Could artificial intelligence be granted a soul?

[Anim8]

Hitetlen:

If the difference cannot be detected - even in principle, then there is NO difference.

So are you saying that if there is no disernable difference then they are one in the same? Or that you just can’t tell the difference? You seem to be posting both ways.

Hitetlen:

Sorry, I missed it. There were too many posts. No, the physically or mentally handicapped are still humans, as long as there is a functioning brain. They may not be as capable as the healthy ones, but they are still fully human.

But if it is our brains that make us who we are then wouldn’t we be less human if what makes us what we are becomes diminished? The logic follows.

Hitetlen:

Our pattern.

Could you please elaborate?

 

[Hitetlen]

Dr. Bonnette:

Correct, but you fail to realize that logic is consequent to metaphysics.

I don’t think so. Metaphysics presupposes clear thinking, it relies on the laws of logic, not the other way round. In other words: “epistemology” is superior to “metaphysics”. Without a clear method of “how do we know it?”, there is no reason to ask “what exists?”.
Dr. Bonnette:

On the contrary, if these principles are “self-evident,” why do they need to be, or why does it even matter, if they are “empirically verified billions of times”?

You have the cart in front of the horse here. It was the billions of physical observations (experiments) first, and after many tens of thousands of years, the results were distilled by a philosopher into the principles you mentioned. The cave men had no philosophers, they were observing reality, they tried to make sense of it, they reached conclusions about it, all without the help of a philosopher. These principles became self-evident after those billions of observations.
Dr. Bonnette:

Like all materialists, you fail to grasp the distinction between sensation and intellection.

“Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu”. (There is nothing in the intellect (understanding) that was not prior in the senses). It was the experience first, and the condesation of the results which came afterwards - a long time afterwards. There was no special “insight” by some philosopher.
Dr. Bonnette:

You do not appear to realize that natural science’s origins trace to the Greek philosophy of nature. In fact, until the 20th Century, the natural sciences were merely sub-sciences of the philosophy of nature.

Yes, that is true, and we also have to observe that science really took off when it was separated from “pure” philosophy. Don’t get me wrong: philosophy is very important, but it is not the driving force of science. It can be useful as a tool, just like mathematics (which provides computational tools for the natural sciences), but those are just tools, to be used to serve the observation of reality. In order to get real results one must dig into the “dirt” of reality, observe reailty, make predictions about reality.
Dr. Bonnette:

By saying that you can “experimentally” answer the question as to whether the content of sensation can be trusted to conform to the real extramental world, you have betrayed your complete lack of understanding of the dilemma materialists face in defending extramental knowledge. By appealing to “experiments,” you are using your senses to observe physical phenomena. And then, you use your conclusions from your experiments to try to verify the validity of your senses. This is an obvious vicious circle from which your philosophy has no escape, since your only recourse to truth is “empirical verification.”

There is no vicious circle here. No abstract analysis in the ivory tower will ever override the painful fact that putting your hand into a fire causes burns.

Abstract analysis is wonderful, it opens up new frontiers, allows us to see beyond the particular observations. It leads to generalizations, discovery of new interconnections. But no amount of logical analysis is worth an iota, if it cannot withstand empirical verification. The final say-so belongs to the “dirt” of reality. There is no higher arbiter of “truth”.

 

[johnpaullover]

No. The HAL 9000 came close though

 

[Hitetlen]

Anim8:

So are you saying that if there is no disernable difference then they are one in the same? Or that you just can’t tell the difference? You seem to be posting both ways.

Sorry, obviously I was not clear enough. Even if you make a “perfect” copy of anything (perfect means atom for atom), it still does not mean that both instances can occupy the same place at the same time. In that sense they are not the “same”.

But if you cannot tell the difference by employing any kind of method, then they are the “same” in the sense that they both have the same properties. If we could make a copy of human being, putting an identical atom into the corresponding space, then they would be identical. Whatever one could do, the other one could do as well.

Anim8:

But if it is our brains that make us who we are then wouldn’t we be less human if what makes us what we are becomes diminished? The logic follows.

Yes, it is a very important question. I think that there is a threshold (probably arbitrary) which allows us to separate “real” humans from “sub”-humans. I will try to show this through an example.

