Human or not?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Let’s play two thought experiments.

Suppose we talk about a human. We know it is a human, because he acts just as see other humans act - where the word “act” is taken in a very generic fashion.

Suppose that human loses a limb in an accident, and the lost limb is replaced by prosthesis. Obviously the individual is still the same (though might be somewhat impaired). Now continuing this (admittedly) gruesome process, we start replacing organ by organ the individual’s bodily parts with transplants or artificial prostheses - while leaving his brain alone.

If we use only transplants the person’s DNA is not uniform any more, though all organs are still of human origin. If we use artificial prostheses, the individual will be composed of mostly inorganic materials.

Observe that we left the brain alone, in good working condition. The individual in question is still - basically - a human, moreover it is the same person. Might be somewhat impaired, or maybe even more than “human” - if for example the artificial limbs give him “super-human” strength, or speed, but these do not detract from his “humanness”.

Finally, let’s go really beyond today’s technology: and “upload” his whole brain into an artificial “brain”. If this process is possible (and there is no theoretical reason to deny it), the “acts” of this new creature would be still basically identical to the person we started with.

Suppose you have known this person all your life. You have conducted long conversations with him and know him really well. All this transformation happened, unbeknownst to you, and now you converse with him on the phone. You speak for hours and hours and cannot detect any deviation from his old “self”. He chooses not to reveal that the transformation took place.

You would have to come to the conclusion that your old friend is on the other end of the telephone line - he is the same human, the same person, the same old friend.

Question #1: Having only the information you obtained through the phone you would not “demote” him from his human status, would you?

Question #2: Would it make any difference if you would get information about the gradual process which transformed your old friend into his current form?

If you would say that in the light of having full information you do not consider this being a human any more, then please answer:

Question #3: At which point of the process did he lose his human status?

Now let’s do another thought experiment. (Please do not get offended. I do not offer these thought experiments out of a desire to shock you, and would never advocate actually doing them.)

We start with the same individual, but have to perform a lobotomy - for whatever medical reason. Or suppose his brain was accidentally “erased” by an unfortunate accident of being exposed to a million-Gauss magnetic field. You can see your old friend - face to face, recognizing his features. However, there is no personality behind the “facade”; there is no one “at home”.

Question #4: Would you consider this individual a “human”, or just a “shell” of a human?

Once human - always human.​

Being human is not quantitative or composed of parts - its manifestations can be. And its manifestations, of whatever kind, can be affected by such things as lobotomies, but the human identity manifested is forever “beyond” & different from, its manifestations. It is not in any way reducible to the sum of the parts which manifest it: because it is spiritual.

It may one day be possible to build a simulacrum of a human being - but only God can impart the spiritual soul. That’s why no man-made man would be more than a simulacrum, & so, not really a man at all. (Notwithstanding “Robocop”, & "The Six Million Dollar Man: not forgetting “Chimera”.)

Does that answer the question ?

 

[ateista]

you miss the point: even if you knew every single last physical fact about another person, you wouldn’t know one thing: what it is like to have their conscious experiences.

look, if you build a computer and put a camera on it, what experience is the computer having when it trains the camera on a red ball? is it having any experience at all? if so, is it the same one that we have when we look at the ball?

the point is that knowing all the physical facts about the world and about the computer in particular, will not allow you to know the answer to these questions.

ergo, there are some non-physical facts about consciousness.

What do you mean by the word: “know”? To me it means total information. As applied to the brain-states - which are both the “hardware” or the cells of the brain and their electro-chemical interactions in any given moment - if that information is “known”, then it can be emulated in my brain, and therefore I will “know” what the apple looks like, even if I never saw one. Therefore there is no need to assume a non-material part for the consciousness.

see above: i can know every physical fact about the world and about the violin player’s consciousness, and still not know what middle-c sounds like. which, again, means that there must be some non-physical facts about consciousness.

The phrase “sounds like” describes the brain-state of the violinist. If I know his brain-state and if I can emulate it in my brain, then I will know what it “sounds like” even if I never heard one.

To know something is simply having a brain-state, which corresponds to the “thing” or event being known. Do you wish to assume that not only consciousness and free will are non-material, but also all knowledge is non-material? If so, you regard the brain as nothing but a transmitting device - without any part to play at all.

i make no such assumption: i am simply pointing out that it is logically possible for there to be a world physically identical to our world, but which is disparate with regards the facts about consciousness.

