catholic, or any other sort of Christian, should be worried about.)
Lastly, and this is just a note to you, the model which you say the science magazine adopts is a very popular materialist/physicalist model of the mind in that it tries to eliminate the “I” or self. It is perhaps somewhat interesting to think about-- I’ve thought enough about it frankly, and am past wondering about it-- but really is mostly monstrous on a more fundamental level. Every Christian should be wary of these contemporary theories which try to eliminate the self.
-Rob
P.S. Can you please refer me to the article, if possible? I’d like to read it and share it with some others. God bless!
I once read an article in a science magazine, only a speculation and probably wrong, but very entertaining.
It said that our reasoning is not particularly rational. When we do 2 + 6, we don’t use registers like a computer, we just know that symbol 2 and symbol 6 relate to symbol 8 because we learned that back at school.
= We learn rules that make us appear rational.
Plus, the different regions of the brain work in parallel, each having their own thoughts. Feedback between them makes corrections and develops the thoughts. When that isn’t enough, for example with me now trying to explain this idea, particular thoughts are promoted into the conscious. The conscious picks the most useful take and that feeds back to the other regions. Consciousness is needed to learn something but then we can do it unconsciously (like driving home listening to the radio, and then not remembering anything about the journey).
= The mind is a community - “I” don’t really exist as such, “I” is an illusion.
Probably wrong, but entertaining to think of the mind (soul?) as a selfless community.
R
RobNY
Guest
You are confusing ontological hierarchy with moral greatness.
Since human beings, alone among animals, are moral actors, it is no surprise that we are the worst moral actors.
However, in terms of ontological hierarchy, human beings clearly touch the divine inasmuch as they have an intellect, which the rest of the animal kingdom lacks.
It is a very intelligible statement.
-Rob
R
ronnie_bonigli
Guest
What computers do is formalism, blind string manipulation of axioms and rules of inference, just like what a child does once it’s learned how to do long division, that is not intelligence. True intelligence comes in when you step outside the formalism and make an act of understanding. True acts understanding are nonalgorithmic, as Roger Penrose demostrates in The Emperor’s New Mind. For a nice summary of the Godelian argument against formalism displaying intelligence I would recommend Stephen Barr’s Modern Physics and Ancient Faith
R
RobNY
Guest
Ronnie,
I think we’re saying the same thing. Searle speaks of “syntax” and “semantics” which I take to be formal structure and meaning respectively.
What computers do, as I said above is syntax, or formalism (agreeing with you). It’s almost beside the point to note that it is “blind.” If by blind you mean that it lacks the “semantical” aspect, then of course that’s true. But it’s almost pointless, because after all, mathematics simply is purely formal. It doesn’t count against the computer that it does it “blind” because formal structure is the whole of math.
What’s absurd, is to deny that children don’t “do division” because they do it based on a rule based procedure. That it is “blind,” as above, counts not a whit against it.
As in any philosophical theory, what is more evident crowds out what is less evident. If your theory necessitates that we dogmatically rule out that children can ‘do division’ then, quite frankly, it is your theory that is worse for the wear. (And with all due respect… I still do any division beyond the smallest amount ‘long.’
)
I worry that you’re picking the wrong battlefield to die on here, just as earlier we agreed that consciousness was not the right battlefield to die on.
God bless,
-Rob
I think we’re saying the same thing. Searle speaks of “syntax” and “semantics” which I take to be formal structure and meaning respectively.
What computers do, as I said above is syntax, or formalism (agreeing with you). It’s almost beside the point to note that it is “blind.” If by blind you mean that it lacks the “semantical” aspect, then of course that’s true. But it’s almost pointless, because after all, mathematics simply is purely formal. It doesn’t count against the computer that it does it “blind” because formal structure is the whole of math.
What’s absurd, is to deny that children don’t “do division” because they do it based on a rule based procedure. That it is “blind,” as above, counts not a whit against it.
As in any philosophical theory, what is more evident crowds out what is less evident. If your theory necessitates that we dogmatically rule out that children can ‘do division’ then, quite frankly, it is your theory that is worse for the wear. (And with all due respect… I still do any division beyond the smallest amount ‘long.’
)I worry that you’re picking the wrong battlefield to die on here, just as earlier we agreed that consciousness was not the right battlefield to die on.
God bless,
-Rob
- Status