Let’s consider a computer’s operating system. Much as I dislike Microsoft, but I will use Windows as the example. Microsoft integrated Internet Exploder (typo intentional ) into Windows. Clearly it makes the computer more usable, there is no need to purchase a separate program (FireFox or Netscape) to allow your computer to access the Internet. If this component would be removed, the computer would still have a usable operating system, somewhat less robust than the original.

We could remove more and more components from the operating system, and for a while, it would still justly be called a “usable” operating system. But only up to a point. If we would remove the screen and keyboard handler, there would be no (name removed by moderator)ut/output remaining, and the phrase “operating system” would become incorrect, even if everything else would stay there intact.

It is a matter of definition where we draw the line exactly. It seems to be a good idea to err on the side of caution, and allow the designation of “human being” to be intentionally vague, lest we “define” someone out of “existence” (not physical existence of course). Is this explanation (or example) sufficient?

Anim8:

Could you please elaborate?

Sure. I think the example above would be helpful. Our thought processes are physical, the neural network in our brain emits elecro-chemical signals, which are our thoughts. There are no two identical neural networks in the world, even our own keeps changing all the time. Our “pattern” is our neural network. It is “essentially” (another vague expression, I am afraid) the same. Every human has a similar network. (Actually every animal has one, too, much simpler than we do.) If a being has a similar network, regardless of the material it is composed of, it should be “called” a human. That is all.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Spyder1jcd:

With cloning advancing at an almost alarming rate and the developement of sentient machines well in progress, the idea of something incredibly human-like but not truly human is not just science fiction any longer. Catholics understand that nothing can be defined as human unless it has a soul imbued in the being by God. The soul is what makes us created in God’s own image. But does Church teaching discredit the idea of God giving a soul to something not directly created by His hand? Catholics that hold belief in evolution (such as myself) theorize that at some point in the evolutionary process God granted us the soul. But this is not the same as cloned human beings or robots because the evolutionary process would’ve been started by God, whereas the construction of a clone or robot would not have been. In the words of fictional character Dr. Alfred Lanning:

“There have always been ghosts in the machine. Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will. Creativity. And even the nature of what we might call the soul. Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light? Why is it that when robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together, rather than stand alone? How do we explain this behavior? Random segments of code? Or is it something more? When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does a personality simulation become the bitter mote… of a soul?” - (I, Robot)

Of course, the idea that a soul could manifest itself goes against Catholic teaching, but what if God decides that something created by the hands of man is human enough? And if not, couldn’t further development of sentient machines be just as bad as human cloning?

No Catholic can hold to Evolution.
Not going to discuss it. It should be condemned ex cathedra anyway.

 

[freesoulhope]

Why Dont you want to dicuss it I want to. I have been trying to figure out if i should believe in evolution or not, and how it can fit to the human time line in the bible. Its driving me crazy :whacky: , but i dont mind if evolution is true. It doesnt mean that the bible is wrong.

Any way, have you Got any Catholic links that support your argument? Im checking out both sides of the fence .

 

[vern_humphrey]

Agnus_Dei:

No Catholic can hold to Evolution.
Not going to discuss it. It should be condemned ex cathedra anyway.

And no doubt when you are consecrated Pope, it will be.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

But every Pope who has discussed the subject has made it clear that the Church does not oppose evolution – the exceptions being related to the question of the soul.

Clearly, Catholics are not required to reject science.

Fundamentalist protestants, now are a different matter.

 

[Anim8]

freesoulhope:

Why Dont you want to dicuss it I want to. I have been trying to figure out if i should believe in evolution or not, and how it can fit to the human time line in the bible. Its driving me crazy :whacky: , but i dont mind if evolution is true. It doesnt mean that the bible is wrong.

Any way, have you Got any Catholic links that support your argument? Im checking out both sides of the fence .

Lets take a good look at this;

1. God is all powerful, if He wanted to make us evolve through evolution He could have. I don’t know why He would, but His ways are unknown to me. He could have created us through evolution if he wanted to.
2. Why would God create us through evolution? It doesn’t make sense that He would, since He could just make us a humans POOF then why wouldn’t He just do that?
3. There is no hard evidence to state that evolution ever happened. Not one reliable piece.
4. If evolution happened then it only changes the process by which God created us. It does not call into question the existence of God.

