Is the essence of a person the sum total of his atoms?

[Vico]

According to the catechism, God’s existence can be proven without any appeal to faith.

Yeah, but not what you mean, I think; they are ways of coming to know God, called proofs, but not natural science proofs:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
**31 **Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

 

[Frankenfurter]

According to the catechism, God’s existence can be proven without any appeal to faith.

Good point. Let me quote what it says:

*II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person. *

I note that one must seek God first. I am sure that is where we all start. Seeking. Unless of course, we a priori decide not to. I can see where that could happen.

Note that the ‘proof’ for God is unlike in the physical sciences where we have simple logical tests for our assertions. But instead coming to know God is coming to know a person. I note the two-fold point of departure physical and the human person.

I resonate with this. The physical world is only part of the picture. And as I conclude from this thread, a person is not physical only.

I can see that if one limits himself to the physical world, that the concept of God may be elusive. I get that.

 

[Vico]

According to the catechism, God’s existence can be proven without any appeal to faith.

Also God makes the first move towards us and we receive faith:

Catechism of the Catholic Church153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven”.24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’"25

 

[tonyrey]

Good point. Let me quote what it says:

*II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of “converging and convincing arguments”, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These “ways” of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person. *

I note that one must seek God first. I am sure that is where we all start. Seeking. Unless of course, we a priori decide not to. I can see where that could happen.

Note that the ‘proof’ for God is unlike in the physical sciences where we have simple logical tests for our assertions. But instead coming to know God is coming to know a person. I note the two-fold point of departure physical and the human person.

I resonate with this. The physical world is only part of the picture. And as I conclude from this thread, a person is not physical only.

I can see that if one limits himself to the physical world, that the concept of God may be elusive. I get that.

To limit oneself to the physical world is irrational because our primary datum and sole certainty is our mental activity. We have direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings, decisions and perceptions but we** infer **the existence of everything else from sense data. The mind is more powerful than matter. As Pascal pointed out, we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist!

 

[Frankenfurter]

To limit oneself to the physical world is irrational because our primary datum and sole certainty is our mental activity. We have direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings, decisions and perceptions but we** infer **the existence of everything else from sense data. The mind is more powerful than matter. As Pascal pointed out, we know the universe exists but the universe doesn’t know we exist!

But it is asking a lot of people, people who are bombarded with a physical bias, to sort this out. It is quite simple really, but an evil little trick none the less. It seems that this physicalism has become an entrenched bias in the assumed definition of words which shape people’s consciousness. I can only hope that the Lord takes this influence into account when passing judgment.

 

[Solmyr]

To limit oneself to the physical world is irrational because our primary datum and sole certainty is our mental activity. We have direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings, decisions and perceptions but we** infer **the existence of everything else from sense data.

The mind is part of the physical world. Show us a “mind” which is independent of the brain.

It is irrational to assume that there is our physical brain, with its activity, but the mind is something outside of this physical reality. The neural network contains our memories, our thoughts, our decisions. Only the dualists (or the idealists) try to create a distinction where there is none.

The mind is more powerful than matter.

Try to move a physical object by using your mind (your thoughts) alone. The advocates of the paranormal are all impostors, they cheat to create an illusion of directly manipulating matter by using their mind. No wonder that they refuse to perform their tricks when real stage magicians are present.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Show me purpose,

show me love,

show me the integers,

show me Jesus,

show me innocence

in a purely physical way.

If all minds ceased to exist, would the above continue to exist? Obviously they would.

The mind is the *subjct *of philosophy, the mind is not the object.

If you make the mind the object (philosophy of mind), then you don’t have to throw out everything else too.

 

[Solmyr]

If all minds ceased to exist, would the above continue to exist? Obviously they would.

Obviously they would NOT exist any more. All those concepts can be mapped onto the physical activity of the brain - aka: the mind. Without a mind there are no abstractions, there are no emotions, there are no ideas. Without legs there can be no walking, since the walking is the activity of the legs.

Show me a “mind” which is disconnected from the brain. And then show me how this “mind” interacts with the brain. That is the question for which there is no answer.