You stipulated that. You assume that consciousness is not adequately described by the mind, but so far your examples failed to substantiate that. Are the worlds are identical or not? If they are identical, then the consciousness will be the same.

you’re confusing sentences with propositions…whether or not anyone is around to think it or write it, 2+2=4. which is the same thing as saying the proposition “2+2=4” is true.

again, you’re talking about sentences, not propositions.

Uh-oh. Do you assume that there are propositions without sentences? I simply disagree. There are no propositions if there are no minds to perceive them. Before Hamlet was written there was no Hamlet.

i’ve already explained why this cannot be true (even on your terms). check a few posts back.

And you were wrong. In my definition, consciousness is the action of the brain, with all its interactions. In order for it to be indeterministic it is not necessary to assume quantum components. It is enough to refer to the Brownian motion of molecules, which is not a deterministic law of nature, rather a stochastic one. (And the second law of thermodynamics is not the only stochastic law. The radioactive decay is also of this kind and there many more.)

Now you wish to stipulate that consciousness is more than that. You brought up that the subjective feeling of what the sound of the violin sounds like - cannot be known. I disagree, and say that it can be know, if there is total knowledge of the whole brain-state, and it can be emulated within the brain.

 

[ateista]

i think we’re probably getting too far into the philosophy of language here, and i’m afraid i lack the conceptual and expressive facility to make the elementary issues clear to someone who hasn’t studied them.

Too bad. In my experience there are no such esoteric concepts that cannot be expressed in simple terms. Since I used to be a math professor with many years of teaching experience, I can tell you that even the most abstract mathematical concepts can be explained in layman terms. The students might not able to perform calculus immediately, but they can understand what calculus is - after drawing a few pictures and explaining them.

I am always suspicious of those people who use lots of long, convoluted sentences and made-up words. I suspect that they do this to confuse the audience to hide that fact that they have nothing new to say. (I do not speak of you, but most philosophers are guilty of this behavior).

all i will say is that meanings are what is expressed by communicative acts, which is how there can be one meaning for numerous communicative acts. what ***we ***do as language-users, is determine which meanings are expressed by which communicative acts. so, for example, we have determined that the sentences “it is raining”, “il pleut”, and “es regnet” all express the same proposition, or meaning: “it is raining”.

And they mean the same thing, because we point at the rain, utter those phrases, and mutually agree upon that they refer to to same thing: namely water falling from the clouds.

An eskimo may have dozens of words to describe different kinds of snows, while we only have one. They have more experience with snow, so they invented words to describe those different kinds of snows. If we live with them long enough, and they point out the differences in those snows, eventually the different phrases will have meanings attached to them.

“meanings” are propositions, which are abstract objects. what we do is choose which propositions are expressed by our communicative acts.

“Abstract objects” are undefined. Propositions are thoughts expressed in a format that can be used in a communication channel. “Meaning” is whatever the recipient of the communication channel perceives it to be. If the channel is too “noisy”, the meaning will be lost.

you didn’t answer my questions: what makes those propositions true? to what in the natural world do the terms refer?

Mathematical concepts are true if they can be derived from a few, mutually agreed upon axioms. They do not necessarily refer to anything in the natural world, they are the abstractions of the natural world.

 

[ateista]

Once human - always human.​

Being human is not quantitative or composed of parts - its manifestations can be. And its manifestations, of whatever kind, can be affected by such things as lobotomies, but the human identity manifested is forever “beyond” & different from, its manifestations. It is not in any way reducible to the sum of the parts which manifest it: because it is spiritual.

It may one day be possible to build a simulacrum of a human being - but only God can impart the spiritual soul. That’s why no man-made man would be more than a simulacrum, & so, not really a man at all. (Notwithstanding “Robocop”, & "The Six Million Dollar Man: not forgetting “Chimera”.)

Does that answer the question ?

Unfortunately no, because the words: “spiritual” and “soul” are meaningless.

 

[JimG]

It is enough to refer to the Brownian motion of molecules, which is not a deterministic law of nature, rather a stochastic one.

So this entire thread is a result of brownian motion?

 

[ateista]

So this entire thread is a result of brownian motion?

Maybe, to a certain extent. We don’t know exactly how the firing of the neurons happen in the brain, or how the random motion of molecules might influence those firings.

During the conversations in these threads the posts I read certainly make me think about the subject much more intensely than otherwise would and consider different angles that never occurred to me before.

