How do we know Essence and Existence are distinct?

[Tannhauser_1509]

But wouldn’t fully knowing the essence of a lion, for example, entail knowing its existence? In other words, wouldn’t existence be part of its essence? I could conceive that fully knowing a lion’s essence would include knowing its biological reality, and once I know that reality (say, as a product of evolution, etc.), then I would know lions indeed exist.

I have had the same question before. It is claimed by Thomists that understanding the essence of a thing does not entail that one can know the existence of any particular being having that essence. However, this argument makes sense to me only if the agents concerned exercise free will. In the case of a lion, however—which I will assume is acting deterministically—it would seem to me that having a perfect scientific knowledge of the world would, in theory, enable one to predict the existence of a particular being having the essence of a lion. So could not all beings therefore be considered “necessary beings”?

 

[thistle]

A unicorn’s essence is the collection of things that are essential to its being a unicorn, namely being a horse and having a single horn growing out of its head.

That just sounds like a description.

 

[veritatisstella]

“essence” answers the question “what is it?” so yeah, I think essence can come down to how we would describe something in a way that we can distinguish it from other things

 

[STT]

STT:

Mind is fundamental.

I’m not going to ask you to go down that rabbit hole, but, you would need to define “mind”,

Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act/create.

why it is “fundamental”,

Because, you cannot define something simpler than above given definition which could explain everything.

and how it can exist in isolation from the soul.

Mind doesn’t need soul but body.

Short of those, all we have here is a foundationless personally asserted opinion.

That is not true.

 

[Gorgias]

Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act/create.

Outstanding!

How do you know that you were a ‘being’ prior to your birth, then?

Because, you cannot define something simpler than above given definition which could explain everything.

That doesn’t make it fundamental – that is, foundational; it just makes it simple. Just because something is ‘simple’, doesn’t make it accurate.

Mind doesn’t need soul but body.

You’re going to have a really really difficult time getting a Christian audience to buy into the notion of the lack of a need of a soul.

Gorgias:

Short of those, all we have here is a foundationless personally asserted opinion.

That is not true.

Sadly, another foundationless personally asserted opinion.

 

[STT]

Outstanding!

How do you know that you were a ‘being’ prior to your birth, then?

I either could not make any memory or I was not attached to matter.

 

[IWantGod]

I either could not make any memory or I was not attached to matter.

So you don’t know.

 

[STT]

STT:

I either could not make any memory or I was not attached to matter.

So you don’t know.

I am in favor of first option though. But I cannot prove it.

 

[IWantGod]

I am in favor of first option though. But I cannot prove it.

I am curious as to why you favor the idea that you have always existed. Why does that make better sense of your experience? Or is this merely what you would like to be true?

 

[STT]

I am curious as to why you favor the idea that you have always existed.

Well, the story is long. I have to provide an argument in favor of existence of mind. I have to provide an argument in favor of irreducibly of mind. I have to show that mind cannot be created. Where do you want to start from?

Why does that make better sense of your experience?

It is not only about my experiences but how reality should look like when you describe with the simplest model.

Or is this merely what you would like to be true?

No. I have thought about this for a very long time.

 

[IWantGod]

argument in favor of irreducibly of mind.

Start with explaining why you think the mind is irreducible. You appear to support Cartesian dualism. Why isn’t the mind just a property of brain states?

 

[STT]

STT:

argument in favor of irreducibly of mind.

Start with explaining why you think the mind is irreducible. You appear to support Cartesian dualism. Why isn’t the mind just a property of brain states?

First let’s define mind: Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act/create.

