Human or not?

[drmcpike]

Any let me add that you are not the only ignorant one around - everybody’s ignorant, just about different things (as a famous person once said). But I think we think more clearly and are less ignorant if we at least recognize when we are ignorant and are willing to be e-ducated - led out of our artificial self-assuredness towards greater self-knowledge. Sometimes destruction must be undertaken before construction.

 

[Benadam]

They go hand-in-hand. Hypnosis is just another way to to convey information to the brain/mind.

sorry, the power involved in driving mechanical devices are easily measured and quantified numerically because it is a physical reality. The power for an engine is produced by an electrical charge that combusts volatile gasses very much like the brain’s mechanism’s. Your analogy fails to include an applicable image for ‘experiencing’.

Experiencing is the means by which the mind enterprets infomation organized by the brain. That organized information is responded to by the mind but that can’t become a basis for a combined definition in the face of the chasm created by the qualities that distinguish them.

The mind is not subject to physical observation or else is would also be quantified and measured numerically and broken down to it’s various more simple components.

 

[drmcpike]

The mind is not subject to physical observation or else is would also be quantified and measured numerically and broken down to it’s various more simple components.

I’m curious: someone else has pointed out that Aquinas (among others) claims that there is nothing in the intellect which was not first in the senses. Ateista kindly pointed out that this is actually “empiricism,” suggesting perhaps that he believes that Aquinas was an empiricist (?!) or that the empiricists were Thomists (!?!). Anyway, I was hoping for some clarification of the above in light of Aquinas’ principle. I’d have thought we could observe minds, and seeing as I’m not a solipsist, not just by means of introspection, i.e., we can observe other minds, not just our own. It seems to me that this is the teaching of the “orthodox” Catholic philosophical tradition, not that I claim to be an expert in this area. Isn’t mind something like beauty, love, or shame, certainly subject to physical observation, though not reducible to quantitative components (except in a way that destroys an understanding of the original phenomenon)?

 

[Benadam]

I’m curious: someone else has pointed out that Aquinas (among others) claims that there is nothing in the intellect which was not first in the senses. Ateista kindly pointed out that this is actually “empiricism,” suggesting perhaps that he believes that Aquinas was an empiricist (?!) or that the empiricists were Thomists (!?!). Anyway, I was hoping for some clarification of the above in light of Aquinas’ principle. I’d have thought we could observe minds, and seeing as I’m not a solipsist, not just by means of introspection, i.e., we can observe other minds, not just our own. It seems to me that this is the teaching of the “orthodox” Catholic philosophical tradition, not that I claim to be an expert in this area. Isn’t mind something like beauty, love, or shame, certainly subject to physical observation, though not reducible to quantitative components (except in a way that destroys an understanding of the original phenomenon)?

I would have to visit that posted comment concerning that understanding of intellect from Aquinas. The word mind is no doubt been a loosely used term in this discussion. I think Aquinas would have kept as a foundation at any rate the definition for mind established by Aristotle who thought of it as the intellect. Definitely not an impericists view.

I do recall that according to Aquinas intellect knows it’s self by it’s own essence and it’s ability to know the essence of other things is limited by the measure it’s essence is perfect. It also knows by means of act and this means of knowing is shared by the mind although the mind does not know by means of it’s essence. So a thing must be actual for the mind to know it and this may be the developement that rises from the senses that Aquinas alluded to. . Maybe what Aquinas meant was that the intellect in man requires information that is gathered by the senses in order for it to function. Frankly I don’t know though

I was in this discussion using the word ‘observable’ in the impiricle sense that a scientist would use it.

The mind can know it’self by it’s acts and that would make other minds knowable in as much as the other minds act in likeness to the acts the mind knows it’self by. I recall reading that the mind can develope a knowing of it’self by knowing what it is not like as well and that could be a means of physical observation.

Or maybe you have just pointed out a finer point I simply don’t have the understanding to have considered.

What I know is not a product of formal schooling so I’m sure I got gaps galore.

 

[ateista]

been there, done that: you didn’t like the definition and arguments, and summarily rejected the very coherence of corollary issues (e.g. the existence and nature of abstract objects) that have occupied the thoughts of some of the brightest empiricist atheist philosophers of modern times…

Well, we have, here and there, on and off. The subject is worthy to be explored in a thread of its own. I will start it, and ask you to join if you have time.