The posts influence my mind, and leave “marks” in the physical structure of the brain, as any new information does. I would not say that it is completely the result of Brownian motion, just like a flapping of a butterfly’s wings does not determine where a hurricane happens next, but plays some, maybe very small part in it.

 

[JimG]

ateista:

Unfortunately no, because the words: “spiritual” and “soul” are meaningless.

It seems it will be very difficult to have a meaningful discussion if you do not accept the terms used by others to describe their ideas. Obviously the terms “spirit” and “soul” have meaning for others. As a strict materialist, you do not accept that the meaning has any counterpart in reality. For a basic understanding of what Christians mean by such terms you should really read something like Frank Sheed’s Theology For Beginners. While you might not accept any of his premises, perhaps you could get an idea of meaning of the terminology.

For Catholics at least, “spirit” refers to a real substance which is a ‘simple’ substance in the sense that it is without extension in space or time. The human soul is considered a spiritual substance.

In an earlier post you said:

Oh, I accept the concept of non-material or abstract concepts or entities, no problem there. They are the reflections of certain brain-states.

Now I am not entirely sure by what you mean by ‘reflections of certain brain-states,’ but I think that you consider these abstract concepts to be physical in nature. Catholic philosophy would consider an ‘abstraction’ as something devoid of the material—a non-material idea generated by a non-material mind, using the sense data provided from the body and brain, and abstracting from that sense data all particularity, resulting in an abstract concept. Because ‘ideas’ in themselves are non material products of the mind, we can get all sorts of ideas into our minds without overcrowding. Our minds can also move from the particular to the general by means of abstraction.

But I don’t really intend to go off into a discussion of philosophical psychology, only to clarify that words such as ‘spirit,’ ‘mind,’ and ‘soul,’ do have meanings, but those meanings are of course, inconsistent with a strictly materialistic worldview.

 

[ateista]

It seems it will be very difficult to have a meaningful discussion if you do not accept the terms used by others to describe their ideas. Obviously the terms “spirit” and “soul” have meaning for others. As a strict materialist, you do not accept that the meaning has any counterpart in reality.

I agree that the conversations can get rather difficult. The trouble is not that the soul and spirit do not have any counterpart in reality. That presents no problem at all. As a mathematician I know about abstract concepts, which do not have a counterpart in reality. Take a mathematical point, it has no spatial or temporal dimensions. Or a second degree differential equation. At least a point is “something” like a dot on a paper, but what corresponds to a differential equation? Or consider a vector of 10 elements, which is a point in a 10 dimensional space. What could be more abstract than these?

For Catholics at least, “spirit” refers to a real substance which is a ‘simple’ substance in the sense that it is without extension in space or time. The human soul is considered a spiritual substance.

Well, apart from the fact that this definition is somewhat hazy, I have much more serious problems with some additional beliefs about these entities. You say a “human soul” is a “spiritual substence”. It has therefore no spatial or temporal attributes. Fine, we know about things like that, for example a mathematical point or a “null set” or “nothing”. So far, so good.

The real trouble comes when these entites are supposed to be responsible for our consciousness or freedom of action. What on Earth should I do with this? A non-material entity governs our most important attributes? How? How can something that is indistinguishable from “nothing” have a pivotal role in our very much corporeal existence?

Let me give a crude analogy: I write down a chemical formula: 2H + O = H2O. It is an abstract concept, it describes that one molecule of the substance we call “water” is composed of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxigen atom. Now will the symbols on the paper actually create a droplet of water?

Never. Symbols, abstractions have no way to interact with reality, even if they adequately describe reality.

So, by the virtue that you insist that the non-corporeal soul is responsible for the core of our existence, without being able to give even an analogy of how it does that, I am left holding an empty bag, with a stupid grin on my face.

And to add insult to injury, there are some posters (not you or john) who say that I don’t have “faith” to understand it.

Now I am not entirely sure by what you mean by ‘reflections of certain brain-states,’ but I think that you consider these abstract concepts to be physical in nature.

No, i don’t think so. A mathematical point is not physical in sense of the word. However, a mathematical point does not actually exist. A dot on the paper in not a point, it is a crude representation of a point. That being said: a mathematical point is an abstraction, which exists as a “picture” in our mind - or in other words as a specific set of neurons firing. Since as beings we are very similar to each other, the neurons firing in your brain are similar to the ones in mine.