1. Experience is unitary
2. Suppose that mind has parts (is reducible)
3. Suppose that each part has ability to experience (we call a part mind if only that part has ability to experience so the other parts are useless and we achieved the proof)
4. This means that experience is not unitary
5. (1) and (4) contradict each other therefore (2) is wrong

 

[IWantGod]

• Experience is unitary
• Suppose that mind has parts (is reducible)
• Suppose that each part has ability to experience (we call a part mind if only that part has ability to experience so the other parts are useless and we achieved the proof)
• This means that experience is not unitary
• (1) and (4) contradict each other therefore (2) is wrong

Okay interesting approach. True our minds are a unitary experience. But why can’t we take a functionalist approach to the mind? This is to say, why can’t the unitive experience we call the mind just be the result of parts coming together as one. One could say the mind is just a function of the brain, and one could say the mind is unitary because the various parts of the brain are united in performing that function.

Why would that not be correct?.

 

[STT]

Okay interesting approach. True our minds are a unitary experience. But why can’t we take a functionalist approach to the mind? This is to say, why can’t the unitive experience we call the mind just be the result of parts coming together as one. One could say the mind is just a function of the brain, and one could say the mind is unitary because the various parts of the brain are united in performing that function.

Why would that not be correct?.

Mind cannot be the result of process and cause of process at the same time in the brain.

 

[IWantGod]

Mind cannot be the result of process and cause of process at the same time in the brain.

So you are saying that freewill is not compatible with a materialist approach to the brain? I agree.

So lets move on to why a mind must exist forever.

 

[STT]

STT:

Mind cannot be the result of process and cause of process at the same time in the brain.

So you are saying that freewill is not compatible with a materialist approach to the brain? I agree.

Well, I am saying that mind cannot be the result of process in the brain since something cannot be cause of itself.

Free will is however the ability to create a causal chain which this is not possible in materialism since any system in materialism is causally closed.

So lets move on to why a mind must exist forever.

I haven’t promised that. The concept of existing forever applies to something which is temporal. Mind is timeless and spaceless. Mind however can experience Qualia which this could be temporal and local. Therefore I only need to show that mind is necessary. That is derived from argument of change: Suppose there is a change in a close system, S->S’. S is different from S’ and they could not coexist. This means that S has to vanishes before S’ takes place. Therefore there is a point that neither exist. But one cannot have S’ out of nothing. Therefore there should exist a mind which is aware of S and can cause S’.

I will think of your suggestion and see if I can provide any argument.

 

[Gorgias]

I either could not make any memory or I was not attached to matter.

If you were incapable of memory, I would say that you can’t make the claim for existence.

If you weren’t “attached to matter”, how could you make the claim that you know you existed?

 

[STT]

If you were incapable of memory, I would say that you can’t make the claim for existence.

You also have soul since the time of conception. All you remember is a little or notion about your childhood.

If you weren’t “attached to matter”, how could you make the claim that you know you existed?

I cannot prove it empirically but I can argue about it. I just need to show that mind cannot be created.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

If you were incapable of memory, I would say that you can’t make the claim for existence.

You also have soul since the time of conception. All you remember is a little or notion about your childhood.

True, but that doesn’t mean that I cannot argue for my existence as a conceived fetus or child. In fact, I can turn to those who were alive at that time, who will give witness to my existence at that point. (For instance, my mother!)

I cannot prove it empirically but I can argue about it.

You know what it’s called when you make an argument without any substantiation, don’t you? “Opinion.”

I just need to show that mind cannot be created.

I think we’ve danced that dance already. You assert and we refute that assertion.

 

[STT]

STT:

You also have soul since the time of conception. All you remember is a little or notion about your childhood.

True, but that doesn’t mean that I cannot argue for my existence as a conceived fetus or child. In fact, I can turn to those who were alive at that time, who will give witness to my existence at that point. (For instance, my mother!)

I can show that too.

STT:

I cannot prove it empirically but I can argue about it.

You know what it’s called when you make an argument without any substantiation, don’t you? “Opinion.”

Do you have empirical evidence that God created your soul and merge it to you?

STT:

I just need to show that mind cannot be created.

I think we’ve danced that dance already. You assert and we refute that assertion.

Well, I cannot help it if you don’t want to discuss it.