Cogito Ergo Sum

[Mort_Alz]

It’s only a mystery in Cartesian substance dualism, which now has to explain how its purported immaterial thinking substance has a digital interface in the pineal gland.

It would have to explain that only if it could be explained how digital information and electrochemical reactions in the brain ARE THE SAME THING as thinking in the way we experience it.

 

[inocente]

You are approaching a metaphysical problem from an empirical perspective. It is true all learning starts with the senses, and all that you stated lies In the material or physical world although empirical scientists use measurement (math)and scientific principles in their experiments which deals with the second degree of abstraction which you do not seem to understand.

You seem to be telling Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, etc. that they can’t do metaphysics. Aristotle, for instance, held that the mind starts as tabula rasa, a blank slate. Therefore abstractions are not innate, they are abstracted from learning, and so must also start with the senses as there was nothing else on the blank slate.

The five senses are receptors that transmit electrical impulses to the brain via the nervous system. If you observe, change always takes place in a physical medium, eg sound waves, light waves, pressure, and chemical reaction, what the brain does it records these sense impressions which are giving the mind sense data. It is the mind that interprets the data, it gives the data meaning. eg words made up of vowels and consonants which are sounds given meanings. Because the soul is united to the body, the intellect, a power of the soul depends “extrinsically” on the physical for sense data. It is the power of “abstraction” that makes it possible to gain knowledge which is of an non-material nature. You missed this in your reference to the teachings of St.Thomas

As I said, thoughts don’t have mass, they are instead about structure and form, therefore the soul is the form of the body. That is exactly, precisely, what the CCC says.

St.Thomas recognizes the spirituality of the soul by it’s powers, intelligence and volition. Every power has a source, and he reasons that that power is the soul, the form and immanent, animating force of life in the human body. That force, or soul makes man a rational animal, a homo sapien (a knowing man) He also speaks of the 'phantom", an image that forms in the brain from which by the intellectual power of the soul abstracts the idea. This image or phantom Is made up of sense data it seems much like the electrical transmissions and frequencies that form a TV image. By touching the brain with electrodes music was heard. As Thomas might say the brain is like a " tableau raza" (spelling?) meaning “a blank page” eg a blank CD

If you agree with the mind starting as tabula rasa then I don’t understand why you said metaphysics is prohibited from empirical reasoning, since on an empty slate the starting point for all thought cannot be other that sense data.

Whether the mind of a new born is totally tabula rasa is of course controversial. Talk of the soul as the animating force of life also needs dealing with carefully, as we are not animists and generally we believe in metabolism rather than élan vital.

Also there is a fallacy, known as the homunculus fallacy, which supposes a viewer inside our mind who views an internal TV picture. It’s a fallacy because it doesn’t explain how the homunculus sees the internal TV, except by another homunculus inside it’s mind leading to an infinite regress.

Innocente:
The scientific world is under the spell of that nineteenth century mode of thinking originated by Auguste Comte a French philosopher, known as “Positivism” which eliminates all metaphysics from philosophy and restricts scientific knowledge to facts and relations between facts. They say that the scientific method is one of exact mathematical measurement, but things like ontology are of no consequence. Positivism confines itself to the data of experience and it excludes apriori or metaphysical speculations and emphasizes the achievements of science. Positivism is closely connected to empiricism, pragmatism. Auguste Comte deified man as the “Be all, and End all” and denies a personal God. It smacks of humanism,a modern nontheistic, rationalist movement that hold man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct without recourse to supernaturalism.

Positivism was disproved long ago. If one Catholic in every thousand is a scientist, there are a million Catholic scientists in the world. So forget those on this forum who say we must choose between Christianity and science. As I said, I imagine a Catholic neuroscientist would find her science completely compatible with the bible and Aquinas.

 

[inocente]

It would have to explain that only if it could be explained how digital information and electrochemical reactions in the brain ARE THE SAME THING as thinking in the way we experience it.

The only information on the optic nerve is digital. And not even just an MPEG type of compression, since some neurons in the eye fire when seeing horizontals, or verticals, or corners, etc. Similar types of encoding occur for audio, touch, etc.

This isn’t theory, it is known (the exact encoding is not yet known. As a starting point, see the video I posted earlier - bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness)

So the only sense data entering the mind is this digital stream. This is also the case with other mammals (I seem to remember also that the encoding is similar). Therefore if their perception does not depend on an immaterial substance in an immaterial mind, our doesn’t have to either.

