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

[Aloysium]

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

We need a brain to participate perceptually, emotionally and cognitively in the world.
The reality of our existence transcends any analogy; but if we consider a DVD, it could hardly be asserted that the information it carries can be attributed merely to a physical structure which has moulded itself into its particular state.
Our experience is organized in accordance with the mathematics and other ways of understanding, the space and time frames, emotional reactions and so on, that govern the workings of our soul.
In human beings, we find a unity of body and spirit which makes for our every day experience - we see, feel, enjoy, hurt, write, think as an individual, unique person.
This simplicity is the reality, as much as some of us seem to wish it abstracted away.
The older we grow, the more we will lose of the faculties which provide so much joy. The physical substrate that underlies mental functioning, that is who we are will decompose along with everything else, as it should as we grow towards the truth of our existence as eternal beings.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Walking is certainly not intangible. We see it, hear it and experience it with senses like our nerves.

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.

Free choices and decisions are not **caused **by the brain. They operate within the context of the brain but they are not the effects of biochemical activity.Otherwise they would not be independent. Do you really believe we are no more than biological machines?

 

[Solmyr]

Walking is certainly not intangible. We see it, hear it and experience it with senses like our nerves.

No, you don’t see “walking”. You see the movement of the legs. Just like you can use an electroencephalograph to measure the chemical-electronic activity of the brain. Can you have “thinking” without the activity of the brain? Because that is what you assert.

Free choices and decisions are not **caused **by the brain. They operate within the context of the brain but they are not the effects of biochemical activity.

Just like walking is not caused by the legs. The muscles in the leg and the activity of the muscles BOTH are part of the walking. And how do you know that choices, decisions, memories and thoughts are NOT the effects of the biochemical activity of the brain. Have you “seen” choices, decisions, memories and thoughts in the absence of the brain’s activity?

Otherwise they would not be independent. Do you really believe we are no more than biological machines?

We are biological entities. Your usage of the word “machines” is imprecise.

 

[o_mlly]

I think the answer is no.

The essence of a person cannot be described by the sum total of the atoms. …

I agree.

Instead, it is the way the the thing (or person) interacts with the rest of reality (and creation as a whole) that defines its essence.
is.

I almost agree. I believe human essence is the way all humans at all places and *all *times interact with reality.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I almost agree. I believe human essence is the way all humans at all places and *all *times interact with reality.

Thank you for that. Good point. We are interdependent? So one person’s essence is coupled to others.

I sometimes think that even our best science tells us that it takes an entire universe to make a person.

 

[Frankenfurter]

And how do you know that choices, decisions, memories and thoughts are NOT the effects of the biochemical activity of the brain. Have you “seen” choices, decisions, memories and thoughts in the absence of the brain’s activity?

He does not need to provide evidence. It is the physicalist who asserts that **all **is physical or supervenes on the physical. He must show that no choice, decision or thoughts happen without a brain.

But then the physicalist would like to see at least one example of a choice or decision or thought happening without a brain. We offer the mind of God who created everything. Or the mind of Jesus who came back from the dead, and many witnessed. But you have already discounted these because you cannot see them with your particular physical brain. There is also the intrinsic decision process in nature, based on mathematics and natural laws that slowly over time makes selections, choices, etc.

I still see no evidence that points to the physical being all that there is. Nor do I see any attempt to prove it. Why make such a limiting, circular assumption? Seems like a complicated way to just discount something a priori.

 

[Solmyr]

But then the physicalist would like to see at least one example of a choice or decision or thought happening without a brain.

And it is obvious that to ask for ONE example for the non-physical is rational, while to demand to prove that ALL instances are physical is ridiculous.

We offer the mind of God who created everything. Or the mind of Jesus who came back from the dead, and many witnessed. But you have already discounted these because you cannot see them with your particular physical brain.

That is not true. We do not accept your example because you have no evidence for it.

 

[tonyrey]

Walking is certainly not intangible. We see it, hear it and experience it with senses like our nerves.

There is no reason to suppose thinking cannot exist without the activity of the brain. We cannot see thoughts and all we know for certain is that many of them are related to brain activity but “many” is not “all”.

