How do we know the First Cause is a Mind?

[JuanFlorencio]

Earlier in this thread I asserted that I could demonstrate that I’m a trinity. Meaning that there are three distinct aspects to my nature. Hopefully, by explaining why I think that this is true, I may shed some light on whether the first cause is, or isn’t, a conscious mind.

One of the aspects of my nature is obviously my physical body. Another aspect is of course my mind. Which has no physical form at all. But none-the-less exists, distinct from, if not independent of my physical form. But what’s the third aspect that composes that which I define as “Me”?

The third aspect isn’t as readily apparent, but its existence can be surmised by the fact that neither of the first two aspects…my body or my mind…could’ve given rise to themselves. Which means that there must be a third aspect to what I am. An underlying aspect which gives rise to the other two.

So even if I’m living in a solipsistic reality, I can be certain that three things exist.

1. My mind. That aspect of me that’s self-aware. That understands that I exist. And thinks, feels, hopes, fears, etc…
2. My body. Because even if it exists only in my mind, it’s still the embodiment of what I refer to as me. The mind is that which comprehends THAT I am. And the body is that which represents WHAT I am.
3. The third aspect of “Me” is that which gives rise to the first two. The mind might be able to give rise to the illusion of a physical reality, but it can’t give rise to itself. Therefore there must be a third aspect to what I am. An aspect which gives rise to the other two.

These are the three things, and the ONLY three things that I can be certain of. The existence of everything else…be it other minds, or God, will always remain unknown.

But the relevant idea here is that the mind can’t give rise to itself. And that must hold true for my mind, and your mind, and God’s mind. Therefore, the first cause can’t be a mind. The mind must arise from something else.

Are the terms “aspect” and “thing” synonyms to you?

Why is the third “aspect” of you able to “give rise” to your other two aspects?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

P.S.: After rereading my original post, I can see why you would ask whether I thought “aspects” and “things” were synonymous. My usage was indeed a bit confusing.

Yes, it was confusing. Can you rephrase your thoughts?

That’s a very good question. How…or for that matter…can…emergent phenomena arise? But…if one wishes to assert that emergent phenomena can’t arise from something which itself lacks those attributes, then I would be left to wonder whether my conscious mind is indeed the creator of everything, and solipsism in its metaphysical form…is true.

What made you think in the first place that a third “aspect” of you was necessary? In general, do you think something can “give rise” to itself?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio, first let me apologize for taking so long to respond. I tend to be very busy. And even now there are other things that I should be doing. So if parts of this post are confusing it’s likely due to the fact that I’m trying to hurry.

JuanFlorencio:

Yes, it was confusing. Can you rephrase your thoughts?

My usage of the terms “aspects” and “things” aren’t meant to be synonymous. The “aspects” are specifically those attributes, or qualities if you will, that compose the essence of what I think of as “Me”. “Things” on the other hand refers to anything. Cows, trees, you, God, smells, emotions, and even my own aspects are “things”. It’s a more general term. But the only three “things” that I can be certain have their own objective existence, are those three “aspects” of me. Everything else may or may not have their own objective existence. But my three aspects must exist.

To reiterate, those three aspects are, context, consciousness, and that which gave rise to them.

Context consists of everything that I perceive, from the world around me, to ideas, and you, and God, and even my own physical body. Context is everything that serves to construct a frame of reference for what I mean when I say “I am”. Without that frame of reference, the concept of “I am” would be meaningless. So context must exist.

Consciousness is my mind, it’s that part of me that’s self-aware, that thinks, that perceives the context, and forms the concept of “I am”.

But the third aspect of me must exist as well. It’s that which gives rise to both the context and the consciousness. Neither of which can exist without it.

That “aspect” of you which you called “my body” has now been replaced by “the context”, which includes “my body” and everything else, except “my mind”. Even God is there! Is this what you really meant to say, that even God is an aspect of “me”, and that the third aspect of “me” gives rise to God (not only to a concept of God, but to God himself), among other “things”?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Continued…

But what could the nature of “nothing” possibly be, that it could by its very nature, give rise to everything?

Would you say chaos is characterizable? If so, how would you characterize it? In other words, what is it that you call “chaos”?

 

[BlackFriar]

Indeed. And what is it that we call “coherence”.

Is it recognisable “purpose”?
But is that teleology truly designed in by the God Mind … or imposed by our own wishful thinking.

If its “designed in” … why couldn’t it simply be an inherent consequence of the very nature of matter itself…along with less subtle accidents such as mass, quantity, dimension and so on.

In which case the Creator may not even a be an intelligent bot let alone a person.

 

[anon10271182]

Are these five proofs different from the Quinque Viae?

(Latin corrected. Phone thinks it knows better than me, not that I know much)

 

[Wesrock]

Yes, though he does present one of Aquinas’ arguments, and one from Aristotle which is similar. The arguments are Feser’s own construction of the following arguments:

(1) Aristotles argument from motion.
(2) Plotinus’ argument from composition.
(3) Augustine’s argument from universals (and includes an argument for realism over nominalism and conceptualism)
(4) Aquinas’ argument from contingency.
(5) Liebniz’ argument from the principle of sufficient reason.

Feser doesn’t attempt to sum up or refer to the ancient philosophers (it’s not a lesson in what they wrote), but to present his own full version of the arguments with minimal metaphysical baggage. So while Feser is a Thomist, and I don’t think you can get away from that entirely, he dives straight into the arguments above without reliance on introducing you to tons if metaphysical background first. He wants each argument to be accessible as is. Though some prior experience in the area can still help.