 

[Mort_Alz]

The only information on the optic nerve is digital. And not even just an MPEG type of compression, since some neurons in the eye fire when seeing horizontals, or verticals, or corners, etc. Similar types of encoding occur for audio, touch, etc.

This isn’t theory, it is known (the exact encoding is not yet known. As a starting point, see the video I posted earlier - bbc.com/future/story/20141111-the-code-that-may-treat-blindness)

So the only sense data entering the mind is this digital stream. This is also the case with other mammals (I seem to remember also that the encoding is similar). Therefore if their perception does not depend on an immaterial substance in an immaterial mind, our doesn’t have to either.

That’s not the point of dispute. Even unconscious computers perceive things. It is our consciousness of that perception that is not the same as the goings on in the brain.

 

[inocente]

But let’s return to my second simple question: are the Mind and the Soul the same thing?
Or is the mind a function of the soul along with intellect and will?

I gave my answer in post #43, which wasn’t intended to be controversial but turned out that way . Intellect and will are Aristotle/Aquinas categories, so by using those names you’re kind of presupposing their answers.

 

[inocente]

That’s not the point of dispute. Even unconscious computers perceive things. It is our consciousness of that perception that is not the same as the goings on in the brain.

It’s only been 20 years since neuroscience got fMRI scanners. If just a couple of facts from that research has forced a retreat from “the whole mind is immaterial” to “consciousness is immaterial”, then I’m sure we could discuss other research which will force further retreats, until the bubble finally goes plop , but it’s not my thread and I’ve already caused far more controversy than I expected.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ad hominem. Your attempts to suppress the bible and Aquinas on a Catholic forum are very funny.

Why would I suppress Aquinas.

I am only trying to help you see that your chronic policy of using Aquinas (not to mention the CCC)to refute the views of posters in this forum has become tediously transparent, predictable, and self-defeating.

 

[Mort_Alz]

It’s only been 20 years since neuroscience got fMRI scanners. If just a couple of facts from that research has forced a retreat from “the whole mind is immaterial” to “consciousness is immaterial”, then I’m sure we could discuss other research which will force further retreats, until the bubble finally goes plop , but it’s not my thread and I’ve already caused far more controversy than I expected.

I don’t think so. Sometimes, you find literal edges in nature from which it cannot extend any further. Consciousness has properties which matter can never have even if it is arranged the way it is in the brain. It can have speed, direction, magnitude, position, etc. It can have mass, energy, etc. But, even the brain events that coincide and work with the operations of consciousness are just not the same as those operations. A thought can have the property of being true, or false. It can coincide with reality, or not. But a brain event can’t really be false. What does that even mean when you are talking about material? If I’m thinking “Venus’ clouds are mostly made of water.” that thought is false. It does not match reality. But you can’t then say that the corresponding brain event is false? How is it false? The event happened. It occurred in reality. It just can’t have the property of being either true or false. So, something is true of my thought that is not true of the corresponding physical event in my brain.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Also, I don’t think anyone has ever argued that the entire mind is immaterial if you include the brain in your definition of mind. If that “retreat” ever occurred at all, then it happened much earlier than fMRI scanners.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It’s only a mystery in Cartesian substance dualism, which now has to explain how its purported immaterial thinking substance has a digital interface in the pineal gland.

Immaterial or not, how the brain gives rise to consciousness and subjective experience is still an unknown or mystery. There’s currently no scientifically verifiable explanation to account for consciousness.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I don’t think so. Sometimes, you find literal edges in nature from which it cannot extend any further. Consciousness has properties which matter can never have even if it is arranged the way it is in the brain. It can have speed, direction, magnitude, position, etc. It can have mass, energy, etc. But, even the brain events that coincide and work with the operations of consciousness are just not the same as those operations. A thought can have the property of being true, or false. It can coincide with reality, or not. But a brain event can’t really be false. What does that even mean when you are talking about material? If I’m thinking “Venus’ clouds are mostly made of water.” that thought is false. It does not match reality. But you can’t then say that the corresponding brain event is false? How is it false? The event happened. It occurred in reality. It just can’t have the property of being either true or false. So, something is true of my thought that is not true of the corresponding physical event in my brain.

This is a basic but also an excellent point to distinguish between the properties of thought (as aspect of the mind) and the properties of a physical brain.