 

[agangbern]

1. Desire for God. If that is a necessary piece, then I am not a “human” being and nor are the millions of atheists, who do not believe in God. How can one “desire” something that one does not believe in? That is absurd.

At first glance , yes, it may appear absurd. But the reality is, it is true. Many say they don’t believe in God. But the more they say it, the more they long for Him. You will discover this truth as you go along with your life.

You say “Whether he would admit it or not” - and that could be highly offensive, because it seems that you accuse all atheists to be dishonest. I don’t think, however, that this is what you meant, I think it was "just an unfortunate selection of words.

Not to admit something does not necessarily mean one is dishonest. For it is possible that one does not admit something because he honestly believes that that thing is presently inadmissible to him.

1. Desire for beauty. There is no such thing as “abstract beauty”. Different people find different things beautiful.

It is true that different people find different things beautiful. But there is “abstract beauty”. Justice itself is beautiful Love is beautiful Truth is beautiful

1. Desire for truth. Again, there is no such thing as “abstract truth”. There are millions of statements, propositions, which correspond to reality, and those are called “true statements”.

“1 + 1 = 2” is an abstract truth. We do not see the number itself, so we simply use the figure “2” to represent its truth. But in other countries, they use another figure to represent that abstract truth.
This is just one way of proving that there are in fact “abstract truths”.

 

[ateista]

At first glance , yes, it may appear absurd. But the reality is, it is true. Many say they don’t believe in God. But the more they say it, the more they long for Him. You will discover this truth as you go along with your life.

My dear friend, I am already 61 years old (or young ). How long do I have to wait? I don’t believe in God. I do not long for him. As a matter of fact, IF God is anything like the Bible, the church and the believers discribe him, I not only do not long for him, I actually abhor and despise him.

“1 + 1 = 2” is an abstract truth. We do not see the number itself, so we simply use the figure “2” to represent its truth. But in other countries, they use another figure to represent that abstract truth.
This is just one way of proving that there are in fact “abstract truths”.

It is an axiom. The numbers “1” and “2” are abstractions, to be sure, and the equation is accepted as an axiomatic truth. What does it have to do with God’s existence is beyond me.

 

[davidv]

My dear friend, I am already 61 years old (or young ). How long do I have to wait? I don’t believe in God. I do not long for him. As a matter of fact, IF God is anything like the Bible, the church and the believers discribe him, I not only do not long for him, I actually abhor and despise him.

It is an axiom. The numbers “1” and “2” are abstractions, to be sure, and the equation is accepted as an axiomatic truth. What does it have to do with God’s existence is beyond me.

So, why is a mathematical axiom more believable than a theological one?

 

[agangbern]

My dear friend, I am already 61 years old (or young ). How long do I have to wait? I don’t believe in God. I do not long for him. As a matter of fact, IF God is anything like the Bible, the church and the believers discribe him, I not only do not long for him, I actually abhor and despise him.

While the Lord was hanging on the cross, He said, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.”
Sixty-one is still young to the eyes of God. The Lord would not hurry us. He would continue to wait for us.

It is an axiom. The numbers “1” and “2” are abstractions, to be sure, and the equation is accepted as an axiomatic truth. What does it have to do with God’s existence is beyond me.

What I have just proven is the fact of the existence of “abstract truth”. As regards the existence of God, I think there are various other threads about that in this forum.

 

[ateista]

So, why is a mathematical axiom more believable than a theological one?

What can I tell you?

Because mathematical axioms are based on reality, which we can see, hear, feel, touch, smell, taste… all our senses attest to its existence. You can deny reality only if you want accept that all your senses “lie” to you - and that would lead to insanity. Mathematical axioms cannot be denied.

Theological axioms are based on some assumptions only. One can accept or deny them and neither action leads to insanity.

 

[davidv]

Theological axioms are based on some assumptions only. One can accept or deny them and neither action leads to insanity.

Maybe in your mind. What is unreal about a living breething human persom? One named Jesus who lived in the first century. Who ablely demonstrated His divinity.This is not an assumption, but is a historical fact.

 

[ateista]

Maybe in your mind. What is unreal about a living breething human persom? One named Jesus who lived in the first century. Who ablely demonstrated His divinity.This is not an assumption, but is a historical fact.

The “fact” is only attested to in a book, written many years after his death. A book, which is not a whole lot different from other mythological stories. Almost all religions have a hero, born to virgin (primitive people always had this unhealthy reverence for virginity), who liberated his folks from some oppression or another.

