How do we know Essence and Existence are distinct?

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

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.

You can only show what I already accept – that you existed at the point at which you were a body/soul composite. You, however, are making the claim of existence prior to that point. Can you demonstrate that existence?

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?

Empirical? No.

But, from my Christian faith and from the Bible, I can make the argument I’m presenting here. You, on the other hand, only have your personal opinion to rely on, right?

STT:

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

That’s the point – we already have discussed it.

 

[STT]

STT:

Gorgias:

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.

You can only show what I already accept – that you existed at the point at which you were a body/soul composite. You, however, are making the claim of existence prior to that point. Can you demonstrate that existence?

For that I have to argue that mind cannot be created. Unfortunately, you don’t want to discuss that.

STT:

Gorgias:

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?

Empirical? No.

But, from my Christian faith and from the Bible, I can make the argument I’m presenting here. You, on the other hand, only have your personal opinion to rely on, right?

Well, belief or opinion, I won’t buy it until you have an argument or evidence for it.

STT:

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

That’s the point – we already have discussed it.

 

[Gorgias]

For that I have to argue that mind cannot be created. Unfortunately, you don’t want to discuss that.

Fine. Go ahead. Realize, however, that if it’s the same old argument, I’ll continue to reject it, and we won’t have gotten any further. In any case, even if you did convince me that “mind is uncreated”, how would that allow you to demonstrate your existence?

Well, belief or opinion, I won’t buy it until you have an argument or evidence for it.

The argument for religion is the argument for the claim at hand.

 

[STT]

Fine. Go ahead. Realize, however, that if it’s the same old argument, I’ll continue to reject it, and we won’t have gotten any further.

Ok. I need to show that mind is irreducible first and then show that it cannot be created.

The first argument:

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

The second argument:

1. Mind is irreducible
2. Anything which is irreducible is undesignable
3. The act of creation requires design
4. Therefore mind cannot be created

In any case, even if you did convince me that “mind is uncreated”, how would that allow you to demonstrate your existence?

Well, I can justify that I can experience, decide and act. That is very definition of mind therefore I as a mind exist.

 

[Wesrock]

The mind isn’t metaphysically simple. This doesn’t mean its metaphysical parts can exist separately or can experience things separately.

 

[STT]

The mind isn’t metaphysically simple. This doesn’t mean its metaphysical parts can exist separately or can experience things separately.

It is, given the definition of mind which is essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and act. You cannot make it simpler than that.

 

[Wesrock]

No, because the mind need not exist. It’s a composition of a potential essence (taking your claim that the mind/soul is the esence) and actual existence. If you’re proposing the mind as some sort of res cogitans it can certainly change in knowledge, and if not you’re basically calling it an Aristotlean form but not using the same terms.

 

[STT]

We have already discuss this. Knowledge without form, a body, is impossible. The most metaphysical simple thing is mind without any attachment.

 

[Wesrock]

So far it seems you’re just using a fallacy of accident. Humans obtain knowledge through sensory and material processes. It does not automatically follow that knowledge is itself material.

 

[Gorgias]

• Experience is unitary

I’ll defer commenting on this one for the moment

• Suppose that mind has parts (is reducible)

This is illogical. That which is not physical is simple, not composite. Therefore, if you’re positing a mind that pre-exists the body/soul, then it is non-physical, and therefore, not composite.

• 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)

You have not demonstrated that mind – separated from a body and/or a soul – has the ability to experience. Why should we suspect that it does have this ability? It has no sense organs, nor access to any sense organs. If it cannot experience, then your ‘proof’ falls apart.

• This means that experience is not unitary

Again, I don’t think I need to address this, since the proof fails without addressing this claim (whatever it might mean!)

• (1) and (4) contradict each other therefore (2) is wrong

Huh? That makes no sense. For example:
1: The moon is made of green cheese
2: Green cheese is edible.
3: Green cheese tastes good.
4: Astronauts found that the moon is made of rocks.

“(1) & (4) contradict each other, therefore (2) is wrong.”

See what I mean? That makes no sense…

 

[STT]

Is your soul is reducible? You only have one identity.

 

[Gorgias]

Is your soul is reducible? You only have one identity.

The soul is simple, not composite. It cannot be decomposed into parts. It has this property by virtue of being a spiritual entity.

(Note, however, that the Church asserts that the person is a composite – namely, a composite of body and soul.)

 

[STT]

Great. What is you objection to the second argument? You can replace mind by soul if you wish.

1. Mind is irreducible
2. Anything which is irreducible is undesignable
3. The act of creation requires design
4. Therefore mind cannot be created

 

[Gorgias]

Great. What is you objection to the second argument? You can replace mind by soul if you wish.

Is it your contention that what Christians call the ‘soul’ is what you mean by ‘mind’? If so, Christian theology holds that the soul is created by God without mediation at the time the person’s body comes into existence.

1. Mind is irreducible

From a philosophical standpoint, you’re claiming that it does not have parts, right? That it is ‘simple’, not ‘composite’, correct?

1. Anything which is irreducible is undesignable

This doesn’t follow from #1, nor do you provide any rationale for making this claim.

In fact, from the perspective of Christian theology, God is the designer of all of the created universe!