 

[ynotzap]

You seem to be telling Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, etc. that they can’t do metaphysics

On the contrary that is your opinion.
Innocente:

Aristotle, for instance, held that the mind starts as tabula rasa, a blank slate. Therefore abstractions are not innate, they are abstracted from learning, and so must also start with the senses as there was nothing else on the blank slate.

Something I believe I have been very consistent about,I agree
Innocente:

As I said, thoughts don’t have mass, they are instead about structure and form, therefore the soul is the form of the body. That is exactly, precisely, what the CCC says.

This is the very point I tried to make with you when you referred to the neurons not having much mass etc, trying to get you away from the empirical, and into the metaphysical concepts. I am consistent with this quote.
Innocente:

If you agree with the mind starting as tabula rasa then I don’t understand why you said metaphysics is prohibited from empirical reasoning, since on an empty slate the starting point for all thought cannot be other that sense data.

I never said metaphysics was prohibited from empirical reasoning. What I was emphasizing was it’s absence, the failure of empirical scientists from transcending to the metaphysical. I am emphasizing the element of strict materialism effecting scientific thought that’s why they can’t explain the non-physical phenomenon of thought, the nature of the human soul etc. I always stated the knowledge started from sensing the outside world but it doesn’t stop there. I also emphasized that knowledge comes first from without not from within, we are informed from without
Innocente:

Whether the mind of a new born is totally tabula rasa is of course controversial. Talk of the soul as the animating force of life also needs dealing with carefully, as we are not animists and generally we believe in metabolism rather than élan vital.

St. Thomas Is very specific in his teachings of the spiritual soul being the animating force
in humans. He also teaches of the differences of the material souls of animal, and vegetative life, the animating principle of life. The soul,is the source all the immanent activity in all living things. This again brings out the point i’m trying to make and your leaning in thought is still very much in the physical , (quote) We believe in metabolism rather than elan vital
Innocente:

Also there is a fallacy, known as the homunculus fallacy, which supposes a viewer inside our mind who views an internal TV picture. It’s a fallacy because it doesn’t explain how the homunculus sees the internal TV, except by another homunculus inside it’s mind leading to an infinite regress.

I am not familiar with the meaning of homunculus. Although I can assume that it Is a physical thing. The presentation of what Is sensed Is necessary for the human intellect to abstract the intelligible from the sensible species. That is the power of the intellect in action, a non- physical reality. The reference to a T.V. like picture was used to give St. Thomas’ reference to the phantom, which is made up of sense impressions. There is no infinite regression again that is your opinion based on what you know.
Innocente:

Positivism was disproved long ago. If one Catholic in every thousand is a scientist, there are a million Catholic scientists in the world. So forget those on this forum who say we must choose between Christianity and science. As I said, I imagine a Catholic neuroscientist would find her science completely compatible with the bible and Aquinas.

Positivism is still very strong in the scientific world, it is in the materialistic view that many entertain and live. I agree that a catholic neuroscientist if he or she had a good understanding of scholastic philosophy (St.Thomas’ teachings) and of the Bible would find science compatible, after all, ST. Thomas showed that reason can be synthesized with faith.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think so. Sometimes, you find literal edges in nature from which it cannot extend any further. Consciousness has properties which matter can never have even if it is arranged the way it is in the brain. It can have speed, direction, magnitude, position, etc. It can have mass, energy, etc. But, even the brain events that coincide and work with the operations of consciousness are just not the same as those operations. A thought can have the property of being true, or false. It can coincide with reality, or not. But a brain event can’t really be false. What does that even mean when you are talking about material? If I’m thinking “Venus’ clouds are mostly made of water.” that thought is false. It does not match reality. But you can’t then say that the corresponding brain event is false? How is it false? The event happened. It occurred in reality. It just can’t have the property of being either true or false. So, something is true of my thought that is not true of the corresponding physical event in my brain.

Not sure what you’re getting at. Thoughts don’t have a true or false property. “Wonder what’s for supper” is neither true nor false. Thinking of a glissando on a slide whistle is neither true nor false. If you were limited to only think true thoughts about true reality, your mind would first have to know exactly what true reality is, otherwise it wouldn’t know which thoughts it was prohibited from thinking. Or if all thoughts automatically came with a true/false property, you’d be omniscient, you could just think “the price of Acme Holdings will go up in ten minutes time”, then think “ah, its property is true”, and making a killing.