*Free choices and decisions are not **caused ***

by the brain. They operate within the context of the brain but they are not the effects of biochemical activity.

Just like walking is not caused by the legs. The muscles in the leg and the activity of the muscles BOTH are part of the walking. And how do you know that choices, decisions, memories and thoughts are NOT the effects of the biochemical activity of the brain. Have you “seen” choices, decisions, memories and thoughts in the absence of the brain’s activity?

Choices, decisions, memories and thoughts are never visible.

Otherwise they would not be independent. Do you really believe we are no more than biological machines?

We are biological entities. Your usage of the word “machines” is imprecise. .

Isn’t a machine an entity? What distinguishes a person from a biological machine if everything has a physical cause?

 

[Solmyr]

There is no reason to suppose thinking cannot exist without the activity of the brain.

Example?

 

[Aloysium]

Example?

Would the field of mathematics be considered thinking without a brain?
We can engage in carrying out calculations which utilizes the brain, but as a framework, it’s out there to be apprehended.
Since it moulds our thoughts according to its principles, I’m wondering how someone who views what’s happening here as being explicable in terms of ultimately purely biochemical processes, might understand how mathematics fits into the picture.

 

[Solmyr]

Would the field of mathematics be considered thinking without a brain?

No, it would not.

We can engage in carrying out calculations which utilizes the brain, but as a framework, it’s out there to be apprehended.
Since it moulds our thoughts according to its principles, I’m wondering how someone who views what’s happening here as being explicable in terms of ultimately purely biochemical processes, might understand how mathematics fits into the picture.

Quite easily. Mathematics is an abstract science. It was invented by the caveman who first realized that “two” apples are more than “one” apple. It was a thinking process.

The axioms of mathematics are arbitrary. There is only one requirement that they would be free of contradictions. Basically it is a wonderful mind-game. That it is very useful is an added benefit.

 

[Frankenfurter]

That is not true. We do not accept your example because you have no evidence for it.

False. We have evidence.

Who decides what evidence is acceptable?

In the end perhaps, we must decide for ourselves and live accordingly. What else could we do?

It would be a shame though if someone discounted the evidence before actually examining it due to some bias.

But the idea of modern philosophy being tied to the examination of the mind is fundamentally flawed.

I mean I was discussing the essence of existence, and once again modern philosophy turns away from the object towards the analysis of the mind, the subject doing the thinking.

I am aware of this constant distraction and am making a feeble attempt to avoid it.

The mind is NOT the object of discussion. Who said that it was? Why are we trying to prove that nonphysical minds exist?

Instead I am thinking about a person, perhaps a young girl born to a family in the woods. Few knew her. But she was a person and was unique and many loved her, but few had evidence for her existence.I say she existed. You say, show me the proof. But yet, her existence was real. It does not matter what your mind or my mind thinks.

If you chose to look into it. You may find that the existence of this little girl is clear. All evidence points to her having lived. But first you would have to want to find her.

The non-physical mind you seek is just like that little girl. It is a conscious choice of your mind to reject her. But your choice has no effect on her objective existence.

 

[Solmyr]

False. We have evidence.

This brings up the fundamental problem: “what is evidence”? Let’s use the tried and tested method in the criminal trials: “evidence is something that can substantiate the charge beyond any reasonable doubt”. It does not specify the nature of the evidence, only that it should be acceptable by rational persons beyond any reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient to use the lower standard: “preponderance of the evidence”. And to further lower the “acceptability” to “well, I heard from someone, who was told by someone else… etc…” (called hearsay evidence) is completely unacceptable.

In the end perhaps, we must decide for ourselves and live accordingly. What else could we do?

Of course.

It would be a shame though if someone discounted the evidence before actually examining it due to some bias.

That is impractical. One should not waste time and resources on investigating ridiculous claims. It is quite possible (in theory) that a ridiculous claim is actually correct, and all the hitherto accepted theories are wrong… What should one do in this case? Simple. Stay open to the possibility, and encourage the claimant to gather more evidence, until the claim passes the litmus test: “beyond any reasonable doubt”.

But first you would have to want to find her.

