Human, mutant, cyborg, android, robot?

[Pallas_Athene]

So, now, how many pieces of evidence or uses can you list for your theory about all classification being arbitrary…?

Next time you will demand evidence that the sky is blue? Biology was based upon a simple observation, where certain characteristics were selected as the basis of classification. Furthermore you can classify humans based upon their IQ level, their weight, height, color of eyes, skin pigmentation, etc… Not all of these classifications are equally useful. But when it comes to shoe sizes (for example) the classification based upon the size of the feet is useful.

There is no “absolute” or “innate” importance of properties. Some are useful / relevant in one set of circumstances, others might be relevant in other circumstances.

The point here is that “essence” is contingent upon the intended use. A primitive human might stumble upon a huge collection of books, and uses them to keep warm in his cave. For him the “essence” of the books is that they can be used to make fire. He might categorize the books based upon the possibility to burn them. The dry paper will belong to “useful” set of material, the wet ones are “useless”. Just one example of arbitrary categorization.

 

[MPat]

Next time you will demand evidence that the sky is blue?

You know, if you would have looked for evidence, you would have discovered that this claim is not as true as you think (for example, sky is black at night). Wikipedia even has an essay “You do need to cite that the sky is blue” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_do_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue).

Anyway, as you can see, the contrary theory (the one with essences) can be supported by evidence. How comes that your theory cannot?

Biology was based upon a simple observation, where certain characteristics were selected as the basis of classification. Furthermore you can classify humans based upon their IQ level, their weight, height, color of eyes, skin pigmentation, etc… Not all of these classifications are equally useful. But when it comes to shoe sizes (for example) the classification based upon the size of the feet is useful.

There is no “absolute” or “innate” importance of properties. Some are useful / relevant in one set of circumstances, others might be relevant in other circumstances.

The point here is that “essence” is contingent upon the intended use. A primitive human might stumble upon a huge collection of books, and uses them to keep warm in his cave. For him the “essence” of the books is that they can be used to make fire. He might categorize the books based upon the possibility to burn them. The dry paper will belong to “useful” set of material, the wet ones are “useless”. Just one example of arbitrary categorization.

Just as I thought. Lots of text, but no evidence at all, just special pleading, strawmen (“essence” is not a synonym of “use”) and more “dogmas”.

That “Just one example” is also pointless: your claim is that all classifications are arbitrary. Such things cannot be shown by a single example - on the contrary, a single counterexample disproves them.

Not to mention that you also gave no application of your theory. Perhaps because they do not exist?

 

[NovusFidem]

He might categorize the books based upon the possibility to burn them. The dry paper will belong to “useful” set of material, the wet ones are “useless”. Just one example of arbitrary categorization.

You say arbitrary, but the caveman is actually making a logical categorization, based on his present needs.

Arbitrary is something made on a whim, random and/or unpredictable; something not made by reason, principle or necessity. But, based on the situation given by you, I can predict how the caveman is going to sort his books - I can evaluate which books burn quicker with drier pages, which burn for longer, and those that won’t burn at all.

So, no. That is not an example of arbitrary categorization. While he is not using the same categorization I’d use, his categorization still holds some logic to it.

Just like, you know, taxonomy.

 

[yppop]

I don’t want to limit you by specifying what tools you wish to use. Obviously we live in a physical reality, so the best evidence would be physical, which is objective and repeatable. But, as I said, the ball is yours, present whatever evidence you find most compelling. There is one requirement, however. The “evidence” cannot presume what you wish to demonstrate. Circular reasoning is not allowed.

Of course we all know what evidence means. I just object to a dismissal of anything pertaining to God with the intellectually inept, “there is no evidence”. Such a response is inept because there also is no evidence that God doesn’t exist. So any philosophical discussion in that direction is starting on a level playing field.The same people that use the “no evidence” also use the pejorative phrase" God of the gaps" to avoid answering scientifically unanswerable questions. What the faithless usually mean when they use such arguments is, “there is no evidence, hence it (whatever) is not scientific” implying that if it is not scientific then it can’t be true. Ah! such faith that the faithless express. When did truth require evidence?