 

[inocente]

Immaterial or not, how the brain gives rise to consciousness and subjective experience is still an unknown or mystery. There’s currently no scientifically verifiable explanation to account for consciousness.

Careful or you’ll make what’s known as an appeal to ignorance - “we don’t know so it must be X, prove it ain’t so”.

I think the most popular idea, which matches evidence, is that consciousness is a narrative woven by brain areas talking to each other. But it’s early days and the science is very young. Though still a more complete explanation than substance dualism has managed after hundreds of years.

 

[inocente]

This is the very point I tried to make with you when you referred to the neurons not having much mass etc,

Not sure you understood, as I never referred “to the neurons not having much mass”.

In response to you asking “Do thoughts occupy space, have mass?”, I said a neuron in one state has the same mass as in any other state. So no, thoughts don’t occupy space or have mass, since neurons do not change mass.

I never said metaphysics was prohibited from empirical reasoning. What I was emphasizing was it’s absence, the failure of empirical scientists from transcending to the metaphysical. I am emphasizing the element of strict materialism effecting scientific thought that’s why they can’t explain the non-physical phenomenon of thought, the nature of the human soul etc. I always stated the knowledge started from sensing the outside world but it doesn’t stop there. I also emphasized that knowledge comes first from without not from within, we are informed from without

Ever since Francis Bacon there’s been a strict division between natural philosophy (science) and metaphysics. Indeed, when scientists like Hawking or Krauss write books which drift into metaphysics, there are howls of anguish on CAF telling them they must stick to science.

You want them to do the opposite. I think you’re outnumbered.

St. Thomas Is very specific in his teachings of the spiritual soul being the animating force
in humans. He also teaches of the differences of the material souls of animal, and vegetative life, the animating principle of life. The soul,is the source all the immanent activity in all living things. This again brings out the point i’m trying to make and your leaning in thought is still very much in the physical , (quote) We believe in metabolism rather than elan vital

I think he meant spiritual soul in a spiritual sense, but if you’re saying his philosophy on this is teaching, as in religious teaching, then we’ve strayed outside of philosophy.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

It’s only a mystery in Cartesian substance dualism, which now has to explain how its purported immaterial thinking substance has a digital interface in the pineal gland.

Is the theory of consciousness according to Inocente any better? Many atheists, like yourself, fill in the holes with dogma and/or philosophy…no different than many theists. When you can offer scientifically verifiable evidence that explains the hard problem of consciousness then i can take you more seriously.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Not sure what you’re getting at. Thoughts don’t have a true or false property. “Wonder what’s for supper” is neither true nor false. Thinking of a glissando on a slide whistle is neither true nor false. If you were limited to only think true thoughts about true reality, your mind would first have to know exactly what true reality is, otherwise it wouldn’t know which thoughts it was prohibited from thinking. Or if all thoughts automatically came with a true/false property, you’d be omniscient, you could just think “the price of Acme Holdings will go up in ten minutes time”, then think “ah, its property is true”, and making a killing.

Of course thoughts can have properties of truth or falsehood. I never said all mode of thought has it. I only said that matter can never have it.

Let’s use my example thought: “Venus’ clouds are mostly made up of water.” That thought is true or false, no? No omniscience or anything else required in order for that thought to have either property.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Careful or you’ll make what’s known as an appeal to ignorance - “we don’t know so it must be X, prove it ain’t so”.

That’s not my line of thinking at all. I believe that both the materialist side and dualist side have good points and I’m open-minded enough to pull good or strong points from both sides to arrive at tentative conclusions. This is a skill that many are unwilling or unable to do. Any one side taken by itself seems incomplete, in that there are gaps in knowledge or problems that arise that have not been reasonably explained based on empirical evidence and/or logic.

I think the most popular idea, which matches evidence, is that consciousness is a narrative woven by brain areas talking to each other. But it’s early days and the science is very young. Though still a more complete explanation than substance dualism has managed after hundreds of years.

Yes, I also believe that consciousness does not depend on any one area of the brain. I’m also open to the idea that more than the brain is involved, but my adherence to those views vary based on the quantity and quality of the evidence.

 

[yppop]

Let me apologize for recycling the following view of the mind that I posted some time ago. It may answer questions for some of.