No, all I need to do is stay open to the possibility that she exists, and then wait for you to bring her to be examined.

 

[Frankenfurter]

This brings up the fundamental problem: “what is evidence”? Let’s use the tried and tested method in the criminal trials: “evidence is something that can substantiate the charge beyond any reasonable doubt”. It does not specify the nature of the evidence, only that it should be acceptable by rational persons beyond any reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient to use the lower standard: “preponderance of the evidence”. And to further lower the “acceptability” to “well, I heard from someone, who was told by someone else… etc…” (called hearsay evidence) is completely unacceptable.

Last I checked 83% of US population self identified as Christian. They may also be rational.

I do not like objective reality being up for auction. I reject this proposed notion for evidence actually even though it agrees with my position.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no reason to suppose thinking cannot exist without the activity of the brain.

Thoughts cannot be interpreted by an examination of neural impulses nor is there any reason to believe **all **our thoughts are produced by neural impulses. If they could it would mean we have no control over our thoughts and be incapable of choosing what to think. In other words there would be no guarantee that our conclusions are ever correct because we would be merely cogs in the machine of nature. Yet our primary datum and sole certainty is not the material world but our mental activity which enables us to infer the existence of everything else.

 

[Solmyr]

Last I checked 83% of US population self identified as Christian. They may also be rational.

Most people are only “nominally religious”. (The Vatican admits this and complains about it.) Most people never question their core beliefs. An overwhelming majority stays with the religion that they were raised as children, never examining the alternatives. Therefore they are not interested in “evidence”. As best they will cherry-pick those events which seem to support their belief system. (For example they will vehemently assert that the survival of their relative in a plane crash was a “miracle”, while they are very quiet about the death of the other 300+ passengers who perished.)

The question of evidence is only interesting when there is a discrepancy in beliefs. The apologist attempts to prove that their side is right and the other side is wrong. You asked what should be construed as “evidence”? I answer with the phrase “anything which is true beyond reasonable doubt”. When such evidence is produced, then the rational skeptic must accept it in the name of reason.

Maybe you will argue that sometimes parents will reject the unquestionable evidence presented for their child being a psychopathic killer. Such things did happen. But in that case those people cannot be considered rational. Their emotions rule their thinking. A rational skeptic does not care about emotive “evidence”. He or she does not care how “comforting” the belief in God might be. The only maxim is: “just the facts ma’am!”.

I know that an overwhelming majority of believers are rational in secular matters. They are also rational when it comes to the evaluation of the claims OTHER religions. But they check their rationality into the cloakroom, when it comes to THEIR own religion. A few of the religious people are intellectually honest, and admit that they rely of their “faith”. More power for them. A very few do that; while the rest will “deny the Moon off the sky”, will come up with all sorts of excuses, cop-outs.

 

[Solmyr]

Thoughts cannot be interpreted by an examination of neural impulses nor is there any reason to believe **all **our thoughts are produced by neural impulses. If they could it would mean we have no control over our thoughts and be incapable of choosing what to think. In other words there would be no guarantee that our conclusions are ever correct because we would be merely cogs in the machine of nature. Yet our primary datum and sole certainty is not the material world but our mental activity which enables us to infer the existence of everything else.

You already said this… far too many times. Now how about an actual example of a decision or a thought which happened outside and independently of the brain? And then show us the mechanism by which this “ultra-natural” agency operated, and how did it interact with the physical brain?

You keep using the expression: “our thoughts are produced by neural impulses”. They are not “produced”, they “are”. The thoughts ARE the neural impulses and the neural impulses ARE the thoughts.

As for being “free” what to think, I offer you the following experiment. Close your eyes, and for 30 seconds TRY NOT to think about a zebra… Start now… Now you spent 30 seconds in futile effort and were unable to think anything BUT a zebra, draw your conclusion.

 

[Aloysium]

No, it would not. Quite easily. Mathematics is an abstract science. It was invented by the caveman who first realized that “two” apples are more than “one” apple. It was a thinking process. The axioms of mathematics are arbitrary. There is only one requirement that they would be free of contradictions. Basically it is a wonderful mind-game. That it is very useful is an added benefit.