The definition of “human” should be a philosophical question, not something that requires evidence. And I state this even though the definition I offered depends strongly on science.

I was trained and worked as a scientist (physics) and love it and still believe strongly in the existence of God. But like any true scientist, when confronted with the lack of evidence either for or against, I seek the most plausible explanation. The definition of a human most plausibly includes the presence of a spiritual component in addition to a material component. To think that the experience of color is a material phenomenon is implausible, only the immaterial can produce such an experience. Yes, I know about the “emergent” property of matter, the scientist’s answer to the question “what is the experience of color?”, but If color is not “material” then is must be immaterial.

I contend there is much science that is not based on evidence (whatever that means) but becomes science (meaning it finds its way into text books and nothing more) because it is the most plausible description of the observed phenomenon - think geology, biology, neurobiology, .

So the question is: “what evidence is there for an immaterial and immortal soul, which exist in humans, but does not exist in animals”?

I contend that all metazoans are infused with an immaterial substance, the level of which is manifested by the degree of observed consciousness. Only humans have an immortal soul because only humans have a mind. The mind is composed of a material component (the language instinct in the brain) and a spiritual component called nous. The soul is inherently developed by free will. Only humans have free will.

yppop

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Arbitrary is something made on a whim, random and/or unpredictable; something not made by reason, principle or necessity.

Not really. Arbitrary simply means that there are other classification systems, each suiting the needs of the ones who apply them. Hair stylists know very well that the texture and the chemical compound of the hair of black people is very different from white people. They need special tools, chemical agents, etc. So one can legitimately subdivide humans based upon their “hair”. But this categorization cannot be transported into a different field of study.

So, no. That is not an example of arbitrary categorization. While he is not using the same categorization I’d use, his categorization still holds some logic to it.

We have a communication problem. You use the word “arbitrary” in a different way that I use.

Let’s not forget that all these side conversations grew out of the concept of “essence”, which tries to separate the “important attributes” from the “unimportant ones”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course we all know what evidence means. I just object to a dismissal of anything pertaining to God with the intellectually inept, “there is no evidence”. Such a response is inept because there also is no evidence that God doesn’t exist.

Since you claim that you are scientist, you should be aware that there is no evidence (and can be no positive, direct evidence) for “nonexistence”. Nonexistence cannot be demonstrated. The only way to approach this question is to examine the positive evidence for existence, and if the evidence is found wanting, then one MUST discard the hypothesis to the contrary.

When did truth require evidence?

Always. How could anything be called “truth” without evidence?

The definition of “human” should be a philosophical question, not something that requires evidence. And I state this even though the definition I offered depends strongly on science.

A philosophical question still needs to be examined and “taken apart”. Otherwise it is just an opinion.

I was trained and worked as a scientist (physics) and love it and still believe strongly in the existence of God. But like any true scientist, when confronted with the lack of evidence either for or against, I seek the most plausible explanation. The definition of a human most plausibly includes the presence of a spiritual component in addition to a material component.

Since the “spiritual component” is undefined, I cannot accept this definition. You need to get into the details. As it is stated, it is something that I cannot understand.

Yes, I know about the “emergent” property of matter, the scientist’s answer to the question “what is the experience of color?”, but If color is not “material” then is must be immaterial.

There are many things that are immaterial, but they are all contingent upon the material underpinning. Attributes, relationships and actions are all “immaterial”, but they do not exist without the material objects. As for “color”, there is an objective attribute of certain wavelength of the light and the ability of the eye to perceive it as “red”. Both objectively exist. Some eyes do not contain the necessary receptors (rods and cones), so those beings are “color-blind”… usually they have a much better perception of clarity. There is no need to invoke some “supernatural” explanation for the immaterial aspects of material objects.

I contend that all metazoans are infused with an immaterial substance, the level of which is manifested by the degree of observed consciousness. Only humans have an immortal soul because only humans have a mind. The mind is composed of a material component (the language instinct in the brain) and a spiritual component called nous. The soul is inherently developed by free will. Only humans have free will.