The miracles Jesus allegedly performed are not mentioned anywhere else. You can accept them, you can disregard them. The mathematical axioms can only be denied on penalty of insanity. The denial of this story only leads to “eternal” damnation… but wait… only according to the same book. Not much to go by.

 

[mangy_dog]

When the body has no soul, then it is not human. It may, for some reasons, as in through the manipulation of one “brilliant” scientist, manifest the basic characteristics of a human being, but without a soul, the entity is not human. I am referring specifically to the soul that the Lord God breathed into the entity we call MAN.

How do we know that the entity has still a soul? At the moment of conception (of man) inside the woman, the Lord God breaths into him a soul. The soul manifests itself through the body of man. When the body is destroyed to the point that it would no longer manifest the soul, then we consider that body of man as dead, and it is no longer human. But while the same body has the potential or actual power to manifest the soul, then it is alive, and “it” is human.
What are some basic actual manifestations of the soul through the body? One is the longing for God. Whether he would admit it or not, he longs for God. Another is his desire for beauty and truth.
This longing for God and desire for beauty and truth is unique to a human being. It is because of these that man starts thinking and makes reasoned decisions, though at times his reasoning process gets wrong. He desires and thinks not because a scientist programmed him to do so, or puts him on, but simply as he is moved within by his soul.

The phrasing of this question or comment has a “built-in glitch”. It is indicated above, “…the body of a man as dead, and {it is no longer human]” or "…then it is alive, and [it is human]. Therein lies the “glitch”. Unless we’re looking at a dog or cat or some other animal (other than a man or woman), it is human. Being dead does not follow that we stop being human. Our body doesn’t become the body of a goat or fish. This is part of the line of “reasoning” that was used during roe v. wade, when talking about the fetus. Is it human or not? At what point is it consideted human? Nonsense. Unless the sperm donor is a horse or a dog or some other aberrant coupling…the fetus is human at all stages of conception and continues to be human even after death.

Gospa Mir.

 

[davidv]

The “fact” is only attested to in a book, written many years after his death. A book, which is not a whole lot different from other mythological stories. Almost all religions have a hero, born to virgin (primitive people always had this unhealthy reverence for virginity), who liberated his folks from some oppression or another.

The miracles Jesus allegedly performed are not mentioned anywhere else. You can accept them, you can disregard them. The mathematical axioms can only be denied on penalty of insanity. The denial of this story only leads to “eternal” damnation… but wait… only according to the same book. Not much to go by.

That it is only attested to in a book is only your opinion. It is also attested to by generations of living persons, passing on the eye witness testimony. So, it not just in a book.

I happen to have a very healthy appreciation for virginity. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, explains this in detail.

 

[ateista]

That it is only attested to in a book is only your opinion. It is also attested to by generations of living persons, passing on the eye witness testimony. So, it not just in a book.

My friend, have you ever researched what value the eye-witness testimonies happen to have? Investigators found out, time and again that 20 witnesses will give (at least) 20 different descriptions of the same event. And no one should accuse the witnesses of lying or being stupid. They are not, they just happen to filter the objective event through their own biases and preconceptions.

Have you ever tried a whispering game? In a party you should do it, it is great fun. Someone comes up with a simple story, and writes it down for reference purposes. Then he whispers it to the next person, who in turn whispers it to someone else. When the story went around the room, the last person will say it out loud. Then you can compare it to the original.

It is an eye-opener! Most of the time the story does not even remotely resemble to the original one. And the people try to relate it as precisely as possible. They try to avoid distortions and embellishments.

Yes, my friend, it is merely one book, loaded with scientifically absurd statements. Only acceptable to those people who believe it anyway.

 

[jmcrae]

My friend, have you ever researched what value the eye-witness testimonies happen to have? Investigators found out, time and again that 20 witnesses will give (at least) 20 different descriptions of the same event. And no one should accuse the witnesses of lying or being stupid. They are not, they just happen to filter the objective event through their own biases and preconceptions.

Sure. And the reason they continue to take witness statements is that they can then compare where the statements agree, and put together what actually happened.

In our case, all of the witnesses agree that Jesus Christ did miracles, that He died on the Cross, and that He rose from the dead. The fact that they disagree about the number of women who saw him rise from the dead, or the number of people who were fed from the basket of fishes (was it four thousand, or five thousand?) actually lends credibility to the stories, because if they were only repeating something by rote, they would have had the small details memorized, too.

