Can there be a Mind Without Parts (From "the one fact..." thread)

[TruthSeeker60]

No, it isn’t. In the position I am defending God is defined as simple. There is no definition of the universe from any position (much less one you are defending) where it by default bears the trait of self-causation. Also, many philosophers would object a self-causing universe is incoherent while a simple but necessary being isn’t.

Whether or not anyone has defined the universe as being self-generating has little bearing on whether or not the “thing” that people commonly call “the universe” actually is self-generating. Note: I want to make it clear that I’m not claiming the universe is self-generating, because I don’t claim to know how the universe began.

The point is that is a noun is defined a certain way, that noun cannot justifiably be said to exist unless one demonstrates that something with all those characteristics in that definition is demonstrated to exist.

TruthSeeker60;7801369:

If, like you, someone wants to include “a mind without parts” as part of the definition of a “god”, one would have to demonstrate that that being exists as it is defined before proposing it as an explanation for organized complexity.

No you wouldn’t, because demonstrating it as an explanation is part of demonstrating it exists. If I followed your logic I couldn’t accept the existence of many things, including the big bang and plate tectonics.

The words I just typed above answer this sufficiently well, so I’ll repeat them. The point is that is a noun is defined a certain way, that noun cannot justifiably be said to exist unless one demonstrates that something with all those characteristics in that definition is demonstrated to exist.

Now the big bang and plate tectonics may be justifiably accepted because what we mean by those words has been demonstrated to certain degrees of certainty.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

:takethat: TS60 is so much fail. I hope some Steubenville student will straighten him out and get him out of this atheist madness.

If you think that I’m such a fail, you could try to demonstrate it by having a rational discussion rather than making a personal attack by merely asserting it.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

If the mind does have parts it should be possible to specify what those parts are, how they are related to one another and how they function in conjunction! Until we are presented with that information we are justified in believing the mind is an invisible and indivisible entity without parts or particles…

Do you think that any progress has been made in studying the brain…Oh wait, you asserted earlier in this thread that a mind is not a brain, but an entity that uses the brain. You did this without giving any verifiable evidence that such an intangible thing exists!

Instead, you blabbed about words that you like to vaguely throw around.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

My point has been the following:

Even if organized complexity in the universe demonstrates that there is some sort of a designer of the universe (see the fine tuning argument), one who claims that the designer of the universe is “a mind without parts” needs to demonstrate that the designer of the universe is “a mind without parts”.

The same goes for one who asserts that the designer of the universe is an “uncaused cause” or an “undesigned designer”.

 

[tonyrey]

*If the mind does have parts it should be possible to specify what those parts are, how they are related to one another and how they function in conjunction! Until we are presented with that information we are justified in believing the mind is an invisible and indivisible entity without parts or particles…
*

In other words you are claiming to be very brainy but mindless! No wonder you have failed to explain what the parts of the mind are…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t have to answer your ridiculous, never-ending questions about words that you vaguely throw around because I’ve identified a fallacy in your thinking, and if you’re going to assert that the mind is an intangible entity, the onus is on you to demonstrate it.

I apologise for having forgotten that “you” don’t have to answer any questions regarding your assumptions because “you” have explained in great detail to everyone’s satisfaction how your brain is the sum total of what “you” possess" - ignoring the fact that the term “you” is not generally identified with a** body**…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I suppose that depends on what one means by “exist.”

What do you mean when you use the word “exist”, and how do you determine whether or not a thing does, in fact, exist?

The word exists means to be. I determine that things exist the same ways everyone else does. But no matter how I make my determinations. That still doesn’t make existence logically dependent on being “detectable in nature”.

 

[Pieman333272]

Now the big bang and plate tectonics may be justifiably accepted because what we mean by those words has been demonstrated to certain degrees of certainty.

You claim we can’t plug God in where we find him necessary without first proving a being with His traits exists. If I applied that logic to plate tectonics and the big bang, I would have to reject them or at least be agnostic because I can’t plug them in where they are necessary to explain things (which is the strongest evidence for both) without first proving them by other means. This is not a strawman. This is what your argument becomes if it is extended to obvious facts.

Also, this brings back my point that not every trait of God’s needs to be demonstrated in the natural world to be possible.

 

[Pieman333272]

My point has been the following:

Even if organized complexity in the universe demonstrates that there is some sort of a designer of the universe (see the fine tuning argument), one who claims that the designer of the universe is “a mind without parts” needs to demonstrate that the designer of the universe is “a mind without parts”.

How about this:
The designer of the universe must be outside the universe at all times. Since the universe, by definition, encompasses all material and energy, the designer must be immaterial. Since the designer must have been at least somewhat intelligent in order to do it all right, he must have a mind. Since he is both immaterial and has a mind, he is a spirit, and lacks parts.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7805491:

Do you think that any progress has been made in studying the brain…Oh wait, you asserted earlier in this thread that a mind is not a brain, but an entity that uses the brain. You did this without giving any verifiable evidence that such an intangible thing exists!

Instead, you blabbed about words that you like to vaguely throw around.

In other words you are claiming to be very brainy but mindless!

No. If you actually comprehended what I wrote, you would have understood that my point was that you made the assertion for an intangible entity that uses the brain without providing a shred of evidence!

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7805375:

I don’t have to answer your ridiculous, never-ending questions about words that you vaguely throw around because I’ve identified a fallacy in your thinking, and if you’re going to assert that the mind is an intangible entity, the onus is on you to demonstrate it.

I apologise for. . .]

You should apologize for setting up and attacking so many straw men in various discussions with me.