Even if I would accept your categorization, it would not follow that this “immaterial substance” is immortal. But I reject it. Consciousness are free will are not binary categories. They exist on a scale. Many animals exhibit some level of consciousness and they all exhibit the ability to choose - as such they have free will. On the other hand a newborn human has absolutely no self-awareness and no “will” whatsoever. They are just a bunch of reflexes, nothing more.

 

[NovusFidem]

Not really. Arbitrary simply means that there are other classification systems, each suiting the needs of the ones who apply them.

That is variety. Just because I can have a variety of systems, doesn’t make a system arbitrary.

We have a communication problem. You use the word “arbitrary” in a different way that I use.

I am using the dictionary definition.

adjective

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

Meaning, has no boundary, no set limit. Follows a person’s whim, not a “law” (something that establishes “order”).

1. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value:
   an arbitrary constant.

Specific value. For example, when sorting books, you can give values to them:

By size: Small < Medium < Large;
By Title: A - B - C - D - E…
By Author: A - B - C…
By color spectrum: cold colors → warm colors (and vice-versa)

Despite the big variety, each system is still set upon a logical reasoning.

Merriam-Webster

: **not **planned or chosen for a particular reason
: not based on reason or evidence
: done without concern for what is fair or right

An example of an arbitrary decision

I’ll assign arbitrary numbers to forum members.

Pallas = 1
Yppop = 2
Novus = 3
MPat = 4

My decision follows no logic. I didn’t assign a number based on gender, nor number of posts, not order of post, nor anything. I arbitrarily assigned numbers. I simply gave each of us a number.

Although this categorization might prove useful (we know how many of us there is, I know that (1) posted four times in the 4th page), it follows no logical reasoning as to why one was assigned their number - you can’t determinate why I gave you a 1, while giving me a 3.

Hair stylists know very well that the texture and the chemical compound of the hair of black people is very different from white people. They need special tools, chemical agents, etc. So one can legitimately subdivide humans based upon their “hair”. But this categorization cannot be transported into a different field of study.

We can start by saying that this subdivision started on another field of study. **Science **first noticed the different hair types, **Biology **categorized each hair type to a specific gene+phenotype interaction, Physiology studied each of those types’ structures, so that a hairstylist could make use of all that gathered knowledge just to make his job easier.

Tell me how a categorization cannot be transported into a different field.

Let’s not forget that all these side conversations grew out of the concept of “essence”, which tries to separate the “important attributes” from the “unimportant ones”.

That’s the thing. We are trying to explain how all this “arbitrary” categorization of “unimportant attributes” end up being a logical categorization of important attributes. Just because WE can’t see the usefulness in separating primates by how wet their noses are (really, go look it up), doesn’t mean there isn’t a logic and utility behind that decision.

We categorize things to make our work easier. Simple.

Biology categorizes animals for various utilities. You have different breeds of “domestic” cats - while all look fairly identical to us, one breed might prove prejudicial to the local fauna. Something as silly as “temperament” of the breed, color of the fur, size of the ear, distance of the eyes, makes one breed - of the same Species as the local cat - a murderous machine for the resident birds and lizards of the area.

We, as humans, are also categorized. We are Animals, we are Mammals, we are Primates. But we are not Chimpanzee. We are not Gorilla.

Finally: would aliens be considered Human? If yes: why? I can’t see how they’d qualify as humans, seeing as they wouldn’t have the characteristics inherent to a human being.

 

[MPat]

Since you claim that you are scientist, you should be aware that there is no evidence (and can be no positive, direct evidence) for “nonexistence”. Nonexistence cannot be demonstrated.

That’s, obviously, nonsense (and, of course, it is given with no evidence).

But, as Petrosian reportedly liked to say, “If your opponent wants to play Dutch defence, it is most important not to impede.” (“Если ваш соперник хочет играть голландскую защиту, главное — не мешать.”)…

Actually, this your claim would be enough, but you gave us one more:

Always. How could anything be called “truth” without evidence?