 

[tonyrey]

To limit oneself to the physical world is irrational because our primary datum and sole certainty is our mental activity. We have direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings, decisions and perceptions but we** infer **

In a secular society it is inevitable that moral and spiritual values fade into the background but even so the average person is not a criminal who ignores the suffering of others. The photo of Alan Kurdi really affected many people very deeply and they responded to the appeal to help refugees although there are quite a few others who have become cynical and turned against them.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Obviously they would NOT exist any more. All those concepts can be mapped onto the physical activity of the brain - aka: the mind.

If the integers only exist in the mind, then why are they are so necessary to understand the objective physical world? They appear to be a part of the physical world in a deeply fundamental way.

We only chose to see them as abstract because of how our senses work. We call something real if we can sense it only. The deeper level of reality seems abstract to us.

I am reminded of how kids develop ‘object permanence’. That is when they learn that just because an object vanishes from view, it doesn’t mean it is gone. It is fun playing peak-a-boo with kids at this age as they grapple with object permanence and learn how to ‘abstract’. Really they are just learning that they are not the determining force as to when something exists. They are learning about the objective world.

 

[Solmyr]

If the integers only exist in the mind, then why are they are so necessary to understand the objective physical world? They appear to be a part of the physical world in a deeply fundamental way.

You confuse the attribute of “one” with the concept of “one”. The attribute exists, whether there is anyone there to observe it. The concept of “one” only exists if there is someone to conceptualize it.

Will you answer my question? Can you show me a “mind” decoupled from the brain? I am getting tired of this evasion.

 

[Frankenfurter]

You confuse the attribute of “one” with the concept of “one”. The attribute exists, whether there is anyone there to observe it. The concept of “one” only exists if there is someone to conceptualize it.

A linguistic difference only. An adjective vs a noun. I will accept either. So we are in agreement then that integers exist. There are also expert linguists that say it doesn’t matter if you use numbers as a noun or adjective (different languages treat them differently).

Will you answer my question? Can you show me a “mind” decoupled from the brain?

Since we must show it to ‘you’, and since you have already described that you need to be able to see and examine things, and that the brain is physical and can be seen and examined, the question is a simple logical circle.

I could substitute for mind, anything, call it X. The question is therefore,

Can I see and examine X that can not be seen and examined?

The answer is no. But I am sure you already knew that.

The question displays no interest in the objective world and only an interest in defining one’s own world through subjective circular mental activities.

I am reminded of the kid who wants to see his Daddy so that he knows he still exists. Unfortunately, Daddy has gone to work and can not be seen. The kid concludes that Daddy has ceased to exist. Subjectively he has. Objectively he has not.

 

[Solmyr]

A linguistic difference only.

I am amazed that you say that. A “linguistic” difference between a physically existing ball, that you can throw or kick… and an imaginary ball, which describes an object with a spherical shape? Is it possible that you don’t really see the difference?

An adjective vs a noun.

No, they are both nouns, except one refers to an object, the other one refers to a concept.

I could substitute for mind, anything, call it X.

But we are not talking about some mythical “X”. We talk about a “mind”, which is simply the neural activity of the brain - in MY wording, and which is some undefined “substance” which somehow interacts with the physical brain - in YOUR opinion.

I can demonstrate the validity of my concept by introducing mild electrical current or some specific chemicals into the brain, and you would experience indescribable joy or pain, or have visual hallucinations, or even a wonderful clarity and enhanced ability to think and reason. All these demonstrate the primacy of the brain.

What can you bring up as evidence that the “mind” is independent of the brain, that it exists outside the space and time? And yet it somehow “magically” interacts with the physical substance of the brain?

The question is therefore,

Can I see and examine X that can not be seen and examined?

The answer is no. But I am sure you already knew that.

What this means is that the hypothesis you present cannot be verified or falsified, and as such it is irrational and irrelevant.

The question displays no interest in the objective world and only an interest in defining one’s own world through subjective circular mental activities.

On the very contrary. It is your view which does not care about the physical reality.