If I would utter a sentence in a laguage unknown to you, the neurons firing in your brain would be completely different from mine - and there would be no understanding. The sentence would have no “meaning” to you.

Catholic philosophy would consider an ‘abstraction’ as something devoid of the material—a non-material idea generated by a non-material mind, using the sense data provided from the body and brain, and abstracting from that sense data all particularity, resulting in an abstract concept. Because ‘ideas’ in themselves are non material products of the mind, we can get all sorts of ideas into our minds without overcrowding. Our minds can also move from the particular to the general by means of abstraction.

Please give at least some analogy, how am I to understand this.

When we learn (in the broadest sense of the word), our brain constantly undergoes physical and chemical changes. New neuron connections are established, memory gets created. When our brain gets treated by some gentle electric shocks, we may experience happiness, pain, memories, all sots of things - depending on the area. This is a totally physical phenomenon.

Why go any further than that? What part of existence cannot be explained by these facts? john brought up a few ideas, but they are invalid and I explained why.

 

[ateista]

Since the editor has a 5000 character limit, I have to contiune here.

Suppose, that having full information about someone’s brain who has heard a musical note is available to me - as john stipulated. As I said, if I have that information and if I am able to modify my physical brain structure (neuron pathways) - via some ultra-micro surgery - then I will know introspectively what that mucial note sounds like. Moreover, even if I would be totally deaf, I would know what the sound is like. Therefore there is no need to assume any non-corporeal soul.

But, let’s suppose that it is somehow impossible to do that - for example the part of my brain which could hold that information is damaged - so I cannot know the sound. Would that be sufficient reason to assume that it is the soul which holds that information? Not at all. It would simply mean that I cannot get that information at all, even if I heard that sound. The brain-damage is preventing me to exprience that sound.

Now, this is pretty farfetched. As far as we know it, the brain can adept to minor injuries, and have some ways and means to cope with them. Most memory is not localized, it is sort of spread out in the brain.

Conclusion: I do not know if there is a soul or not. I do know that personally, I see no need for the assumption. Even if there would be such a “thing” as a soul, it would not explain anything. After all an explanation is something that allows me to create a “picture” in my mind, which allows me to understand the why’s and wherefore’s of the phenomenon.

To say that a non-corporeal, non-spatial and non-temporal entity, in some unexplained and unexplainable way (magically) is responsible for my innermost “self” is the very antithesis of an explanation. It says that this phenomenon is forever out of my reach.

Now you may be comfortable with this, and write it off as the mystery of existence and accept it simply of faith. For me that is impossible - literally impossible.

Secondary conclusion: If the result of this skepticism is that the alleged God will punish me for exercising my rational mind - so be it. I would not wish to spend any time with a being who allegedly gave us our rational mental faculties and then would demand that we suspend them and failing to do so - punishes that “disobedience” with eternal damnation - well, that being does not deserve anything but disdain and contempt.

But I do not believe that God is like that, no matter what anyone says. I believe that IF there is a God, he is a decent fellow, understanding and loving (maybe) but certainly not powerful enough to prevent all the horror that is happening on Earth. That he does not contact us because he is ashamed of the state the world is in. Now that I could believe.

 

[JimG]

Well, I think it comes down to either a non-material essence at our core, or Brownian motion and biochemistry at our core. I certainly wouldn’t believe in a material God, for that sort of god is made up of parts, and anything composed of parts can come apart. Such a god would ultimately decompose. He could not hold existence as his very essence. He could not name himself I AM. He could not be god in any Christian sense.

The same applies in a lesser way to humans. If we are only material, then none of us can expect anything in the way of a heaven or hell, or any sort of afterlife, for at death we shall simply cease to exist as integrated beings.

You gave some examples of abstractions, such as a mathematical point, which has no existence in reality, only in the mind. You also mentioned differential equations and the chemical formula for water, saying that “Symbols, abstractions have no way to interact with reality, even if they adequately describe reality.” I would propose that the formula did interact with reality, in that your mind created an abstraction (purely mental) from something that was purely physical. Your mind does this constantly, abstracting from the physical to the abstract. It seems startling to me that you credit a physical organ with the ability to do this, as well as to create the illusion of free will.

As an aside, and rather off topic, you mentioned that a mathematical point has no dimensions, [but it does not correspond to spirit, because spirit has real existence whereas the point does not.] It used to concern me that physics in the past always considered the most basic subatomic particles to be “point particles.” They had no dimensions. I wondered how a universe composed of zero dimension particles could end up with three dimensions or more. Sounds like building up something out of nothing. But now, perhaps with M-theory it sounds like we may have moved up to either 1 or 2-dimensional basics, depending on whether you like strings or membranes.)