Now that is convenient! Well, if evidence is so vital and you deny that any evidence is possible for non-existence, you just cannot claim non-existence of anything.

Thus you obviously can’t afford to deny existence of souls and essences.

Of course, it gets even more interesting: you also can’t afford to claim non-existence of all kinds of gods, angels, ghosts, zombies, vampires, prime numbers divisible by six, phlogiston, caloric…

It’s not like you will be allowed to play a “handicap game” where you, as a “weaker player” can assert things without any evidence.

The only way to approach this question is to examine the positive evidence for existence, and if the evidence is found wanting, then one MUST discard the hypothesis to the contrary.

As you can see, your assertions do not lead in this direction.

I guess I can also give a link to a blog post that (with some comments) served as an inspiration: crudeideas.blogspot.com/2014/07/he-who-makes-claim-has-burden.html.

So, do you want to take this “move” back…?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That’s, obviously, nonsense (and, of course, it is given with no evidence).

Please demonstrate the NONEXISTENCE of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[MPat]

Please demonstrate the NONEXISTENCE of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Why should I? At this point I am still letting you have those your claims. I am saying that they only make things worse for you. And you didn’t even challenge that.

For at this point it is not just that you cannot demonstrate that “Flying Spaghetti Monster” does not exist - you cannot even assert that it (or souls, or essences, or anything else) does not exit without self-contradiction.

Now it’s your turn to decide if you are happy with this state of affairs.

Oh, and if I wanted to disprove your claim about impossibility of proving non-existence of anything, I would get to choose the example and not you. After all, any example would do the trick.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Why should I?

Because you made a POSITIVE claim, when you said that “I was talking nonsense” when I asserted that “NONEXISTENCE cannot be demonstrated”. tony would accuse you of making “ad hominem” arguments. I don’t stoop to that level, I merely ask you to demonstrate how can a “universal negative” be substantiated.

There is another reason for it, too. It is the policy of the board that you need to substantiate what you say. If you say that it is nonsense that nonexistence cannot be substantiated then the onus is on you to show just HOW can the nonexistence of the FSM be demonstrated.

In an axiomatic system it is possible. Like in mathematics you can prove that there are NO two positive integers the ratio of which precisely equals to the square root of two. But such a proof CANNOT exist in an open, inductive system. Before you would try to counter this by demanding a “proof” for this principle, I suggest that you start to think. In an open system the possibilities are endless, there is no way to enumerate all of them. Therefore you cannot “prove” the nonexistence of the FSM. However, there is a good way to demonstrate that the FSM does not exist… and that is pointing out that there is NO EVIDENCE for its existence. The same and more applies to the “soul”. There is no evidence for it, and moreover there is no coherent definition of this nebulous “soul”.

 

[yppop]

Since you claim that you are scientist, you should be aware that there is no evidence (and can be no positive, direct evidence) for “nonexistence”. Nonexistence cannot be demonstrated. The only way to approach this question is to examine the positive evidence for existence, and if the evidence is found wanting, then one MUST discard the hypothesis to the contrary.

Always. How could anything be called “truth” without evidence?

A philosophical question still needs to be examined and “taken apart”. Otherwise it is just an opinion.

Since the “spiritual component” is undefined, I cannot accept this definition. You need to get into the details. As it is stated, it is something that I cannot understand.

There are many things that are immaterial, but they are all contingent upon the material underpinning. Attributes, relationships and actions are all “immaterial”, but they do not exist without the material objects. As for “color”, there is an objective attribute of certain wavelength of the light and the ability of the eye to perceive it as “red”. Both objectively exist. Some eyes do not contain the necessary receptors (rods and cones), so those beings are “color-blind”… usually they have a much better perception of clarity. There is no need to invoke some “supernatural” explanation for the immaterial aspects of material objects.

Even if I would accept your categorization, it would not follow that this “immaterial substance” is immortal. But I reject it. Consciousness are free will are not binary categories. They exist on a scale. Many animals exhibit some level of consciousness and they all exhibit the ability to choose - as such they have free will. On the other hand a newborn human has absolutely no self-awareness and no “will” whatsoever. They are just a bunch of reflexes, nothing more.