 

[tonyrey]

The mind is part of the physical world.

The mind is intangible and cannot be “shown” any more than truth or freedom.

It is irrational to assume that there is our physical brain, with its activity, but the mind is something outside of this physical reality. The neural network contains our memories, our thoughts, our decisions. Only the dualists (or the idealists) try to create a distinction where there is none.

How do you** know the neural network contains all **our mental activity? If that is the case we cannot have free will or be responsible for any of our thoughts or decisions.

Try to move a physical object by using your mind (your thoughts) alone. The advocates of the paranormal are all impostors, they cheat to create an illusion of directly manipulating matter by using their mind. No wonder that they refuse to perform their tricks when real stage magicians are present

There are limits to what the mind can do but it doesn’t follow that **all **our mental activity is caused by neural impulses.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I am amazed that you say that. A “linguistic” difference between a physically existing ball, that you can throw or kick… and an imaginary ball, which describes an object with a spherical shape? Is it possible that you don’t really see the difference?

You keep doing that. We were talking about NUMBERS. The integers. You have changed that to ball. Numbers are considered properly to be adjectives.

I did NOT put ball on my list of things that I asked to be shown are physical. I agree with you that ball is a noun and is physical. I am simply showing that there are somethings that do in fact exist outside of the physical realm. All I need is one. I propose the integers as an example (not ball, that was your example, and I agree with you).

Note that the integers are necessary for us to understand the physical world and thus appear to have a deeper importance in the substance of creation, even higher than physical objects.

 

[Frankenfurter]

There are limits to what the mind can do but it doesn’t follow that **all **our mental activity is caused by neural impulses.

He won’t let you pin him down on this logical point, and will likely change the OBJECT of discussion to something different to avoid it.

 

[tonyrey]

He won’t let you pin him down on this logical point, and will likely change the OBJECT of discussion to something different to avoid it.

Let’s not prejudge the issue. It’s always better to give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Solmyr]

You keep doing that. We were talking about NUMBERS. The integers.

The numbers are abstractions. The numeral “one” is a noun, even though it can be used as an adjective. Of course the English language is very “strange”. Almost all nouns can be used as “verbs” or even adjectives. The usage of a word does not have any bearing upon the referent of that word.

I am simply showing that there are somethings that do in fact exist outside of the physical realm.

Yes, of course. All the abstractions are like that. I never denied it. But you are playing fast and loose with the word “exists”. The phrase the “ball exist” (whether we speak of an actual ball or a conceptual ball) and the expression of “positive integers exist” are not the same. By the way, why do stop with the positive integers? How about the negative integers, or the fractions? Or the square root of minus one? These are all abstractions, and they only exist if there are minds which can conceptualize them. The positive integers are relatively simple to conceptualize, and yet, there are primitive people who cannot “count” beyond “two”. For them the only numbers are “one, two and many”.

 

[Solmyr]

The mind is intangible and cannot be “shown” any more than truth or freedom.

Just like “walking”. Walking is “intangible”. And yet we can “show” that walking exists, as the activity of a body. There is no “walking” without a body.

There are limits to what the mind can do but it doesn’t follow that **all **our mental activity is caused by neural impulses.

Show me a counter example. Show me any mental activity which is independent from the brain.

 

[Frankenfurter]

The numbers are abstractions. The numeral “one” is a noun, even though it can be used as an adjective. Of course the English language is very “strange”. Almost all nouns can be used as “verbs” or even adjectives. The usage of a word does not have any bearing upon the referent of that word.

Yes, of course. All the abstractions are like that. I never denied it. But you are playing fast and loose with the word “exists”. The phrase the “ball exist” (whether we speak of an actual ball or a conceptual ball) and the expression of “positive integers exist” are not the same.

I accept this.

Since I am searching for something outside the physical, and since our language is biased toward the physical, I anticipate that these non-physical things that are required as part of the essence of existence, will likely seem strange and will be awkward for us to describe. I’m OK with that. I am not interested in dissecting the mind. I am looking at the objective world, not the subject who is trying to understand it.