Intellect is not a Property of Matter

[sidbrown]

Like I said, our ideas on what constitutes proof do not coincide.

That’s curious that you would know what my idea on proof is without my expressing it beforehand. Are you a mindreader of some sort? Since you apparently claim the power to read people’s minds, this itelf would not be a property of matter, since generally I don’t see how matter would have this ability of reading other people’s minds. Even those people that they do not know who they are and have never met them. This is a most extraordinary power that you claim to have.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That’s curious that you would know what my idea on proof is without my expressing it beforehand. Are you a mindreader of some sort? Since you apparently claim the power to read people’s minds, this itelf would not be a property of matter, since generally I don’t see how matter would have this ability of reading other people’s minds. Even those people that they do not know who they are and have never met them. This is a most extraordinary power that you claim to have.

I viewed some of you posts on this forum. I do not need supernatural powers to see that your idea of evidence and mine do not coincide.

Feel free to prove me wrong though. Do you agree that only the scienitic method and that alone matters in determining reality from fantasy?

 

[awatkins69]

Really?

Let’s see you answer a few. How is it exactly that my arm is linked into an immortal transdimensional supernatural hyper entity like an immortal soul? What does the connection consist of? What medium does it propogate in? What Quanta does it transfer?

You’re completely missing the point. We can talk about the nature of the union between soul and body after you quit dodging my question. Let’s get back to the point. Do you seriously deny that the following sentence is true? “Arms are moved by muscles and tendons.” Simple yes or no question.

If you do, then good luck finding anyone who finds your argument compelling. If you do not, then your alleged “counter-example” does not work, and you’re going to have to find me a body that is wholly and non-formally self-reflexive.

 

[sidbrown]

I viewed some of you posts on this forum. I do not need supernatural powers to see that your idea of evidence and mine do not coincide.

I have not announced what I consider to be a valid method of proof in this situation. By claiming to know what type of proof I espouse here, you are in effect claiming the supernatural power to read people’s minds. This itself would prove that intellect is not a property of matter since it involves the reality of supernatural powers of the intellect.

 

[awatkins69]

Feel free to prove me wrong though. Do you agree that only the scienitic method and that alone matters in determining reality from fantasy?

I’m sorry but that is not at all true. Good luck explaining by the scientific method how the scientific method is true. Or how 2+2=4 is true. Or how killing someone is wrong. Or how Michelangelo’s paintings are beautiful.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I have not announced what I consider to be a valid method of proof in this situation. By claiming to know what type of proof I espouse here, you are in effect claiming the supernatural power to read people’s minds. This itself would prove that intellect is not a property of matter since it involves the reality of supernatural powers of the intellect.

Do you acknowledge that the scientific method is the only viable method of seperating what is real and what is not?

Yes or no?

 

[Moonstruck888]

I’m sorry but that is not at all true. Good luck explaining by the scientific method how the scientific method is true. Or how 2+2=4 is true. Or how killing someone is wrong. Or how Michelangelo’s paintings are beautiful.

Good. Then you take my point, even though you may disagree with me. You understand that I don’t think any of the things you gave as examples there can be explained in the way you mean.

 

[awatkins69]

Good. Then you take my point, even though you may disagree with me. You understand that I don’t think any of the things you gave as examples there can be explained in the way you mean.

Okay. So you don’t think “the scientific method is the only viable method of seperating what is real and what is not”?

 

[Moonstruck888]

You’re completely missing the point. We can talk about the nature of the union between soul and body after you quit dodging my question. Let’s get back to the point. Do you seriously deny that the following sentence is true? “Arms are moved by muscles and tendons.” Simple yes or no question.

No, they are not moved by muscles and tendons alone. A mind at large is required to initiate and control the movement.

Now:

1. Is it a Quantum Field that joins the human body to it’s soul, yes or no?
2. Do you know what medium the field that joins the human body to it’s soul propagates in, yes or no?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Okay. So you don’t think “the scientific method is the only viable method of seperating what is real and what is not”?

Yes, I do think it is the only viable method.

I don’t think certain questions can be objectively answered by anyone or anything, ever.

Michaelangelo, good case in point. I always preferred Waterhouse.

 

[awatkins69]

Yes, I do think it is the only viable method.

I don’t think certain questions can be objectively answered by anyone or anything, ever.

Michaelangelo, good case in point. I always preferred Waterhouse.

Okay? So you don’t believe we can prove the scientific method then? Or you don’t believe that we can answer the question, “what does 2+2 equal”?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Okay? So you don’t believe we can prove the scientific method then? Or you don’t believe that we can answer the question, “what does 2+2 equal”?

I can design you an experiment to ratify the two plus two question. If I take two apples, two more apples, and count them, I now have four apples. If I do the same with bananas, oranges, electrons, Coca Cola Bottles, anything in the world, it still works.

Hypothesis 2+2=4 confirmed.

As for the scientific method, since it is based on comparing physical experience to predictions made by a hypothesis, to a scientist it is self affirming.

