First Cause is sentient

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
Matter seems to blindly follow laws of nature. The outcome of this motion leaded to life which seems that is toward survival. What is the need for an intelligence when motion is blind?
Click to expand...
A nature can only do what it’s nature allows it to do. It functions according to the principles of it’s nature. We describe this behaviour as the laws of physics, but it’s important to note that the laws of physics is not something that transcends and exists apart from the nature of the objects it describes. And even if it did it could only exist as an abstract object or idea, otherwise it does not meaningfully exist at all.

When the first cause creates or actualizes a possibility such as physical activity, it is not only causing something to exist, it is also determining the nature or principles of that activity. Since physical reality does not naturally exist, something is required to determine the principles underlying the activity of physical objects. Because these principles cannot be determined naturally, the existence of these principles or laws of physical behaviour require the existence of an intelligent-cause to determine the natural behaviour or activity of physical objects.

An intellect is required in-order to determine the particular behaviour of physical things, because the behaviour of physical things is not a natural expression of that which naturally exists, but rather it is the natural expression of something that is being caused to exist.

In other-words the laws of physics is the expression of an artificial reality.
 
Last edited:
Animals themselves are conscious. I sympathize with John’s point that it seems the wrong word for the Divine Nature.
 
John_J_Bannan said:
Consciousness has a distinct and recognizable brain pattern. If the soul were in every part of the body, then how come this distinct brain wave associated with consciousness does not appear in other parts of the body?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/brain-scans-decode-elusive-signature-consciousness
Click to expand...
On the flip side, the soul isn’t a substance that is localized to parts of the body or a substance spread through it. It’s the animating principle of the body as a unity, a whole greater than the sum of its parts, a whole capable of rationality. It’s because rationality (abstraction to universals) is related to the whole by what it is and not simply the exercise of any combination of parts that we call it a power of the soul.
 
IWantGod said:
A nature can only do what it’s nature allows it to do. It functions according to the principles of it’s nature. We describe this behaviour as the laws of physics, but it’s important to note that the laws of physics is not something that transcends and exists apart from the nature of the objects it describes. And even if it did it could only exist as an abstract object or idea, otherwise it does not meaningfully exist at all.

When the first cause creates or actualizes a possibility such as physical activity, it is not only causing something to exist, it is also determining the nature or principles of that activity. Since physical reality does not naturally exist, something is required to determine the principles underlying the activity of physical objects. Because these principles cannot be determined naturally, the existence of these principles or laws of physical behaviour require the existence of an intelligent-cause to determine the natural behaviour or activity of physical objects.

An intellect is required in-order to determine the particular behaviour of physical things, because the behaviour of physical things is not a natural expression of that which naturally exists, but rather it is the natural expression of something that is being caused to exist.

In other-words the laws of physics is the expression of an artificial reality.
Click to expand...
The existence of life is matter of chance. Life could simply not happen on Earth.
 
John_J_Bannan said:
Sure, this is Aquinas 101. But, it’s wrong. Consciousness is caused by brain activity. Time to rethink the philosophy of the soul.

God has the power to create other realities and universes with their own laws of physics. God could certainly transfer brain structure upon death into another created realm to await being re-united with a body. John Martin claims I am making this up. But, isn’t the Thomist version of the soul also made up?
Click to expand...
Thomists don’t deny that animals are conscious or that the brain is super involved in thinking and consciousness or even deny that animals have souls. In fact, Aristotlean in general never really denied the consciousness of animals. It was the Rationalists who took what Aristotleans thought was just something animals could do and said it was unique to humans an animals were just machines. How people like Descartes conceived the soul has little to do with how Thomists Conceived it.

It’s the ability to abstract to universals that is irreducible to any material parts or sum of parts.

And the soul as the animating principle of the human body is again a doctrine of the Church.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
The existence of life is matter of chance. Life could simply not happen on Earth.
Click to expand...
It’s by chance that the planet we call earth ended up in the Goldilocks zone. But it’s irrelevant when discussing the metaphysics of reality.

Life evolving on earth is probably due to the fact that all the right things were in the right place at the right time which allowed for the actualization of the first protocells. But that’s a scientific question.

The question of why life would be an effect of any physical behaviour at all is a metaphysical question, very much in the realm of asking why there is something rather than nothing.

Chance itself is not a cause.
 
Last edited:
John_J_Bannan said:
Yes, the Aquinas philosophy of the soul has unfortunately been adopted by the Church. You got me on that one. But, the Church is starting to look like flat earthers when these MRI results come out conclusively proving that the brain creates consciousness.

Because the brain creates consciousness, then all abstracts to universals also arise from brain activity.
Click to expand...
And again, I think you don’t understand what Thomists even say about philosophy of the mind if you’re going to continue to harp on this point, as all the neuroscience is still consistent with a Thomist perspective.
 