*Scientists can’t figure out the mysteries of the brain because they refuse to allow for the presence of a spiritual component existing conterminously with the neurons, the material component. The presence of a spiritual component provides animals with a dual memory: a material memory located in the neuronal circuitry of the brain and a “perceptual” memory located in the spiritual substance called nous. The perceptual memory stores qualia, feelings, emotions, meanings, concepts, and percepts, all of which have a “continuous” nature. Neurons, on the other hand have a “discrete” (individual units) nature. Specific neuronal circuits activate specific areas of the perceptual memory to induce sentient experiences. This phenomena is present in all animals in an increasingly comprehensive way from lowest animal forms to the highest, the human. Sentient experience is the source of most, but not all, of animal behavior. It is manifested as mental activities such as awareness, focus, recognizance, perception and response.The outward manifestation of sentient experience is called consciousness.

At the top rung of the animal hierarchy, humans are distinct from all the rest as the result of the human brain’s language capability, namely, neuronal circuit’s that are organized to respond to symbols (words, notes, and numbers). The language capability of the brain (the material) combines with the perceptual memory of the nous (the spiritual) to form what we call the “mind”. Only humans have minds because only humans have language. We (at least I) do not think without symbols. Thought allows us humans to reflect, contemplate, analyze, conceptualize, create, and rationalize. Because we have a mind and can think, we are the only animal with a soul.

The soul is the form of the nous. Form not in the sense of geometry, but form in the sense of response. The soul is how the perceptual memory “sees” the world, with what emotions, and feelings the perceptional memory responds either to a perception or an action. For example, the soul can be informed by giving or making sacrifices to experience joy. We Catholics believe the response of joy to giving is provided through actual grace. Grace does not act spontaneously; it must be pursued through the mind’s rational search. It is thought, the substance of free will, that informs the soul. It is an ongoing process.

Of course, the mystery of the brain is far more complex than the outline that I’ve just presented. However the mystery can be unraveled in the form of a plausible explanation developed through the use of reason, but not without the premise of hylomorphic duality.

Sandcastles that we make at the beach, that can only be made with wet sand, are an analog for hylomorphism. Water allows the sand to be formed and sand allows the water to be formed just as the soul informs the body and the body informs the soul. Not a perfect analog, but close enough to convey the idea of hylomorphism.

The basis for hylomorphism can be modeled using the two modalities of space, continuous (or analog) that is defined by the real numbers and discrete (or digital)
that is defined by the rational numbers.
*
Yppop

 

[ynotzap]

Not sure you understood, as I never referred “to the neurons not having much mass”.

Your post #47 [music encoded in neurons and again weighing nothing…] How do you explain neurons existing in the material world not having some characteristic of matter and weighing nothing? How can you know of it’s existence if not empirically, which deals with the characteristics of matter? Things physical and spiritual can be known by their effects on matter and on non-matter. This is a method of reasoning called “aposteriori” from effect to cause used in the proof for the existence of God. You would think that empirical scientists would know this and apply it metaphysically to non-material realities, they make technological advances but still remain in the dark.
Innocente:

In response to you asking “Do thoughts occupy space, have mass?”, I said a neuron in one state has the same mass as in any other state. So no, thoughts don’t occupy space or have mass, since neurons do not change mass.

Are you saying that thoughts are made up of neurons?
Innocente:

Ever since Francis Bacon there’s been a strict division between natural philosophy (science) and metaphysics. Indeed, when scientists like Hawking or Krauss write books which drift into metaphysics, there are howls of anguish on CAF telling them they must stick to science.

You want them to do the opposite. I think you’re outnumbered.

No, not the opposite, but to include the metaphysical and not just theirs’ Do you think they are prejudiced about scholastic philosophy? Do you understand why what you call “howls of anguish” from CAF members exist? Prejudice and bias are real obstacles to knowing the truth If we can sit down and counter why certain philosophical arguments are not logical or true, then you can give them some credibility, of course this goes for both sides. Does such a situation exist, I strongly doubt it. I like the statement " The truth is still the truth if no one believes it, and a lie is still a lie if everyone believes it."
Innocente:

I think he meant spiritual soul in a spiritual sense, but if you’re saying his philosophy on this is teaching, as in religious teaching, then we’ve strayed outside of philosophy.

No, he meant spiritual soul in metaphysical way. He dealt with the nature of the soul from objective reality, logic and self-evident truths. Now the knowledge is of a spiritual nature, a non-physical reality. It is proof from reason, not faith even though the findings agree with faith. If it is true, which I understand it to be, then that agreement is no surprise since truth has the same Author. There is no straying outside of scholastic philosophy.