 

[john_doran]

What do you mean by the word: “know”? To me it means total information. As applied to the brain-states - which are both the “hardware” or the cells of the brain and their electro-chemical interactions in any given moment - if that information is “known”, then it can be emulated in my brain, and therefore I will “know” what the apple looks like, even if I never saw one.

this makes no sense: sure, if someone duplicates the brain-state of “seeing red” in my brain, then i will have an experience of seeing red.

but the brain-state corresponding to knowing “he is seeing red” is not the same brain-state as seeing red. if it were, then every time i knew that someone was seeing red (or blue, or hearing music, or feeling sad, or…), i’d be seeing red. which, obviously, i don’t.

and it’s just as clear that even if i knew each of the billion propositions that detail the neurophysiological facts involved in someone’s seeing red, i ***still ***wouldn’t have the experience of seeing red.

ateista:

The phrase “sounds like” describes the brain-state of the violinist. If I know his brain-state and if I can emulate it in my brain, then I will know what it “sounds like” even if I never heard one.

sure, but that’s precisely my point: knowing wouldn’t be enough - you’d have to do something else to your brain, besides simply know something, in order to have the experience of hearing middle-c.

ateista:

To know something is simply having a brain-state, which corresponds to the “thing” or event being known. Do you wish to assume that not only consciousness and free will are non-material, but also all knowledge is non-material? If so, you regard the brain as nothing but a transmitting device - without any part to play at all.

no. only knowledge of abstract objects involves the immaterial intellect.

ateista:

You stipulated that. You assume that consciousness is not adequately described by the mind, but so far your examples failed to substantiate that. Are the worlds are identical or not? If they are identical, then the consciousness will be the same.

the modal argument doesn’t rely on the success of the other examples - it stands on its own.

it relies simply on the (i would have thought obvious) fact that we can imagine a physically identical world to this one, except that the brain-state for “red” in this world, corresponds with the experience of “blue” in the other world.

if you’re going to argue against the idea, you’re going to have to do more than just say, “it can’t happen”; you’re going to have to produce an argument that such disparities in conscious experience are impossible.

ateista:

Uh-oh. Do you assume that there are propositions without sentences? I simply disagree. There are no propositions if there are no minds to perceive them. Before Hamlet was written there was no Hamlet.

yes, that’s what i am assuming.

look, if there aren’t propositions that exist apart from mind, then when euler, and diderot, and fermat, and cantor, and gauss, and riemann, and godel and the rest of the math-boys come up with their groundbreaking insights into the nature of math, what they’re really doing is just making it all up. which is absurd.

of course, you may be right about the necessity of having a mind to ground the propositions; what i’d say to that is simply that since it can’t be any contingent mind, there must be some ***necessarily existent ***mind to keep all the propositions in place from possible world to possible world.

hey, presto. god.

 

[john_doran]

ateista:

And you were wrong. In my definition, consciousness is the action of the brain, with all its interactions. In order for it to be indeterministic it is not necessary to assume quantum components. It is enough to refer to the Brownian motion of molecules, which is not a deterministic law of nature, rather a stochastic one. (And the second law of thermodynamics is not the only stochastic law. The radioactive decay is also of this kind and there many more.)

sigh.

A) where does brownian motion figure into neurphysiology? i mean in the literature and peer-reviewed papers…

B) if it ***does ***figure into neurophysiology, why would it - a random, stochastic process - only manifest itself in the phenomenon of choice, and not in other more obvious (and probably destructive) ways?

ateista:

Now you wish to stipulate that consciousness is more than that. You brought up that the subjective feeling of what the sound of the violin sounds like - cannot be known. I disagree, and say that it can be know, if there is total knowledge of the whole brain-state, and it can be emulated within the brain.

look, it’s clear that you’re unfamiliar with philosophy of mind…i really don’t want to take the time to bring you up to speed on the issues, especially since your basic stance is antagonistic to agreement with anything i might say. go read some atheist philosophers of mind who at lest acknowledge the seriousness of the problems i’m raising here (some of which may even have first been pointed out ***by ***atheists), and who try to come up with interesting resolutions to them, instead of simply denying that there’s a problem at all.