Last edited:
John_J_Bannan said:
How is the fact that consciousness is created by the brain consistent with Aquinas?
Click to expand...
Because Aquinas wouldn’t have denied the brain’s role as demonstrated by neuroscience.

I feel like you’re thinking more of Descartes.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
It’s by chance that the planet we call earth ended up in the Goldilocks zone. But it’s irrelevant when discussing the metaphysics of reality.

Life evolving on earth is probably due to the fact that all the right things were in the right place at the right time which allowed for the actualization of the first protocells. But that’s a scientific question.

The question of why life would be an effect of any physical behaviour at all is a metaphysical question, very much in the realm of asking why there is something rather than nothing.

Chance itself is not cause.
Click to expand...
In fact, chance itself is the cause of life.
 
To add on, animals are conscious, and Aristotleans don’t really have issues with material giving rise to such things, when properly understood.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
In fact, chance itself is the cause of life.
Click to expand...
Chance by itself is nothing at all. Chance simply describes an event that was not completely deterministic, did not have to happen, or was unlikely to happen given certain variables. But it is not itself the reason why there is such a thing as life. Life arises out of the principles that the first cause created.
 
Last edited:
John_J_Bannan said:
So, you are claim that Aquinas would agree that all consciousness is created by the brain?
Click to expand...
If he had access and education on the latest neuroscience, I don’t think he’d find it in conflict with his principles.

It’s the ability to abstract from particulars to universals, constructing propositions and logical arguments and syllogisms from such things that he would have found irreducible to just material processes, not just basic consciousness, though this doesn’t occur in people without action in the brain. And the latest neuroscience studies haven’t proven that wrong or solved the issue of intentionality in that sense.

I don’t think you have a proper conception of a Thomist philosophy of the mind. It sounds like you’re attacking a strawman.
 
IWantGod said:
Chance by itself is nothing at all. Chance simply describes an event that did not have to happen or was unlikely to happen given certain variables. But it is not itself the reason why there is such a thing as life. Life arises out of the principles that the first cause created.
Click to expand...
Chance itself is a property of material.
 
And Aquinas didn’t see the soul as a substance joined to a material substance. Most people don’t seem to understand the Aristotlean position on this and just conflate it with Cartesian substance dualism.
 
Wesrock said:
And Aquinas didn’t see the soul as a substance joined to a material substance. Most people don’t seem to understand the Aristotlean position on this and just conflate it with Cartesian substance dualism.
Click to expand...
I must admit i have a hard time understanding Aquinas’ view on the soul. It can easily be mistaken for some kind of functionalism or monism. But it is clear that Aquinas’ is arguing a for a duality despite it not being of the Cartesian kind.
 
STT said:
Matter at the best of our knowledge obeys quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...
But that is not the same thing as arguing that chance is a property. It may be the principle of some nature to behave randomly and therefore some particular effect may occur by chance, but that is not the same thing that you are describing when you assert that chance is a real property of an object.

Chance is certainly not a cause because it is not a being. What you are saying doesn’t make any sense.
 
Last edited:
John_J_Bannan said:
Consciousness has a distinct and recognizable brain pattern. If the soul were in every part of the body, then how come this distinct brain wave associated with consciousness does not appear in other parts of the body?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a brain pattern - just as there is a brain pattern when a visual stimulus is experienced. This pattern in both cases is CAUSED by something other than the brain, and the brain is triggered to have a PASSIVE reaction, so that the pattern exists in material reality. The brain does not generate a pattern intelligently and thus have consciousness, but SOMETHING NOT THE BRAIN elicits the brain pattern. The brain is passive, having all done to it and doing nothing inventive nor causative of its own patterns.
The soul also animates all parts of the body to move into the various forms and positions that are suited to their structures, rather than only moving like a billiard ball if externally struck by the cue ball.
In the brain, in thought or consciousness, anything “original” appears “out of the blue”, but not caused by the brain - suddenly the words will appear in thought, “I have decided to (I am suddenly finding that I am moving to) go in this new direction, because my feet are already walking toward it…???..”
“Now” is without duration and the brain does not have sufficient capacity to actively direct all in the body in each of the infinite (literally) infinite points of “now” in which the body actually is animated point by point through time, but is only aware after the fact of “now” of small portions of the “stream of now events” as a meaningful stream, but not at all of each point of “now”.
If you think you are “now typing” as you see the characters appear on your screen, or “now having the thought”, you are mistaken. The brain is infinitely too slow to control its body’s motions and functions, but integrally is MOVED as a whole body with the rest of the body by the animator of the whole body. The body, brain, only look “active” because there is no apparent external cause to the movement, like a cue ball, but the body is only Moved, not mover.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top