 

[Moonstruck888]

By the way, cough

1. Is it a Quantum Field that joins the human body to it’s soul, yes or no?
2. Do you know what medium the field that joins the human body to it’s soul propagates in, yes or no?

Aren’t you forgetting something? ^^

 

[awatkins69]

**No, they are not moved by muscles and tendons alone. A mind at large is required to initiate and control the movement.
**
Now:

1. Is it a Quantum Field that joins the human body to it’s soul, yes or no?
2. Do you know what medium the field that joins the human body to it’s soul propagates in, yes or no?

Bolded part: **Exactly what I’m saying! **So the motion of the arm is **not **wholly self-reflexive. It’s caused by other parts, e.g. muscles, which are caused to move by brains. So you’re left with causal interactions between different parts, meaning that it is not wholly self-reflexive.

Let’s phrase it clearly: If body B acts upon itself, then some proper part of B acts upon some other proper or improper part of B. This is not whole self-reflexivity.

As for 1 and 2, the intellect is immaterial, so I don’t know why you are applying physical concepts to it. Let’s not use the world soul from now on, since it is ambiguous. In philosophical literature, soul means something different than the popular sense. A better phrase than “soul” is “substantial form”. Now, the substantial form is related to the body, in that the body would not be what it is if it had no form. Just as a tree would not be what it is unless it had a certain substantial form, and so on.

 

[awatkins69]

I can design you an experiment to ratify the two plus two question. If I take two apples, two more apples, and count them, I now have four apples. If I do the same with bananas, oranges, electrons, Coca Cola Bottles, anything in the world, it still works.

Hypothesis 2+2=4 confirmed.

As for the scientific method, since it is based on comparing physical experience to predictions made by a hypothesis, to a scientist it is self affirming.

That doesn’t help us. If we are to say that 2+2=4 as a universal is confirmed by scientific method, we’d have to make sure there are no counterexamples. Thus, to confirm it as absolutely true (by scientific standards), we’d have to try this with every single possible example. Thus, according to scientific standards, we cannot know it is absolutely true. But this is absurd, as everyone know that 2+2=4 is absolutely true, no matter what.

 

[awatkins69]

As for the scientific method, since it is based on comparing physical experience to predictions made by a hypothesis, to a scientist it is self affirming.

Okay. But you’re already assuming a correspondence theory of truth, that the “truth” of statements consists in their conformity to objective reality. Prove that with the scientific method.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Bolded part: **Exactly what I’m saying! **So the motion of the arm is **not **wholly self-reflexive. It’s caused by other parts, e.g. muscles, which are caused to move by brains. So you’re left with causal interactions between different parts, meaning that it is not wholly self-reflexive.

Good Christ. I think we’re just going to have to agree to never agree on this one. A human being is an entity, a being. An arm is not.

Let’s phrase it clearly: If body B acts upon itself, then some proper part of B acts upon some other proper or improper part of B. This is not whole self-reflexivity.

A human being is a singular entity. It is self reflexive.

As for 1 and 2, the intellect is immaterial, so I don’t know why you are applying physical concepts to it. Let’s not use the world soul from now on. A better phrase than “soul” is “substantial form”. Now, the substantial form is related to the body, in that the body would not be what it is if it had no form. Just as a tree would not be what it is unless it had a certain substantial form, and so on.

Just tell me one thing about ithis connection that is quantifiable? Just give me one fact that I can put to the test? Can you do that? Just one detail?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Okay. But you’re already assuming a correspondence theory of truth, that the “truth” of statements consists in their conformity to objective reality. Prove that with the scientific method.

I don’t have to. I live in a world that was created by science. The proof is all around me. I don’t even consider it important to prove it.

 

[awatkins69]

Good Christ. I think we’re just going to have to agree to never agree on this one. A human being is an entity, a being. An arm is not.

A human being is a singular entity. It is self reflexive.

Just tell me one thing about ithis connection that is quantifiable? Just give me one fact that I can put to the test? Can you do that? Just one detail?

I give up. You obviously don’t understand this. If you want to say that human beings do not have parts, go ahead and enjoy yourself. I’ll let everyone else judge whether they find your ideas compelling. I think that most people will realize that you have to come to absurd conclusions like that to deny the immateriality of the intellect, and I’m more here to help people see your arguments are less compelling, than to make you see that your arguments are not compelling. All the best.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I give up. You obviously don’t understand this. If you want to say that human beings do not have parts, go ahead and enjoy yourself. I’ll let everyone else judge whether they find that statement compelling.

I never said they don’t have parts. What I said was that the parts can only operate holistically and the whole is self reflexive.

What I understand is this. You’ve been bombarding me with questions and I’ve tried my best to answer honourably, and the minute I’ve asked you a single question back, you give up.

You don’t have an answer, do you? You don’t have a clue what the soul is, you don’t even know it exists. You rely on faith and conviction, not thought, to support your position, and you don’t even know what it is you have faith in.