P.A.
I was going to answer you point by point but I believe that would be a complete waste of my time because you obviously avoided my main point namely: that it is an inept view of reality to claim “that only an idea that is based on science can manifest truth and only that for which there is evidence can be called science” .

The reason I asked you for your definition of “evidence” was to see if you would accept the plausibility approach. You didn’t. Your definition: Post #62 “Obviously we live in a physical reality, so the best evidence would be physical, which is objective and repeatable.” On the contrary I argue that “the most plausible explanation of the observed facts” is an acceptable form of “evidence”; plausability is often used to recognize as science theories and hypotheses in fields like geology, biology, neurobiology, and even cosmology.

I would also argue the existence of a spiritual substance, nous, is the basis for an immaterial memory, along with the neuronal material memory of the brain, is the most plausible explanation for the experience of color. The brain is necessary but not sufficient for the experience of color; likewise the nous is also necessary but not sufficient for the experience of color. Both must be present, but it is the spiritual component, nous, that is the source of the experience.

You presented the same idea in different words when you wrote; “There are many things that are immaterial, but they are all contingent upon the material underpinning. Attributes, relationships and actions are all “immaterial”, but they do not exist without the material objects.” If you read my posts more carefully you should have realized that I stated no less than both material and immaterial are necessary.

What do you mean by “immaterial?” If it is not material, what is it? Scientists call it an “emergent property of matter” or “qualia” both of which are not explained. The plausible answer is: it is a spiritual substance.if you truly want details on what I mean by “spiritual component” I have a 6000+ word thesis I could dump on you.

Incidentally, only cones are associated with color. Your puzzling first item on existence and nonexistence seems to be a statement on Popper’s idea of falsification and if it is I think you got it backwards.

Yppop

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What do you mean by “immaterial?” If it is not material, what is it?

It is an abstraction of the material. The “length” of an object describes an attribute of the object, but it is NOT a material object itself. The distance between two objects is a relationship, but it is not a material object itself. There is no need for bringing up some “spiritual” aspect - whatever it might be.

You talked about “plausibility”. But plausibility is a subjective phenomenon. What you find “plausible” is not necessarily considered as “plausible” by others.

The plausible answer is: it is a spiritual substance.if you truly want details on what I mean by “spiritual component” I have a 6000+ word thesis I could dump on you.

I would be happy if I ever saw a meaningful explanation of what this “spiritual” thingy might be. I still have no idea what the word “spiritual aspect” is supposed to be.

 

[MPat]

Because you made a POSITIVE claim, when you said that “I was talking nonsense” when I asserted that “NONEXISTENCE cannot be demonstrated”.

No, I have said that your claim was nonsense.

tony would accuse you of making “ad hominem” arguments. I don’t stoop to that level, I merely ask you to demonstrate how can a “universal negative” be substantiated.

“Ad hominem” refers to arguments “X is [something bad]. X says Y. Therefore, not Y.”. I didn’t make such argument.

As for your request, please note that a non-constructive proof hasn’t been unheard of. And you have yet to define that “universal negative” you speak about. By the way, the last time I participated in such discussion, “universal negative” stayed undefined by the user claiming it cannot be proved (for example, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12609045&postcount=654)… I hope it won’t be like that in this case.

There is another reason for it, too. It is the policy of the board that you need to substantiate what you say. If you say that it is nonsense that nonexistence cannot be substantiated then the onus is on you to show just HOW can the nonexistence of the FSM be demonstrated.

You mean you violated that policy when you did not support that same claim about impossibility to prove non-existence? Or the claim that essences are useless? Or the claim that all classifications are arbitrary? Or the claim that there is no evidence for souls?

Anyway, my claim was supported. After all, if it hadn’t been supported, how comes you have changed your claim already?

Just compare:

Since you claim that you are scientist, you should be aware that there is no evidence (and can be no positive, direct evidence) for “nonexistence”. Nonexistence cannot be demonstrated.

