Intellect is not a Property of Matter

[Leela]

… Since you have already decided not to believe me, I am forced to refute you and reveal your error. This places you in an even more defensive position, and makes you less open to the discussion.

Why would I believe you when you keep evading?

Please, please, please reveal my error.

Again, it may seem that way, but I also have the responsibility not to waste time.

When I encounter a person who refuses to believe what I have to say, then I will be wasting my time when I provide evidence. Why should I? What will you do when I show you more than one scholarly paper that argues that the intellect is a property of matter? What will you do when I show you a scholarly paper that seeks to explain the origin of democracy by studying biochemistry?

I’m more interested in understanding why you think I’m not telling the truth.
Do you think I am lying?

Reggie, this is insane. I made a claim, and you said that you could easily refute it, and now you are all hurt that I won’t just take your word for it? I am somehow out of line to ask that you actually provide the refutation that you claimed would be so easy for you to provide??

After asking you to support your claim that it would be easy for you to find a “materialist [who] thinks that we will come to understand concepts like democracy by studying atoms,” and after only hearing that you are so hurt that I won’t just take your word for it, I don’t think I am being overly skeptical in doubting that you can do what you claim you can do.

Would you please stop playing games and tell us just who it is you are arguing against in your OP? Just who exactly is it that thinks intellect is a property of matter and could benefit from the argument you made against that idea?

 

[Black_Rose]

That’s another way to look at it. Maybe a better argument.

Mathematics is another means of symbollic language - or information.

Human Intelligence can produce language.
Matter and Energy cannot generate language.
Matter and Energy cannot generate what Intelligence can.
Therefore, intelligence cannot be reduced to materialism.

Fallacy of composition anyone?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Human thoughts, however, are infinite in quantity (size) and variety. There are infinite numbers and humans can make any calculations, and invent any new set or kind of mathematical rules on an infinite set of numbers.

Wrong. Human thoughts can use symbols to represent these things. Human thoughts cannot encompass infinte numbers or infinite sets. We use symbols to represent these things as something we can visualise. In fact, the number of variables that an intelligent man can handle simultaneously is very low.

 

[Moonstruck888]

When I encounter a person who refuses to believe what I have to say, then I will be wasting my time when I provide evidence. Why should I?

To prove you actually had a point to make in the first place?

What will you do when I show you more than one scholarly paper that argues that the intellect is a property of matter? What will you do when I show you a scholarly paper that seeks to explain the origin of democracy by studying biochemistry?

There is no doubt that intellect is an emergent property of matter. It can be observed that when people apply thought and assimilate information, certain areas of the brain become electrochemically active in a predictable way.

That does not mean that you would study democracy by studying biochemistry, that’s just silly. To understand democracy, you’d need to approach the question from a sociological standpoint.

I’m more interested in understanding why you think I’m not telling the truth.
Do you think I am lying?

I think you’re talking rubbish, but probably are sincrere in your belief that what you are saying makes sense. Therefore, I wouldn’t go as far as to call you a liar.

 

[awatkins69]

For immateriality of the intellect, I would put it all in a nice clean syllogism thus:

1. The intellect can harbor a potential infinite amount of concepts.
2. No amount of matter can harbor a potential infinite of anything.
3. So the intellect must be independent from matter.

Another way is this:

1.What is in potential to something does not actually possess the nature of that thing.
2.The intellect is in potential to all material things.
3.Therefore, the intellect does not actually possess the nature of any material thing; otherwise it would not be in potency to it and could not therefore come to know it.

This is not to say that there is no causal interaction between the soul and the brain. If someone is writing with a pen, and you hit their arm, causing something to happen to the pen, you certainly don’t conclude that the pen must be part of the person’s arm!

 

[Moonstruck888]

For immateriality of the intellect, I would put it all in a nice clean syllogism thus:

1. The intellect can harbor a potential infinite amount of concepts.

That is a baseless assumption and an absurd fallacy. No matter how many concepts any intellect harbours, there is still an infinite shortfall from infinity.

 

[awatkins69]

That is a baseless assumption and an absurd fallacy. No matter how many concepts any intellect harbours, there is still an infinite shortfall from infinity.

Keyword here my friend: potential.

I never claimed the intellect could harbor an actual infinite amount of concepts. I don’t even believe there are any instances of actual infinites. I use specific words for specific purposes. Best.

 

[awatkins69]

P.S. Not trying to be rude or anything, but make sure you understand the distinction.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Keyword here my friend: potential.

I never claimed the intellect could harbor an actual infinite amount of concepts. I don’t even believe there are any instances of actual infinites. I use specific words for specific purposes. Best.