“you” don’t have to answer any questions regarding your assumptions

You haven’t mentioned any assumptions I’ve made that are actually relevant to the point I’m making on this topic.

because “you” have explained in great detail to everyone’s satisfaction how your brain is the sum total of what “you” possess"

I haven’t even attempted to demonstrate that the brain is all there is, but rather I have made the point that there is no reason to assume the existence of an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain, without evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

The word exists means to be.

I hate to be pedantic, but this doesn’t tell me much. “Be” and “exist” are both usually defined by using each other. Perhaps it would be more useful to look at how you determine whether or not a thing exists…

I determine that things exist the same ways everyone else does.

Which is…

But no matter how I make my determinations. That still doesn’t make existence logically dependent on being “detectable in nature”.

If by “be” or “exist” one means “manifests in reality in some detectable way,” then it does.

This discussion started by you claiming that “G-d is . . .] the literal act of existence” (post 2). The way that most people would understand the phrase “act of existence,” this would mean, “G-d is everything that is,” which would just be conflating the word “god” with the word “universe”.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7805472:

Now the big bang and plate tectonics may be justifiably accepted because what we mean by those words has been demonstrated to certain degrees of certainty.

You claim we can’t plug God in where we find him necessary without first proving a being with His traits exists. If I applied that logic to plate tectonics and the big bang, I would have to reject them or at least be agnostic because I can’t plug them in where they are necessary to explain things

You would have to reject and/or be agnostic about plate tectonics and the big bang if there has not been sufficient evidence found to justify them. If, on the other hand, sufficient evidence has been found, then one aught to accept plate tectonics and the big bang to the degree that they are supported by evidence.

So far, there is good enough evidence for plate tectonics and the big bang for the overwhelming majority of scientists to accept it due to evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

I haven’t even attempted to demonstrate that the brain is all there is, but rather I have made the point that there is no reason to assume the existence of an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain, without evidence.

There is no reason to assume the mind does not exist…

 

[Pieman333272]

You would have to reject and/or be agnostic about plate tectonics and the big bang if there has not been sufficient evidence found to justify them. If, on the other hand, sufficient evidence has been found, then one aught to accept plate tectonics and the big bang to the degree that they are supported by evidence.

So far, there is good enough evidence for plate tectonics and the big bang for the overwhelming majority of scientists to accept it due to evidence.

But even then, the evidence is circumstantial. Plate tectonics and the BB may be the best explanation for the questions they address (which correlate to the circumstantial evidence), but but under your logic we need to directly prove them before we can plug them in.

 

[tonyrey]

No. If you actually comprehended what I wrote, you would have understood that my point was that you made the assertion for an intangible entity that uses the brain without providing a shred of evidence!

If you actually comprehended what I wrote you would have understood that my point was - and is - that you have made the assertion that the mind does not exist without providing a shred of evidence…

You have continued to ignore the fact that the term “you” is not generally identified with a** body**…

And you have failed to explain how the lump of tissue inside your skull does everything that is attributed to the mind - such as grasp abstract ideas and control itself.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7805645:

My point has been the following:

Even if organized complexity in the universe demonstrates that there is some sort of a designer of the universe (see the fine tuning argument

), one who claims that the designer of the universe is “a mind without parts” needs to demonstrate that the designer of the universe is “a mind without parts”.

The same goes for one who asserts that the designer of the universe is an “uncaused cause” or an “undesigned designer”.

How about this:
The designer of the universe must be outside the universe at all times. Since the universe, by definition, encompasses all material and energy, the designer must be immaterial. Since the designer must have been at least somewhat intelligent in order to do it all right, he must have a mind. Since he is both immaterial and has a mind, he is a spirit, and lacks parts.

I commend you for trying to demonstrate what you believe. I think it shows that you agree with my point that one must demonstrate one’s own claim of a proposed designer of the universe being simple. However, there are some assumptions here:

Even if organized complexity of all matter and energy (or “the universe”) somehow proved that all matter and energy were designed, we don’t know what non-material, non-energy entities that actually exist independent of minds would be like. In other words, we cannot assume that a non-material, non-energy being lacks parts. We need to know enough about it before concluding that it does, indeed, lack parts.

I say “independent of minds” in case someone wanted to get into a discussion about abstracts.

What you wrote also says that the designer is a conscious, or intelligent designer on the assumption that the universe was done right. What might a universe that was made wrong look like? The universe we live in is extremely hostile to life with exceptions a tiny percentage of the time. What if every universe that could exist does, and the mere fact that we exist just means that we must already be in one of those universes?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

But even then, the evidence is circumstantial. Plate tectonics and the BB may be the best explanation for the questions they address (which correlate to the circumstantial evidence), but but under your logic we need to directly prove them before we can plug them in.

I’m no geologist, cosmologist, or physicist, but plate tectonics and the big bang have been verified by positive evidence for those hypotheses, not just circumstantial evidence.

I think one thing you may have been attempting to address has to do with evidence for models (or principles) versus evidence for entities. Would you say that that is accurate?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7808313:

I have made the point that there is no reason to assume the existence of an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain, without evidence.

There is no reason to assume the mind does not exist…

You are claiming that an intangible, conscious entity which uses the brain, exists. The onus is on you to demonstrate that such a thing exists.

 

[tonyrey]

You are claiming that an intangible, conscious entity which uses the brain, exists. The onus is on you to demonstrate that such a thing exists.

You are expert at making yourself invulnerable because you claim the onus is on you to demonstrate nothing as if everything is self-evident! Has it not occurred to you that your rejection of the mind (which you have signally failed to define) is equivalent to regarding the body as the sum total of what is called the self?

And - once again - you have failed to explain how the lump of tissue inside your skull does everything that is attributed to the mind - such as grasp abstract ideas and control itself.