 

[john_doran]

ateista:

Mathematical concepts are true if they can be derived from a few, mutually agreed upon axioms. They do not necessarily refer to anything in the natural world, they are the abstractions of the natural world.

A) given the axioms, the math that follows from them follows from them necessarily, which means that it is impossible that they turn out to be false. but if everything in the material world is subject to change, how can math be a part of the material world?

B) if they don’t refer to anything in the natural world, what are they referring to?

 

[ateista]

Well, I think it comes down to either a non-material essence at our core, or Brownian motion and biochemistry at our core. I certainly wouldn’t believe in a material God, for that sort of god is made up of parts, and anything composed of parts can come apart. Such a god would ultimately decompose. He could not hold existence as his very essence. He could not name himself I AM. He could not be god in any Christian sense.

Yes. Accepted. You can believe in whatever you want to. It has no bearing on reality, or what I believe in. If saying: “I am” is the definition of God, then Popeye is another god, since he said: “I yam what I yam and that’s what I yam”. Is Popeye another god?

The same applies in a lesser way to humans. If we are only material, then none of us can expect anything in the way of a heaven or hell, or any sort of afterlife, for at death we shall simply cease to exist as integrated beings.

Absolutely. Do you have any evidence to assume otherwise? Evidence, mind you, not just some alleged “autority” whose only argument is: “Because I SAID SO!”

You gave some examples of abstractions, such as a mathematical point, which has no existence in reality, only in the mind. You also mentioned differential equations and the chemical formula for water, saying that “Symbols, abstractions have no way to interact with reality, even if they adequately describe reality.” I would propose that the formula did interact with reality, in that your mind created an abstraction (purely mental) from something that was purely physical. Your mind does this constantly, abstracting from the physical to the abstract. It seems startling to me that you credit a physical organ with the ability to do this, as well as to create the illusion of free will.

No. The formula does not interact with reality in the sense that it creates a droplet of water. We created the formula, and this action has a consequece on reality, since we act on this discovery.

As an aside, and rather off topic, you mentioned that a mathematical point has no dimensions, [but it does not correspond to spirit, because spirit has real existence whereas the point does not.]

Existence? What is the existence you speak of?

 

[ateista]

this makes no sense: sure, if someone duplicates the brain-state of “seeing red” in my brain, then i will have an experience of seeing red.

but the brain-state corresponding to knowing “he is seeing red” is not the same brain-state as seeing red. if it were, then every time i knew that someone was seeing red (or blue, or hearing music, or feeling sad, or…), i’d be seeing red. which, obviously, i don’t.

and it’s just as clear that even if i knew each of the billion propositions that detail the neurophysiological facts involved in someone’s seeing red, i ***still ***wouldn’t have the experience of seeing red.

Now, really. Is that the Earth-shattering “reasoning” which points to an immaterial soul? That knowing about an accident is not the same as experiencing an accident? That knowing about someone who won the jackpot on the Powerball is not the same as winning the jackpot? This is not simply trivial, it is much worse than that.

sure, but that’s precisely my point: knowing wouldn’t be enough - you’d have to do something else to your brain, besides simply know something, in order to have the experience of hearing middle-c.

Yes, that is what I said. But what we have to do is totally physical. The new neuron pathways are established by the experience (or a physical emulation of the experience), and when the neuron pathways are established - that is the experience.

As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is true. If by merely knowing about something would allow us to have an introspective understanding of that phenomenon; that would be an indication that there is something which points an immaterial soul.

But why am I surprised? You said that the claim of an immaterial soul is not extraordinary.

You also claimed that you are a rational being. Well, my friend, in my humble opinion you are as far from being rational as Mako is from Jerusalem. If you don’t know what that phrase “means”, no problem. Just send out your immortal soul to the repository of abstract objects - after all they are next to each other in the never-nowhere land, and retrieve it. Should take no time at all, after all they both lack spatio-temporal attributes. While you are there, you may attempt to get this phrase’s etymology, too (which is just another abstract object). Let me know when you succeeded.

Good luck and good-bye. It was nice talking to you.

 

[JimG]

No. The formula does not interact with reality in the sense that it creates a droplet of water. We created the formula, and this action has a consequece on reality, since we act on this discovery.

