First Cause is sentient

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

That might be your problem when discussing modern biology and science. You get your info from Greek philosophers from 300BC.

You shoulda stuck with the faith based explanation.

This is the “Philosophy Forum”…

You should stick to it. You get found out discussing science.

And I thought you were gone? If you need the last word, be my guest.

 

[STT]

The idea that consciousness derived from a CREATED simple subsistent soul has got to be one of the worst ideas in all Christian philosophy.

Actually, that is not quite correct. The idea of a simple subsistent soul/mind is one of the greatest ideas ever suggested. That is true because a thing must be simple if it has free will, otherwise, it is made of parts which this brings this question that which part is really free, all of them, one? The problem with this world view is that simple subsistent thing cannot be created (I have an argument for that). The worst idea ever is materialistic view on this subject which suggests that blind matter has the capacity to create consciousness and can decide. This is what you call it a derivative reality. You suggest that matter is a created thing and this created thing can create another reality in which there is a created entity there, so-called self, which self has the ability to decide and think. Other Christian suggest that the soul that is created and is simple has the ability to decide and think and needs a body to perceive and move around. So you are basically saying the same thing with the exception that what you call the self is created out of the material activity and in their case it is created by God. Their mistake is that they assign intellect which is a complex faculty to the soul. They however rightfully assign the ability to decide to soul since the soul is simple. What materialist gets correct is that they assign intellect to the brain but their mistake is that the brain has parts and cannot possibly decide unless one argues that the brain can create an entity so-called self which self can decide. Regardless, what is missing from both points of view is that they take for granted that something which is created can decide and think.

 

[STT]

A created thing that is simple is called an indivisible unit of matter. An indivisible unit of matter is not capable of consciousness and is only capable of the simplest things, such as movement, appearing, disappearing, and perhaps some other particle attributes like mass.

How do you know that matter is not conscious?

Saying that a CREATED thing is simple and capable of the decision making of consciousness is the same as saying a CREATED thing is capable of making decisions from absolutely NOTHING.

That is not correct. The mind can experience and be aware of options so it can decide based on something and be simple at the same time. Simplicity is, in fact, crucial for decision making. A system made of parts either cannot decide or only one part decide which this part has to be simple otherwise we face with regress.

A CREATED thing not made of parts capable of decision making would make God superfluous.

That is not correct. In fact the opposite view, a created thing with many part can decide, is wrong.

If one needs only a created thing to make decisions for the universe and that created thing not being made of parts derives its decision making ability from NOTHING because you can’t get such decision making from an indivisible unit of matter, then you’ve replaced God’s role with a CREATED thing. Occam’s Razor would then disfavor God as real in favor of the simpler explanation of a CREATED thing capable of making decisions from NOTHING.

God doesn’t decide instead of you.

 

[edwest211]

Matter/chemicals have no consciousness and no properties to make them so.

 

[STT]

Nah, I’m pretty sure a brain can decide and think. I think the vast majority of neurologists will agree with me on that.

No. There are neurologists who believe that free will is an illusion since matter behaves determinisitically. You will have difficult time to explain where decision and thinking come from matter which is completely blind.

 

[Wesrock]

@Bradskii and @o_mlly, is this debate regarding the soul as the animating principle of a living thing? I missed the start of this exchange.

 

[STT]

I think you’re wrong. I think the vast majority of neurologists believe decision making is caused by the brain.

And what is the mechanism behind this? I mean, how decision can be caused by something which is intrinsically deterministic.

 

[Bradskii]

@Bradskii and @o_mlly, is this debate regarding the soul as the animating principle of a living thing? I missed the start of this exchange.

Think vitalism and you won’t be far wrong.

 

[o_mlly]

@Bradskii and @o_mlly, is this debate regarding the soul as the animating principle of a living thing? I missed the start of this exchange.

In post #155, I used the “s” word which, of course, riles up our friendly atheists who patrol this forum.

The brain is necessary but not sufficient for the production of brain patterns. If it were then there would be no difference in the brain patterns generated by a live being and a dead being.

We don’t need an MRI machine to inform us that there is an essential difference between “live dog” and “dead dog”. That difference, we call “soul”.