Ad (1) The intellect can reflect upon itself. Think about what you’re thinking right now.
Ad (2) All motion in an object can be explained in terms of lower parts ad infinitum. Thus there is no physical object that is wholly self-reflexive.
Like I said, our ideas on what constitutes proof do not coincide.The fact is that there are several forms of proof and there is no one type of proof that will fit every circumstance that comes up in the real world.
The argument is contrasting the physical brain (a body) with the self-reflexive intellect.
- That does not prove the intellect is not physical.
- That is an unwarranted assertion followed by an erroneous assumption. The Human brain is physical and as you pointed out it is self reflexive, ergo you have falsified your own argument.
Rubbish. If that was the case, then why would polygraph tests, that detect fluctuations in the electrical activity of the brain, be admissable of evidence in court?The argument is contrasting the physical brain (a body) with the self-reflexive intellect.
Since no body can be self-reflexive, then the brain cannot be the same as the intellect.
You’re right. Premise 1 doesn’t prove the intellect is immaterial until premise 2 is granted. So, for 2, again, please show me a body which wholly moves itself, wholly changes itself, wholly cleans itself, wholly does anything to itself. Otherwise, you’re begging the question.
- That does not prove the intellect is not physical.
- That is an unwarranted assertion followed by an erroneous assumption. The Human brain is physical and as you pointed out it is self reflexive, ergo you have falsified your own argument.
I’m not sure what you purport to prove here? You think we don’t believe that there is causal interaction between the brain and the intellect?Rubbish. If that was the case, then why would polygraph tests, that detect fluctuations in the electrical activity of the brain, be admissable of evidence in court?
Okay… Here’s a beautiful example, one of my favourites.You’re right. Premise 1 doesn’t prove the intellect is immaterial until premise 2 is granted. So, for 2, again, please show me a body which wholly moves itself, wholly changes itself, wholly cleans itself, wholly does anything to itself. Otherwise, you’re begging the question.
You believe that part of the intellect is not related to brain function, or so you keep reminding me.I’m not sure what you purport to prove here? You think we don’t believe that there is causal interaction between the brain and the intellect?
No. We believe in causal interaction. Brain function is related to it completely! We are body **and **soul. Not just soul. As for the above, I’m not sure what you mean lolYou believe that part of the intellect is not related to brain function, or so you keep reminding me.
You wanted me to show you a body that, let me see, “wholly moves itself, wholly changes itself, wholly cleans itself, wholly does anything to itself.”No. We believe in causal interaction. Brain function is related to it completely! We are body **and **soul. Not just soul. As for the above, I’m not sure what you mean lol
They’re all part of one holistic organism. Fully functional and self contained.She doesn’t wholly move herself. Her muscles move her arms, her legs move her body, and so on. She doesn’t wholly clean herself. Her arms clean her body, etc etc. That’s not whole self-reflexivity.
That’s sort of ironic considering that you guys are supposed to be the reductionists.They’re all part of one holistic organism. Fully functional and self contained.
You’ve lost.
Why exactly is it that Christians seem to think they have some right to tell everyone else what they are?That’s sort of ironic considering that you guys are supposed to be the reductionists.
Anyways, I’m not denying that humans are substances (or systems). But are you denying that we can explain motion of the arm in terms of different parts?
I’m desperate? You’re denying that we can say “the muscles move the arm”! Quite frankly, this is easy to me, because I see how weak the arguments against the position are.And yes, I do deny that we can explain the motion of the arm in any other context than holisitically. Have you ever had a handshake from someone’s detached arm?
This is desperate.
Answer my question then. When did you last see movement in a severed arm? Explain how that movement was instigated.I’m desperate? You’re denying that we can say “the muscles move the arm”! Quite frankly, this is easy to me, because I see how weak the arguments against the position are.
The arm is part of a self contained organism that can analyze itself. I’m typing to you now because my hands are an integral part of my body and mind. Do you think I understand the mechanics of how my fingers can type faster than I can see them move? Do you think I have to consciously contemplate each keystroke?The intellect can know and observe itself. It can direct itself to action and observe when it is directing itself or making a choice.
To speak of a person as being a “body” is not a holistic view, and it is a circular argument.
A person has an intelligence, so what you’re trying to prove is included in the body that is claimed to move itself.
But importantly, the arm does not know itself, or use itself to move itself. The arm is moved by something else.
A stone would be a better example of a body. It does not move itself or understand itself.
Why use a body that contains an intelligence to prove that bodies act in ways that intelligence can act?
Come on. This is so weak it’s almost not worth replying to. I just want others to see how weak your argument is.Answer my question then. When did you last see movement in a severed arm? Explain how that movement was instigated.
You don’t even have a position. You’re fantasizing. Hallucinating.
You lot are fond of talking about first causes.Come on. This is so weak it’s almost not worth replying to. I just want others to see how weak your argument is.
If an arm is severed, properly speaking, it’s not really an arm, since it is separated from the body which gives it the function as a part of that body. It’ll decompose into something else within a couple weeks.
What does this have to do with anything though? I’m not talking about severed arms. I’m talking about arms that are attached to a living body. The arm is moved by muscles, which are moved by fibers, which are moved by neurons, etc. ad infinitum. You’re taking essentialism to an extent that it has never gone before. According to your theory, to say that “the muscles move the arm” is absurd. Also, according to your theory, a we’d have to say that the arm is moving the arm, meaning it is ontologically prior to itself, which is absurd.
Really?Come on. This is so weak it’s almost not worth replying to. I just want others to see how weak your argument is.