Is nature composed of anything but material objects? If so how do those objects differ from material objects?
If there had been an answer it would be immediately forthcoming but no, only an evasion…
Yet another ad hominem! In a philosophical discussion it really is necessary to refrain making personal remarks which give the impression that one’s argument is so weak it needs to be bolstered.
Commenting upon your demonstrated opinions and prejudices is not an ad hominem. If you don’t want to have your opinions held up to scrutiny, it’s a good idea not to publish them.
Personal remarks are unnecessary and not be found in any rational, objective discussion.
It is an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis that nervous systems understand what they are doing. Electrical impulses are not conscious of themselves, let alone anything else…
We are not even consciously aware of all the functioning of our nervous systems - why would we need to be in order to function?
Nervous systems are not intellectual functions.
The components of a conscious system do not themselves need to be conscious in order to give rise to consciousness.
Petitio principii.
That is the whole point of emergent phenomena.
“emergent” is merely a word to cloak ignorance.
Does a computer need to be able to understand what it is doing in order to compute complex mathematical equations?
An unfortunate analogy because a computer is programmed by an intelligent person.
Natural causes are not “some one” nor do they know what they are doing - unless consciousness is attributed to all natural objects.
We are natural objects that demonstrate consciousness, as are many other animals.
Petitio principii.
Since supernatural entities - like the mind - are not subject to the laws of nature they are not “fixed” like natural objects.
You have yet to substantiate the claim that the mind is a supernatural entity.
The success of science is overwhelming evidence that the mind transcends natural events.
They would be products of the natural causes from which they emerge according to the naturalist hypothesis.
Yes. Again, so what?
Natural events - such as electrical impulses in the brain - have no known mechanism for enabling themselves to know or understand what they are doing.
Perceptions of the external world are only one factor in mental activity. We are not passive, impotent recipients of stimuli control all our behaviour
.
We are active processors of stimuli. This does not mean our behaviour has anything other than natural causes.
We are far more than processors - which are programmed to carry out instructions
mechanically.
A sane person has an interior existence in addition to stimuli from beyond the mind.
And do you think this interior existence is independent of physical phenomena?
The power of the mind is adequate evidence that it is independent of physical phenomena. A machine operator doesn’t need a machine in order to exist, nor does a person need a collection of atomic particles - or a lump of tissue inside the skull - in order to be conscious, have insight and make decisions.
They would be products determined by the natural causes from which they emerge.
Which doesn’t sit well with the notion that minds are supernatural entities in and of themselves, but does not diminish their effectiveness in the context of the natural world in which we exist.
Which doesn’t sit well with the notion that minds are brains in and of themselves - which are totally ineffective when it comes to being conscious, having insight and making decisions in any context.
We would have the illusion that they are new but we would still have no original part to play we would be cogs in a machine and if all our behaviour would be determined.
And so the problem is that we don’t have contra-causal free will?
The insurmountable problem is we would be nothing more than impotent biological machines without the ability to think or choose for ourselves.
With the power of rational activity which all persons possess in stark contrast to impersonal objects.
You have not explained how a brainless mind can even generate thought, let alone how a nonphysical entity can act to produce a physical universe…
It has not been explained how a mindless brain can generate abstract thoughts, let alone how a multitude of inanimate particles can swirl around fortuitously and produce not only a physical universe but also rational beings - who have to a large extent the power to understand and control not only themselves but many physical events as well…
The laws of nature are descriptive - and prescriptive in the sense that they are not fortuitous but a rational basis for life and personal existence in the universe.
You imply that life and “personal existence”, whatever that means, were the result of prior planning, yet cannot substantiate such a claim.
It is understandable that a materialist who thinks only in terms of impersonal entities cannot understand the meaning of “personal existence” or the overwhelming evidence that materialism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the immense richness, value and beauty of nature and personal existence.
The anthropic principle tends to make us think that the reason for physical laws being the way they are must have been, ultimately, to produce beings like us - but the truth of it is that were physical laws not the way they are, we would not be here to contemplate them.
The ratiocentric principle is the only rational and comprehensive explanation of the intelligibility and the power of insight into the nature of the universe.
The truth liberates us from the tyranny of natural causes.
And which version of “the truth” might that be?
There is only one truth - that which corresponds to both spiritual and physical reality - but the truth itself (like persons) transcends physical reality.
The only impotent persons are those who believe they are animals dominated by instinct but even they are necessarily inconsistent because it is impossible for them to live exactly like animals unless their minds are unbalanced…
Nonphysical “persons”, if there could even be any such thing, are necessarily impotent in a physical universe. By definition.
Embodied persons are necessarily more powerful than impersonal bodies because their power is not derived from physical energy but spiritual energy which is the ultimate source of all energy because it is not irrational.
If we are of the same stuff as the world we are a part of the world and utterly dominated by the physical energy and forces like everything else.
We are completely embedded within the physical universe. What could you possibly mean by the notion that we are “dominated” by every other physical phenomenon, and utterly passive as physical beings in our own right? It’s obvious from this that your thinking on the subject is dominated by the idea that “persons” are a separate and special reality that actually has nothing to do with the physical universe, but must be either completely independent of it or completely ruled by it. This is a false dichotomy.
The only false dichotomy is that existing in the mind of the blinkered materialist who sees everything in terms of matter and is incapable of grasping the possibility of any other form of existence and dominated by the idea that impersonal particles are the sole reality with everything being merely a manifestation of impersonal particles.
On that reckoning matter is all-powerful because nothing else exists and we are no more than components of the universal machine. There is nothing to differentiate us from any other object apart from our awareness of our impotence in the face of inscrutable fate…
But on your reckoning, aren’t we impotent in the face of an inscrutable god? According to your argument, our only choice is that of which despot we prefer.
One’s knowledge of Christianity is obviously defective if it is thought to teach that we are powerless to choose what to think and how to live - which is more appropriate to the iron grip of inscrutable matter which determines every single thought, feeling, decision and action.
But that is not what we observe or experience. We function within the world, and effect change in our environment. This doesn’t mean we are independent of the world, by any means; but it also indicates that we are not merely passive receptacles or automata. By definition, components of a machine have a role to play in the functioning of a machine. We are part of the causal web, not ineffectual ephemera that play no part in our own lives.
To be part of the materialist’s causal web is to be totally dependent - like flies caught in a spider’s web - and utterly helpless in the face of inscrutable fate which allows us to play no part at all in insignificant lives (which are not even ours) before we disappear forever into the pointless eternal darkness from which we came - yet we magically and tragically realise before we become extinct that everything we love and cherish amounts to precisely… nothing…
) the meaning of meaning… the question, I guess, remains what the soul is - I suppose ideas indicating a sort of alternative substance are somewhat overly limiting to correspond with Catholic ideas exactly, but it’s still not quite animism, which indicates all corporeal objects to have spiritual entity, doesn’t it?!?