So is it possible that evolution happened? Yes. Is it probable? No. Its like the existence of aliens, if God wanted to He could create them, but why would He?

To Hitetlen:

That’s interesting, I had never heard that particular view before. In the end this debate can never really be finished until we see God and ask Him ourselves (or until as you believe robots become human).

Actually I just realized, if you don’t believe there is such a thing as a soul then AI robots could never get a soul. So I guess we are in agreement that AI will never be granted a soul. Debate solved!

I don’t personally believe that AI machines will ever be truly intelligent, but there is no way that I could possibly prove that. And although you believe that it could happen there is no way you can prove it either.

So I think I will bow out of this debate for now, I have a research paper and a test I have to study for before Easter so I need to focus on school for now. I’ll stop by after Easter and see if this debate is still going, if so I may pick up again.

Thanks for the honor of debating, I really enjoy and apreciate it! :tiphat:

 

[Hitetlen]

Anim8:

Actually I just realized, if you don’t believe there is such a thing as a soul then AI robots could never get a soul. So I guess we are in agreement that AI will never be granted a soul. Debate solved!

Yes, indeed it is.

Anim8:

I don’t personally believe that AI machines will ever be truly intelligent, but there is no way that I could possibly prove that. And although you believe that it could happen there is no way you can prove it either.

No, I cannot prove it. But since I peeked at your profile, I hope you will be still alive to see if they can be truly intelligent, or not. Most likely, I will be long dead before it happens, and that surely pisses me off.

Anim8:

So I think I will bow out of this debate for now, I have a research paper and a test I have to study for before Easter so I need to focus on school for now. I’ll stop by after Easter and see if this debate is still going, if so I may pick up again.

Have a wonderful Easter, and good luck with your studies.

Anim8:

Thanks for the honor of debating, I really enjoy and apreciate it! :tiphat:

The honor is all mine.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To Hitetlen re posting #147:

You write: “The soul is either a natural phenomenon or abstract concept. If it is a natural phenomenon, it can be detected, observed and verified. If it is just an abstract concept, then we can try to apply and see if it has any use, and if it does, then we have to find out if the same results can be reached without this assumption.”

Natural phenomenon or abstract concept? Why only these two alternatives? Abstract concepts exist only in the mind, not extramental reality. So, why would anyone want to have his “soul” exist only in a mind? This leaves only what you call a “natural phenomenon.” As a materialist, could it be that you are assuming that all extramental reality MUST be material? Where did you get that idea from? While it is clear that material things have existence, it does not logically follow from this that all existing things must be material. Just because every rose is a flower, it does not follow that every flower must be a rose. Of course, a natural phenomenon might be detectable, but the real question is does a non-material soul exist which is neither physical nor merely a mental reality. Your claimed division is not exhaustive unless you assume the very materialism you are trying to defend.

You write: “Since the word “meaningful” is an abstract concept, it cannot be directly verified, but it can be indirectly verified. So no contradiction there.” What do you understand by “indirect verification?” My understanding of the verification principle of the Vienna Circle is that direct verification means what you directly can see, hear, touch, and so forth, while indirect verification essentially means what you can test through expirimental means. I do not see “meaningful” passing this test. Moreover, it was recognized within a short time that the verification principle could not pass its own test, but the Logical Positivists who posited it simply concluded that there was no other alternative but to embrace its tenets.

You write: “You engaged in mythology and circular reasoning again. There is a “soul”, because it provides “existential unity” (whatever it may be), which can be achieved only by a “soul”. What is this “existential unity”? If it requires a “soul”, then you use circular reasoning. If it does not require a “soul”, why assume it?”