In an axiomatic system it is possible. Like in mathematics you can prove that there are NO two positive integers the ratio of which precisely equals to the square root of two. But such a proof CANNOT exist in an open, inductive system.

As you can see, you did admit your original claim was clearly wrong. It was enough for me to support my claim by challenging you to take that your own claim seriously.

Of course, the new version of the claim is still wrong. And we can see that from your own statements.

For example:

But such a proof CANNOT exist in an open, inductive system.

However, there is a good way to demonstrate that the FSM does not exist… and that is pointing out that there is NO EVIDENCE for its existence. The same and more applies to the “soul”. There is no evidence for it, and moreover there is no coherent definition of this nebulous “soul”.

That is obviously a contradiction. Also, the second statement contradicts your claim given in an exchange “When did truth require evidence?” - “Always. How could anything be called ‘truth’ without evidence?”. Have you taken it back as well?

For that matter, even your accusation concerning my claim does not fit your claim that much. For it ends up being a claim about non-existence of support for my claim.

Before you would try to counter this by demanding a “proof” for this principle, I suggest that you start to think. In an open system the possibilities are endless, there is no way to enumerate all of them.

At least it is something. But, of course, “open system” hasn’t been defined. And it is not clear what “possibilities” refers to. And, of course, no reason to think that those “possibilities” have to be enumerated has been given.

And there is still the same problem: if you take your own claim seriously, you just cannot assert non-existence of souls, essences or anything else that you are talking about.

 

[yppop]

It is an abstraction of the material. The “length” of an object describes an attribute of the object, but it is NOT a material object itself. The distance between two objects is a relationship, but it is not a material object itself. There is no need for bringing up some “spiritual” aspect - whatever it might be.

The only thing that isn’t “abstract” is an incremental change of the cosmic configuration of the quarks, electrons, and photons that exists as objective reality outside our minds. The part of the cosmic configuration that forms the length of an object is “real” not abstract; it can be measured. What we “see” as the length becomes an abstraction in our minds.

The path of the photons that represent the object field striking the rods and cones, create action potentials (the visual field) that is transferred through the bipolar, horizontal and amacrine retinal cells, to the retinal ganglion cells where shapes are delineated in a reduced form; each ganglion cell is connected to ~100 rods and cones . The action potentials that form the visual field in the ganglion cell pass to the optic nerve and through the optic chiasm to the hypothalamus that distributes the action potentials representing the shape of the visual field to the visual cortex where the visual field is mapped onto visual space. What is mapped onto the visual space is not the complete “length”; it is a series of activated neurons much like a “fresco cartoon” that artist uses as a template for the complete painting. The perception of reality, what we see as the length is created in the mind. The visual field is in the brain, the visual space is in the mind.

For example, the object field (the form of the photon stream) is inverted by the lens onto the retina and remains inverted until it is interpreted in the mind in its real orientation. In other words, we see “reality” with the mind not with the brain. The visual field is digital (discrete) the image formed by the mind in the visual space is analog (continuous). The attributes of an object are discrete action potentials in the brain, they are a continuous image in the mind. They are what is called qualia.

The mind is not the brain, it exists conterminously with the brain but is something different. If the brain is material; the mind must be something immaterial.

The length of an object is not an abstraction in situ; there, it can be measured directly. But the length we see in the mind must be something other than neurons, I contend that what makes the mind different than the brain is something immaterial. And by immaterial I refer to the dictionary meaning that applies: “Not consisting of matter; without substance; incorporeal, spiritual.”

I would be happy if I ever saw a meaningful explanation of what this “spiritual” thingy might be. I still have no idea what the word “spiritual aspect” is supposed to be.

I will answer this at a later time.
Yppop

 

[Pallas_Athene]

As you can see, you did admit your original claim was clearly wrong.

They referred two different systems, so there is no contradiction. There are the “inductive” and the “deductive” systems. The latter is based upon AXIOMS, the prior is based upon empirically derived PRINCIPLES. The principles, since they are based upon empirical data, can be falsified. The axioms are what they are. Either one accepts them or not.