Have you ever tried a whispering game? In a party you should do it, it is great fun. Someone comes up with a simple story, and writes it down for reference purposes. Then he whispers it to the next person, who in turn whispers it to someone else. When the story went around the room, the last person will say it out loud. Then you can compare it to the original.

Yes, I’ve played that game, too. In the Catholic Church, it is not a whispering game, though. Imagine this: What if the person at the start shouted the story out loud to the next person in line, and handed him the piece of paper with the story on it, and told him to pass the piece of paper on to the next one, as well.

That’s what happened in the Catholic Church. The Apostles were not playing the whispering game - they were shouting the story out loud, making up songs and poems to sing and recite, and (eventually) writing it down.

Also, it’s not like there was any benefit to them. They weren’t making more money at it than they would have made at their trades, and they were being martyred for it. (Is there any fictional story that you would die for?)

 

[drmcpike]

The “fact” is only attested to in a book, written many years after his death. A book, which is not a whole lot different from other mythological stories. Almost all religions have a hero, born to virgin (primitive people always had this unhealthy reverence for virginity), who liberated his folks from some oppression or another.

The miracles Jesus allegedly performed are not mentioned anywhere else. You can accept them, you can disregard them. The mathematical axioms can only be denied on penalty of insanity. The denial of this story only leads to “eternal” damnation… but wait… only according to the same book. Not much to go by.

I’m curious again as to what you’re talking about (i.e., whether you know what you’re talking about, where you’re getting your “information”). Which “book” are you referring to and which story or stories? (In particular, which story the denial of which leads to “eternal” damnation “according to the same book,” and please also tell us where in this same book this claim is made.) When exactly was it written? Can you give some examples of these other mythological stories that are “not a whole lot different from” this book? If you don’t want to answer these questions (again), could you at least explain why not?

Let me also add that you appear to have a strange definition of insanity. If someone denies mathematical axioms, chances are they’re perfectly sane, but just don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to mathematical axioms (which reminds me, I certainly don’t think you’re insane ).

 

[ateista]

Sure. And the reason they continue to take witness statements is that they can then compare where the statements agree, and put together what actually happened.

In our case, all of the witnesses agree that Jesus Christ did miracles, that He died on the Cross, and that He rose from the dead. The fact that they disagree about the number of women who saw him rise from the dead, or the number of people who were fed from the basket of fishes (was it four thousand, or five thousand?) actually lends credibility to the stories, because if they were only repeating something by rote, they would have had the small details memorized, too.

Hold on. All these witnesses and all their testimonies are contained in the Bible. Nowhere else. I responded to David, who said that evidence for Christianity is not restricted to the Bible, it is also attested to by a chain of eye-witness testimonials handed down across 2000 years.

When you look at the canonic Gospels, when they talk about the miracle cures, there is a definite progression. First: “many came and many were cured”, then “many came and all were cured”, even later “all came and all were cured”. A typical exaggeration as the story is being told.

Yes, I’ve played that game, too. In the Catholic Church, it is not a whispering game, though. Imagine this: What if the person at the start shouted the story out loud to the next person in line, and handed him the piece of paper with the story on it, and told him to pass the piece of paper on to the next one, as well.

That’s what happened in the Catholic Church. The Apostles were not playing the whispering game - they were shouting the story out loud, making up songs and poems to sing and recite, and (eventually) writing it down.

Can you substantiate that? People did not write down anything for decades, because they took Jesus’s prediction seriously, where he said that not everyone will die before they will see the kingdom of heaven arrive on Earth.

Also, it’s not like there was any benefit to them. They weren’t making more money at it than they would have made at their trades, and they were being martyred for it. (Is there any fictional story that you would die for?)

I certainly would not. But many Muslim suicide-bombers would and did. In what way does that attest to the validity of their belief system?

 

[ateista]

Let me also add that you appear to have a strange definition of insanity. If someone denies mathematical axioms, chances are they’re perfectly sane, but just don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to mathematical axioms (which reminds me, I certainly don’t think you’re insane ).

You misunderstood what I said: the axioms of mathematics are abstractions of the real world. One can deny (not simply be be unaware of) these axioms if he is willing to deny all the evidence of the real world. And that would be insanity.

 

[davidv]

You misunderstood what I said: the axioms of mathematics are abstractions of the real world. One can deny (not simply be be unaware of) these axioms if he is willing to deny all the evidence of the real world. And that would be insanity.

How is different from theological axioms. Our spiritual nature is as much a part of the real world as our flesh and blood.