No circular reasoning is involved. What you appear to want is either (1) to have empirical verification of the soul, or (2) me to admit that the soul is merely a useless hypothesis. But that again assumes your gratuitous materialist hypothesis that only empirically verifiable entities are real. This follows from your failure to accept that we can know things by a pure process of reasoning, not just by empirical verification. In fact, philosophical psychology reasons to the existence of the soul because things above the atomic level exhibit substantial unity, not merely the accidental unity of function. How do we know this? Not by empirical verification, but by reasoning from effects (for example, the fact that all parts in a living organism act for the good of the whole) to a cause (some principle of unity which governs the activities of all the parts). Why could this not just be some sort of accidental pattern? Because the parts as parts are subordinate to the whole. What you are denying is that there IS a “whole” to which the parts are subordinated. The problem with an “accidental” whole is highlighted in the case of man in a twofold manner: (1) Not only do all parts act for the good of the whole in the adult, but also from our very zygotic beginning, at all times, every part was acting for the good of the whole, and also, the whole was coordinating all its parts so as to grow toward the end result of the adult in which all parts act for the good of the whole, and (2) We are experientially aware of our substantial unity because (a) we directly experience our “self” as the receiver of all “incoming” sensory data, and (b) we directly experience our same “self” and the active coordinator of all our mental and motor powers acting on our environment in reaction to that incoming data. If this does not convince you that we are not merely an accidental accretion of subatomic parts, please recall my argument earlier about the strict immateriality of intellective acts based on the immateriality of universal concepts. Since the soul that posits strictly immaterial (spiritual) acts must be itself spiritual, it cannot be merely the accidental product (pattern) of existentially-lower, material parts.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Dr. Bonnette,

I am enjoying the conversation immensely.

I would add that Hitetlen consistently chooses to attack all problems mechanistically – e.g. free will as a machine that must be dissectable was treated briefly in a previous conversation I had with him. (I assume he would try to dissect God as well, but God is simple )

The idea of randomness, e.g. an unknown (unkowable – perhaps quantum principle) is as close as I can come to describing what a soul’s effect would look like upon the body which can be viewed by the methods of natural science. Yet I wonder quite a bit about the question the thread proposed, and the nature of machines and “randomness” as well.

I do believe in God, (on faith), both in discovering the limits of the universe (entropy related), and in the notion of self consciousness being sparked by other consciousness (J.P. Sarte’s fault even…).

But the Thomistic proof from motion was not convincing to me, for the language of causes seems to rest on the notion that everyone accepts a difference of causes (efficient and ?), which I was not able to apprehend sufficiently for acceptance myself – and I suspect much of it has to do with linguistic obscurity. I see causes in the natural world as always sort of “intermediate”.

You mentioned briefly about rational thought being used to probe the existence of God, and I am quite interested in that aspect.

Thank you for starting this thread.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To FreeSoulHope

If you really want to see how evolution might be compatible with the Genesis, you might want to see my book Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, 2003) which is fully discribed on my web site: www.origin.youshoppe.com – complete with reviews and other articles by myself. I do not demand that one accept evolution, but merely demonstrate that whether one is a young Earth creationist, a progressive creationist, a theistic evolutionist, or anything but a complete materialist, it is possible to defend the historicity of Adam and Eve and of Original Sin, all of which are fundamental tenets of Christian belief. I do not believe that any other author, though, has given as detailed an attempt at reconciling the current theory of human evolution with sound interpretation of Scripture. I leave to others the judgment of my success. You can read the reviews.

 

[Spyder1jcd]

Dr. Bonnette:

You write: “And even if it could be anything else, are you suggesting that a mere sentient soul could evolve into a spiritual soul?” No, I am not saying that. Souls do not evolve, but are principles which actually tend to keep things in the same species, not evolve them to higher ones. If a spiritual soul is given by God to man, it requires a creative act.

Just a question that doesn’t necessarily pertain to the debate:

Forgive the conjecture, but say that, in the near future, a machine is created that does perform a creative act. As I stated in an earlier post, suppose a machine made a painting that had a particular “mood” to it. Suppose further still that a machine paints an abstract. Could that possibly be the result or clever programming or the indication of something more?
Dr. Bonnette:

You write: “Whether you believe Genesis or the evolution theory, man was not always man. At one point in the existence of the creature that became man, be it the “dust body” that God breathed life into or the Homo sapiens, it did not have a soul.” First, why do you necessarily oppose evolution theory to Genesis? My book, Origin of the Human Species, shows how the traditional Catholic reading of Genesis may be understood as compatible with evolution theory. See my website: www.origin.youshoppe.com On the hypothesis that man evolved from earlier primates, the earlier primates would have had sentient souls until God transformed their body into true man by informing it with a spiritual intellective soul.