The only way for you to make an argument is by confusing the two systems. Whether it comes from ignorance of malicious intent, I cannot know, and will not speculate.

And there is still the same problem: if you take your own claim seriously, you just cannot assert non-existence of souls, essences or anything else that you are talking about.

As usual, you twisted the argument. The “soul” has never been defined (unlike the open, inductive system). The concept of “essence” is too vague to have any significance.

Be as it may, I am not interested in hairsplitting. I am not interested in explaining the difference between the inductive and deductive systems.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The mind is not the brain, it exists conterminously with the brain but is something different. If the brain is material; the mind must be something immaterial.

I agree with you 100%. The mind is the activity of brain. It cannot exist without the neurons. An exact analogy is the “legs” - the material substance, and the “walking”, the immaterial activity of the legs. There can be no “walking” without the legs. But the “walking” needs no “spiritual” explanation.

The best analogy for the brain-mind phenomenon is the computer. The brain is the “wetware”, the equivalent of the “hardware”. The program that runs on the hardware is the equivalent the mind. The analogy is not perfect, but can be perfected. When you think about the computer, you need to think about a parallel processing cellular computer. The cells are connected to each other, but the connection is not “hard wired”. So the process is the interaction between the hardware and the software. The hardware runs the program (electrons, gates, wires) and the program changes the hardware - just like the brain.

Now, this is not science fiction. Such computers exist, though they are very primitive compared to the billions of cells in the brain.

 

[MPat]

They referred two different systems, so there is no contradiction. There are the “inductive” and the “deductive” systems. The latter is based upon AXIOMS, the prior is based upon empirically derived PRINCIPLES. The principles, since they are based upon empirical data, can be falsified. The axioms are what they are. Either one accepts them or not.

The only way for you to make an argument is by confusing the two systems. Whether it comes from ignorance of malicious intent, I cannot know, and will not speculate.

And yet, you might note that original version of your claim didn’t say anything about such things. It said just that “Nonexistence cannot be demonstrated.” without qualifying this in any way. Adding qualifications does change the claim.

As usual, you twisted the argument. The “soul” has never been defined (unlike the open, inductive system). The concept of “essence” is too vague to have any significance.

Since you claim you cannot demonstrate non-existence anyway, what would a definition really change?

Be as it may, I am not interested in hairsplitting. I am not interested in explaining the difference between the inductive and deductive systems.

An interesting pattern…

It sure does look strange to have no interest in that and to go to “Philosophy” subforum… It is also strange that in this thread you wanted to discuss “borderline cases”, which would seem to invite “hairsplitting”…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

And yet, you might note that original version of your claim didn’t say anything about such things.

Of course not. Obvious things do not need to be spelled out.

 

[yppop]

I agree with you 100%. The mind is the activity of brain. It cannot exist without the neurons. An exact analogy is the “legs” - the material substance, and the “walking”, the immaterial activity of the legs. There can be no “walking” without the legs. But the “walking” needs no “spiritual” explanation.

The best analogy for the brain-mind phenomenon is the computer. The brain is the “wetware”, the equivalent of the “hardware”. The program that runs on the hardware is the equivalent the mind. The analogy is not perfect, but can be perfected. When you think about the computer, you need to think about a parallel processing cellular computer. The cells are connected to each other, but the connection is not “hard wired”. So the process is the interaction between the hardware and the software. The hardware runs the program (electrons, gates, wires) and the program changes the hardware - just like the brain.

Now, this is not science fiction. Such computers exist, though they are very primitive compared to the billions of cells in the brain.

You only agree with me 100% because you haven’t understood what I wrote. So that 100% agreement, like the rest of your responses to my posts, is nothing but a smoke screen thrown up to mask an inability to grasp what I have written.

But don’t despair, that hackneyed “the brain is a computer” analogy convinced me that I am only wasting my time. You win!!

Next time I won’t go against my rule of avoiding posters with an interest rating lower than 1.
yppop