Exactly. We created the formula–an immaterial reality, from material, sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. Your mind creates immaterial realities constantly–call them ideas–from sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[ateista]

Exactly. We created the formula–an immaterial reality, from material, sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. Your mind creates immaterial realities constantly–call them ideas–from sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

Of course I agree with you. If you use the word: “mind” the same way as I do, namely the elecro-chemical interactions of the neurons, then the mind is not independent from underlying “hardware” of the brain. If the hardware gets damaged, the mind will not perform as it did before the damage occurred.

But that was not the question. The symbols (2H + O = H2O) on a paper do not interact with each other, and do not create a droplet of water, do they? My question was, how can the immaterial concept you call a soul interact with the physical reality we call mind? Since you assert that it does, you should be able to tell me the method how it happens.

It seems to me that the assertion of the soul is in no way different from asserting that lightning is the flaming sword of God, before the nature of the lightning was discovered. In other words, it is the age-old: “God of the gaps” concept: whatever we cannot fully explain today, is attributed to some unexplainable God, or soul or angels or demons, whatever. As the realm of science expands, the realm for the “God of the gaps” keeps shrinking.

 

[catharina]

This idea has been abandoned a long, long time ago. It was found an unncessary concept, like the idea of the “ether”. Life is simply defined as complex responses to complex stimuli, nothing more.

To the above, surely you forgot to add that this is your opinion.
As others have implied, your opinion has little relevance on this site.

 

[JimG]

Of course I agree with you. If you use the word: “mind” the same way as I do, namely the elecro-chemical interactions of the neurons, then the mind is not independent from underlying “hardware” of the brain. If the hardware gets damaged, the mind will not perform as it did before the damage occurred.

I agree that the mind is not independent of the underlying hardware. It depends on the hardware for (name removed by moderator)ut. But it does something beyond the nature of the hardware: it creates immaterial concepts from material (name removed by moderator)ut.

The symbol for water or the idea of water does not create water. But your mind creates the generalized idea of water using the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut of the experience of water. You don’t actually get the water into your mind, or even into your brain. You receive the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, integrate it in the brain, and from that abstract an immaterial idea which is universally applicable.

How much does the idea weigh? Can one quantify its dimensions? Can it be described in terms of its length or width or chemical makeup? How much does a weighty decision really weigh? If your mind is creating immaterial objects out of material (name removed by moderator)ut, then it must have a non-material aspect to it.

Consequently I do not use the word “mind” in the same way you do. The electrochemical reactions of the brain can’t produce something non-physical, but the mind can.

How does it happen? I don’t know. Neither do biologists or physicists. But each of us seems to go through life generating immaterial concepts out of physical (name removed by moderator)ut. The generation of the ideas needed to carry on this thread demonstrates it. As you have noted, damage to the brain affects the mind, so there must be a mind-body connection: first in the generation of ideas, and also in the other direction. If you make a decision—a non-material object—that non-material decision—is able to affect your body to make it do as you have decided.

 

[ateista]

I agree that the mind is not independent of the underlying hardware. It depends on the hardware for (name removed by moderator)ut. But it does something beyond the nature of the hardware: it creates immaterial concepts from material (name removed by moderator)ut.

The symbol for water or the idea of water does not create water. But your mind creates the generalized idea of water using the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut of the experience of water. You don’t actually get the water into your mind, or even into your brain. You receive the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, integrate it in the brain, and from that abstract an immaterial idea which is universally applicable.

How much does the idea weigh? Can one quantify its dimensions? Can it be described in terms of its length or width or chemical makeup? How much does a weighty decision really weigh? If your mind is creating immaterial objects out of material (name removed by moderator)ut, then it must have a non-material aspect to it.

Consequently I do not use the word “mind” in the same way you do. The electrochemical reactions of the brain can’t produce something non-physical, but the mind can.

How does it happen? I don’t know. Neither do biologists or physicists. But each of us seems to go through life generating immaterial concepts out of physical (name removed by moderator)ut. The generation of the ideas needed to carry on this thread demonstrates it. As you have noted, damage to the brain affects the mind, so there must be a mind-body connection: first in the generation of ideas, and also in the other direction. If you make a decision—a non-material object—that non-material decision—is able to affect your body to make it do as you have decided.

Just a short reply to show that I read your post, I take it seriously, and I would like to ask for one clarification to see if I understood you correctly. It seems to me that the gist of what you say can be summarized like this:

Since the mind-brain complex can create abstract concepts, and since the abstract concepts are non-material in nature, therefore there must be something non-material to the brain-mind complex, because a purely material entity cannot create non-material abstract concepts.

Is this a fair representation of what you say?