You write: “Since a true AI would be, by definition, sentient, shouldn’t it have a “sentient” soul?” No, first we should note that the term, “artificial intelligence,” is virtually a contradiction in terms. If something is artificial, it is made by the “art” of man and does not possess substantial unity. But to say it has “intelligence” means it has intellect which is spiritual. But no artifact can have a soul, much less a spiritual soul, since it is not in fact alive and soul is the principle of life. Lacking a soul, it would thus lack a sentient soul. It could neither sense nor understand anything at all, contrary to the clever appearances its human programmers would have given to it.

Dr. Bonnette

So you admit that something can be “informed” with a spiritual intellective soul, do you not? Perhaps it is best to introduce from this the better question to ask: at what point would God consider something sentient? At what point would God consider something to be His child? See here.

Please forgive me for questioning your well-constructed hypothesis on the nature of the soul and artificial intelligence, and in such a desperate manner at that. I am only fourteen, and have clearly not had as much education as you have. It’s just that I find it hard to accept that something that can appear so humanlike could not have a soul. Admittedly, the idea that artifical intelligence could become what has been presented in entertainment is still conjecture at this point, but it still remains in the realm of possibility.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Dear Huiou Theou

Good to see you appear here! And to see you are enjoying the dialogue. Of course, it was not I who started this thread.

You write: “But the Thomistic proof from motion was not convincing to me, for the language of causes seems to rest on the notion that everyone accepts a difference of causes (efficient and ?), which I was not able to apprehend sufficiently for acceptance myself – and I suspect much of it has to do with linguistic obscurity. I see causes in the natural world as always sort of “intermediate”.

You mentioned briefly about rational thought being used to probe the existence of God, and I am quite interested in that aspect.”

I confess that I am not quite able to follow your comments about causality, but it can prove a confusing topic in public discussion.

Virtually everybody has an intuitive grasp that things must have reasons and that effects must have causes, but – contrary to the claims of some – this is not based merely on billions of prior sensory experiences. The senses may associate phenomena, and this has led modern positivists to conceive causality in terms such as: “Given event A, event B necessarily and subsequently follows.” They then reject the necessity of the consequent, and so would I. People tend to think of cause and effect in terms of one event following another, but that can be misleading.

There is a big difference between man’s universal intuition that things need reasons and causes produce effects, and a proper metaphysical defense of the first principles of being that must be presupposed for a proper understanding of the proofs for God’s existence. If you want to see why this is not just a matter of common experience and how rigorous a proper metaphysical defense of the metaphysical first principles can be, read Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s God, His Existence, and Nature, which was published about 1934. Although I have written my own book entitled, Aquinas’ Proofs for God’s Existence, Lagrange’s treatise is the classical treatment of the topic. And please note that he takes up some three-quarters of the first volume explaining and defending the first principles of non-contradiction, sufficient reason, causality, and finality. The final part of that volume presents St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways. It is one thing for people generally to know the truth of these principles, but quite another to know why they must be apodictally true and universal.

I would offer the following to illustrate how metaphysicians consider causality: An effect is a being whose sufficient reason for being or becoming is not entirely intrinsic to itself. An extrinsic sufficient reason constitutes a cause. From this it follows that every effect must have a cause. Causes must be both simultaneous with and proportionate to their effects. Note that this does not entail any temporal sequence between cause and effect. Note also that God would be that unique Being whose sufficient reason for being would be entirely intrinsic to Himself. That answers those who foolishly say, “Then what caused God?” God is not His own cause, but He is His own reason for being. I would explain more, but we don’t have the time for a three credit course here! What I want you to notice, though, is that metaphysics is not based merely on billions of prior sensory experiences, but on an intellectual penetration of being itself. While sensible (or better, physical) being may be part of reality, only a materialist would assume that it must be all of reality. The metaphysician considers “being as being,” not necessarily restricting his consideration merely to “being as material,” which may prove to be a subset of being as such. The proper exposition of the proofs for God’s existence demonstrate that material being is, indeed, a subset of being as such – and this is not at all based on pure religious belief, but a most critical purely intellective analysis.

Incidentally, Catholics should know that knowledge of God is not a matter of pure faith. Vatican Council I solemnly defined that the existence of God can be known by unaided natural reason.

Dr. Bonnette

 

[Hitetlen]

Dr. Bonnette:

Natural phenomenon or abstract concept? Why only these two alternatives? Abstract concepts exist only in the mind, not extramental reality.