How do you know that the intellect could harbour a potentially infinite amount of concepts? What’s your evidence for this?

I see no reason whatsoever to make that leap of faith. Just because the brain can handle large amounts of information does not justify the assumption that it has potentially infinite capacity. Since the brain is physical and intellect is an emergent property of brain activity, it is sure to have a storage limit.

 

[tonyrey]

Just who exactly is it that thinks intellect is a property of matter and could benefit from the argument you made against that idea?

There is a materialist on this forum who has stated that the correspondence of belief to reality is an isomorph of atomic particles. Since belief is the result of intellectual activity intellectual activity must be reducible - in his opinion - to a configuration of atomic particles, i.e. a property of matter…

 

[sidbrown]

1. No amount of matter can harbor a potential infinite of anything.

Why is this true?

 

[awatkins69]

Why is this true?

Matter is finite by definition. To handle an infinite amount of something the amount of matter would have to be infinite. And I wouldn’t find anybody willing to argue that we are made of an infinite amount of matter!

 

[awatkins69]

How do you know that the intellect could harbour a potentially infinite amount of concepts? What’s your evidence for this?

I see no reason whatsoever to make that leap of faith. Just because the brain can handle large amounts of information does not justify the assumption that it has potentially infinite capacity. Since the brain is physical and intellect is an emergent property of brain activity, it is sure to have a storage limit.

I’m not saying that we can comprehend an actual infinity of concepts at one moment. What I’m saying is that, if there were an infinite amount of objects, the intellect could comprehend each of these.

 

[reggieM]

Since the brain is physical and intellect is an emergent property of brain activity, it is sure to have a storage limit.

This is begging the question. The argument is directed against the assertion that “the intellect is a property of matter” and here you’re arguing that the since the intellect is a property of matter, then it has a storage limit.

But this argument is not about long-term storage anyway, but the capability of the mind to process, calculate, apprehend and generate a potential infinite number and kind of concepts.

Where computers have limits, for example, the mind can transcend those (by observing the computer’s limitations).

awatkins69 distinction on the “potential” infinite is a very good one. Thanks!

(… that’s what I was looking for in developing this argument).

 

[sidbrown]

Matter is finite by definition. To handle an infinite amount of something the amount of matter would have to be infinite. And I wouldn’t find anybody willing to argue that we are made of an infinite amount of matter!

This is not a valid answer since you originally used the phrase a potentially infinite amount.

 

[reggieM]

Matter is finite by definition. To handle an infinite amount of something the amount of matter would have to be infinite. And I wouldn’t find anybody willing to argue that we are made of an infinite amount of matter!

Excellent point. That’s another way to frame the argument.

In order for matter to process an infinite number and kind of objects, it needs some physical reference points to apprehend those objects. So, the brain would need an infinite amount of matter.

One reason I posted this argument is for this very point …

I am more than willing to accept the counter-point that the brain is actually composed of an infinite amount of material, or that the processes of the brain are infinite.

Some scientists are willing to state that they think that the structure of a single cell is “infinitely complex”. Could that be literally true? Could the coordination of the brain’s processes actually be infinite in complexity also?

If so, then this is another problem since finite matter cannot produce infinite results.

If the matter of the brain is finite, then intelligence (which is capable of infinite apprehension) is immaterial.

If the brain matter itself is infinite, then it had an immaterial origin, since finite-matter itself cannot produce infinite results.

 

[sidbrown]

This is begging the question. The argument is directed against the assertion that “the intellect is a property of matter” and here you’re arguing that the since the intellect is a property of matter, then it has a storage limit.

But this argument is not about long-term storage anyway, but the capability of the mind to process, calculate, apprehend and generate a potential infinite number and kind of concepts.

Where computers have limits, for example, the mind can transcend those (by observing the computer’s limitations).

awatkins69 distinction on the “potential” infinite is a very good one. Thanks!

(… that’s what I was looking for in developing this argument).

It is going to depend on what you mean by potentially infinite number and kind of concepts.

 

[sidbrown]

There is a materialist on this forum who has stated that the correspondence of belief to reality is an isomorph of atomic particles. Since belief is the result of intellectual activity intellectual activity must be reducible - in his opinion - to a configuration of atomic particles, i.e. a property of matter…

How do you explain the consciousness of cats and dogs?

 

[awatkins69]

This is not a valid answer since you originally used the phrase a potentially infinite amount.

Yes. There would have to be a part of the brain in potency corresponding to everything. That means there would have to be an actually infinite amount of locations, each in potency to a potential object of apprehension.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Would mathematicians who reject the infinite (see here for a description of strict finitism, or here for ultrafinitism) be placed in the same category as finite computers as far as their intellect is concerned?