1. The act of creation requires design
2. Therefore mind cannot be created

This conclusion would have us believe that God created the universe, but not the people with whom He populated it? In other words, you’re claiming that there is some pre-existing storehouse of souls – which God Himself didn’t create – and these souls are foreign to the people who later come into existence but are in some way ‘attached’ to people at the time of their coming-into-existence?

That argument has serious logical flaws… it just doesn’t make sense.

 

[STT]

STT:

Great. What is you objection to the second argument? You can replace mind by soul if you wish.

Is it your contention that what Christians call the ‘soul’ is what you mean by ‘mind’? If so, Christian theology holds that the soul is created by God without mediation at the time the person’s body comes into existence.

To me soul and mind are identical and both cannot be created. We will see if we can reach to the same conclusion.

STT:

Mind is irreducible

From a philosophical standpoint, you’re claiming that it does not have parts, right? That it is ‘simple’, not ‘composite’, correct?

Yes. I mean it has no part and it is simple.

STT:

Anything which is irreducible is undesignable

This doesn’t follow from #1, nor do you provide any rationale for making this claim.

I didn’t say that it follows from #1.

In fact, from the perspective of Christian theology, God is the designer of all of the created universe!

How could God design something which has no part? The knowledge is structured. Mind has no structure.

STT:

The act of creation requires design
Therefore mind cannot be created

This conclusion would have us believe that God created the universe, but not the people with whom He populated it? In other words, you’re claiming that there is some pre-existing storehouse of souls – which God Himself didn’t create – and these souls are foreign to the people who later come into existence but are in some way ‘attached’ to people at the time of their coming-into-existence?

Yes, sort of.

That argument has serious logical flaws… it just doesn’t make sense.

Truth is supported by logic whether you like it or not.

 

[Gorgias]

How could God design something which has no part?

I don’t understand why this seems problematic for you.

At best, you seem to be saying “since it’s not constructed from parts, it’s not constructed”, and then “if it’s not constructed, it’s not designed.” The former is trivial, and the latter is illogical.

Your argument devolves to absurdity: each component in a composite entity is itself either composite or simple. Ultimately, as you peel each layer away, you’re left with only simple components. Therefore, your argument posits that all the ‘stuff’ of the universe has always existed. That’s unacceptable both from the perspective of science (Big Bang, right?) and theology (God as creator of material universe).

Truth is supported by logic whether you like it or not.

I agree. Therefore, you know what this implies about my assessment of the truth value of your argument, right?

 

[STT]

STT:

How could God design something which has no part?

I don’t understand why this seems problematic for you.

Knowledge is structured? Isn’t it? How could you know something which has no structure?

At best, you seem to be saying “since it’s not constructed from parts , it’s not constructed”, and then “if it’s not constructed, it’s not designed.” The former is trivial, and the latter is illogical.

Your argument devolves to absurdity: each component in a composite entity is itself either composite or simple. Ultimately, as you peel each layer away, you’re left with only simple components. Therefore, your argument posits that all the ‘stuff’ of the universe has always existed . That’s unacceptable both from the perspective of science (Big Bang, right?) and theology (God as creator of material universe).

Big Bang is starting of Qualia, the thing that we experience and partly have control on it, our bodies.

 

[Gorgias]

Knowledge is structured? Isn’t it? How could you know something which has no structure?

Information is knowledge which we process by structuring it. The structure is a characteristic of our attempt to understand, not a characteristic of the thing-known-in-itself.

Let’s get back to my critique of your argument: you made an assertion regarding simple and composite entities. If the basic building blocks of everything must be simple entities (and they must, since composite items by definition are made up other things!), then your assertion here is that we cannot know simple entities, since they – by your assertion – are unstructured and unknowable!

This makes your argument even more difficult to be workable: it claims that we cannot know the constituent parts of entities, but that we can know the entities themselves!

 

[STT]

STT:

Knowledge is structured. Isn’t it? How could you know something which has no structure?

Information is knowledge which we process by structuring it. The structure is a characteristic of our attempt to understand, not a characteristic of the thing-known-in-itself.

We obtain knowledge by processing forms by the aim to give structure to forms in a way to be comprehensible for an intellectual being. Knowledge is about relation between concepts/things/beings. Knowledge is reducible to concepts.

Let’s get back to my critique of your argument: you made an assertion regarding simple and composite entities. If the basic building blocks of everything must be simple entities (and they must, since composite items by definition are made up other things!), then your assertion here is that we cannot know simple entities, since they – by your assertion – are unstructured and unknowable!

Yes. That is what I am trying to say. Let’s discuss a property of mind which is free/conscious decision. Experience, decision and act comes together as a complete package. We cannot say how decision is related to experience for example. We could find a structure if we could find a relation between decision and experience and that implements that a specific decision is always related to specific experience, therefore decision could not be free.

This makes your argument even more difficult to be workable: it claims that we cannot know the constituent parts of entities, but that we can know the entities themselves!

Yes. That is in fact how science which is reductionist works. There are elementary particles which we cannot say why they are the way they are. They have a set of properties that we observe. The properties of entities therefore is explained in term of these particles.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@STT what religious/spiritual tradition do you associate with?