These are the only two alternatives we can be sure of. If there is anything that is neither matter, nor the part of our mind (abstract concepts), that “entity” cannot be detected by any means - in principle. I don’t see any use for this concept, but maybe you do.

However, there is a problem with your concept. You not only contend that there is this immaterial and extramental entity, which simply exists in its immaterial fashion, but you also contend that it interacts with matter. Therefore there is an interface between the matter and the “soul”. If this interface is material, then it can be detected. How? If it is immaterial, how does it affect the matter? You cannot just say: “somehow”.

We have to conclude that either this immaterial substance is theoretically impossible to detect by our senses or any instrument we may fashion, and in this case it cannot interact with our physical existence; or it can interact with our physical existence, and in this case it can be detected at the point of the interface. There is no third option. Which one will it be?
Dr. Bonnette:

Moreover, it was recognized within a short time that the verification principle could not pass its own test, but the Logical Positivists who posited it simply concluded that there was no other alternative but to embrace its tenets.

Since I am not a Positivist, that does not concern me.
Dr. Bonnette:

This follows from your failure to accept that we can know things by a pure process of reasoning, not just by empirical verification.

I don’t deny the process of pure reasoning, I could hardly do so, because I was a practicing mathematician for quite a long time. Indeed it is possible to create wholly imaginary systems, but what is their use unless there is a practical way to apply them? They are an amusing mental exercise, nothing more.
Dr. Bonnette:

In fact, philosophical psychology reasons to the existence of the soul because things above the atomic level exhibit substantial unity, not merely the accidental unity of function.

The word “accidental” is incorrect. There is nothing accidental about homeostasis.

The molecules consist of atoms, but not accidently, or randomly, they follow the strict rules of atomic bonds. Six carbon atoms will either form a hexagon (graphite) or an octahedron (diamond). Their different physical charateristics can be explained one hundred percent by the geometric arrangement of the atoms. Or do you contend that there is an immaterial unifying principle that must be “believed in” so we can differentiate between graphite and dimond? I should hope not.

A magnet’s attribute that it “attracts” a piece of iron can be explained perfectly by the arrangement (patteren) of its atoms. There is no need to assume a soul to explain it.

Molecules will connect to each other, and form higher levels of existence. These connections can be one hundred percent explained by the chemical attributes of the molecules. There is still no need for any “unifying principle”.

Life is just another homeostasis. The molecules form a complex structure, which totally explains the properties of this organism. Furthermore, the distinction between living and unliving organisms is an arbitrary one. There is higher level of complexity in those organisms we call “living”, they react to complex stimuli with complex responses, but that is all. There is no minimum level of complexity of living materials. It is well known that viruses do not have DNA, which is usually considered to be the dividing factor between living and unliving organisms. And yet, viruses are “alive”, even though they do not exhibit all the characteristics we usually attribute to “living” organisms.

So the physical attributes of atoms and the biological attributes of molecules, and the chemical attributes of multicellular organisms constitute correct explanations of matter.

To be continued.

 

[Hitetlen]

Dr. Bonnette:

How do we know this? Not by empirical verification, but by reasoning from effects (for example, the fact that all parts in a living organism act for the good of the whole) to a cause (some principle of unity which governs the activities of all the parts).

Just like the cancerous growth “benefits” the whole? And the “soul” allows that?
Dr. Bonnette:

Why could this not just be some sort of accidental pattern?

Again that erroneous assumption of “accidental” pattern. Those patterns are not accidental.
Dr. Bonnette:

If this does not convince you that we are not merely an accidental accretion of subatomic parts, please recall my argument earlier about the strict immateriality of intellective acts based on the immateriality of universal concepts.

That was something you said, but did not and could not substantiate. Give me an example of a “universal” concept - as opposed to an “abstract concept”, and how does this universal concept elude the abstract thinking of our mind.
Dr. Bonnette:

Since the soul that posits strictly immaterial (spiritual) acts must be itself spiritual, it cannot be merely the accidental product (pattern) of existentially-lower, material parts.

Unfortunately no matter how many times you repeat that our patterns are accidental, it will not make it so. And no matter how many times you try to declare (ex cathedra?) that matter is a lower level of existence, it will not become true. Our thoughts are the products of our brain. That can be proven by introducing chemicals into the brain, and observe their effects. Just another example of the pudding principle.

I want to point back to the beginning of my previous post, where I proved that either your hypothesized “immaterial” existence cannot interact with our physical existence; or, if it does interact with our physical existence, then it could be detected at the point of the interface. That contradiction cannot be resolved.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hiteteln,

From webster’s dictionary:

1. ac.ci.den.tal .ak-s*-'dent-*l\ -'dent-le-, -*l-e-\ -'dent-l-ns\ aj
   1: arising from extrinsic causes : NONESSENTIAL

e.g. the light reflecting off an atom is not the atom itself.
Yet we don’t see atoms, but the light from them.
Hence, all of visual perception is an accidental view of the atoms around us. Awkward, but Dr. Bonnette, I think, is being consistent with the tranditional usage of the word – not the common connotation. I find your usage a bit – confusing.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Dr. Bonette,

Incidentally, Catholics should know that knowledge of God is not a matter of pure faith. Vatican Council I solemnly defined that the existence of God can be known by unaided natural reason.

Yes, I am quite aware of that. Unfortunately, they did not decree that all would come to this understanding through unaided natural reason, or in particular Aquinas’ proofs.

As Aquinas himself states: Not all can understand proofs.

Yet, even with partial apprehension of the world around me, I am sufficiently convinced. Reason, as applied to the world around us, can lead to the discovery of God’s existance.

The apodictic exposistion of the existence of God by (Fr?) Garrigou-Lagrange, sounds quite interesting so If I am able to locate a copy, I shall read some of that as you suggest.

apo-dictic : (apo) from (dictic) demonstration.

“Given event A, event B necessarily and subsequently follows.” They then reject the necessity of the consequent, and so would I. People tend to think of cause and effect in terms of one event following another, but that can be misleading.

A small example might clarify that statement?

What I am seeing is, If A then B is subsequent.
So, you have expressed a logical statement, but are claiming that the positivist enters into denying that consequent event ‘B’ occurs, at least in some cases of antecedant event ‘A’ happenening.

I realze from intro to philosophy, the that there is not necessarily a single cause for an effect. Is this what you are referring to?

 

[Hitetlen]

Dr. Bonnette:

In fact, philosophical psychology reasons to the existence of the soul because things above the atomic level exhibit substantial unity, not merely the accidental unity of function. How do we know this?

Two more remarks about this.

1. Consider the planaria, an amazing little creature. Since it is alive, you assume that it has something like a “soul”, a sunstantial unity. Now grab a knife, and cut this little bugger in half. You will get two entities, both of which will regrow all of their missing organs, and live on happily ever after. There will be two of them. Did your slice of the knife split its “soul” in half? And then these “half-souls” regrew their missing parts? Or did one of the halfs (which one?) “inherit” the full original “soul”, and the other one grabbed a “soul” from nowhere?
2. Consider us, humans, the “crowns of creation”. You assume that we have this substantial unity, parts working for some common good. Srtange, that this substantial unity would die very quickly if it lost all those millions of symbiotic bacteria in its digestive system, which allow us to break down our food and survive. Are those bacteria included in this substantial unity, governed by a common “soul”? Or do they have their little “mini-souls”?

 

[Hitetlen]

Huiou Theou:

Hiteteln,

From webster’s dictionary:

1. ac.ci.den.tal .ak-s*-'dent-*l\ -'dent-le-, -*l-e-\ -'dent-l-ns\ aj
   1: arising from extrinsic causes : NONESSENTIAL

e.g. the light reflecting off an atom is not the atom itself.
Yet we don’t see atoms, but the light from them.
Hence, all of visual perception is an accidental view of the atoms around us. Awkward, but Dr. Bonnette, I think, is being consistent with the tranditional usage of the word – not the common connotation. I find your usage a bit – confusing.

1 : arising from extrinsic causes : INCIDENTAL, NONESSENTIAL
2 a : occurring unexpectedly or by chance b : happening without intent or through carelessness and often with unfortunate results

Since he never specified which meaning he meant, I understood the second one. I don’t think that his version is the common usage today. Maybe he was just obfuscating the “matter” as a “good” philosopher should. God forbid that they would use an everyday word, if a long convoluted sentence can make their meaning more difficult to decipher.

But, be as it may, his meaning of this word is incorrect, no matter which one he intended.