Thank you for your reply.
It brings into focus the intellectual relationship we have with the universe, allowing us to know it as the world of matter, energy, space and time.
We have the capacity to connect with its order.
Our minds invent tools, portals through which nature reveals its mysteries.
Pretty awesome capacities, fascinating reality.
It leaves me sort of giddy.

in cosmic mind games
the soul soars to the heavens
honouring the Source

 

[Solmyr]

Thank you for your reply.
It brings into focus the intellectual relationship we have with the universe, allowing us to know it as the world of matter, energy, space and time.
We have the capacity to connect with its order.
Our minds invent tools, portals through which nature reveals its mysteries.
Pretty awesome capacities, fascinating reality.
It leaves me sort of giddy.

I agree, it is pretty awesome.

If you just look at a snowflake and see its beautiful, hexagonal symmetry, it is very interesting. Then you realize that not two snowflakes are identical. Then you can look at a termite-mound and consider the incredible tunnel system which maintains a steady temperature and humidity in the queen’s chamber. The workers keep on opening and closing the tunnels near the surface of the mound - which is miles and miles away from the middle - on their SCALE. And the result is an optimal environment for the queen.

Absolutely mind-boggling. But so is the distribution of the prime-twins and the highly composed numbers. Anyhow, there is no reason to assume a “snowflake maker” Or a “tunnel-opening god”, which would “suggest” to the workers which tunnels to open and which ones to close. Sure, such a hypothesis could be made, but it would be intellectual laziness to make such assumption.

Let’s feel the awe for nature, and investigate the “how”… and forget the “why”.

 

[tonyrey]

Thoughts cannot be interpreted by an examination of neural impulses nor is there any reason to believe **all **

The truth bears repetition even if you find it unpalatable. How about refuting each proposition one by one?

Now how about an actual example of a decision or a thought which happened outside and independently of the brain?

It is impossible for us to locate a particular thought or decision. All we know is that they are usually associated with brain activity. It doesn’t follow that **all **mental activity is located inside the skull. Intuition, inspiration and introspection presuppose knowledge which is not obtained via the senses. A mechanistic explanation of the mind doesn’t account for the originality, creativity, spontaneity and plasticity of human thought. Physical causes do not account for all our behaviour by any stretch of the imagination. Don’t you have a private, interior life of your own? Could it be analysed by an EEG machine? Do you treat your family as if they cannot think for themselves? In fact the **self **doesn’t exist in your scheme of things. We are just mindless bodies which happen to respond to stimuli without any power of self-control! Don’t you ever make an effort to do things you don’t like? Could you choose to kill yourself if you decided it was the best thing to do? Or is it completely out of the question because you are dominated by the survival instinct? Is there such a thing as willpower?

And then show us the mechanism by which this “ultra-natural” agency operated, and how did it interact with the physical brain?

“mechanism” is the key word.Your question is based on the unjustified assumption that the mind is no more than a biological machine. What is the evidence for this hypothesis? Do you regard your family as higher animals incapable of controlling themselves?

You keep using the expression: “our thoughts are produced by neural impulses”. They are not “produced”, they “are”. The thoughts ARE the neural impulses and the neural impulses ARE the thoughts.

If they are identical the mind doesn’t exist. There is no need to distinguish two aspects of reality. Why do you use that term if it is superfluous? Why has humanity always distinguished mind and matter? Do you regard your family as mindless bodies programmed by their genes and environment?

As for being “free” what to think, I offer you the following experiment. Close your eyes, and for 30 seconds TRY NOT to think about a zebra… Start now… Now you spent 30 seconds in futile effort and were unable to think anything BUT a zebra, draw your conclusion.

The fact that we can think of many different things as well as a zebra within 30 seconds demonstrates that we can control our thoughts. If we thought of nothing but a zebra your hypothesis would be correct but that is not the case. In fact I can choose to hypnotise myself so that go into a trance and stop thinking all together, go off to sleep or imagine I’m floating on a cloud above the world in a blue sky where I cannot see what is happening down below.

Now an experiment for you. Ask yourself whether you think there is only one possible answer to the question “Is there life on another planet?” Are you compelled to answer “Yes” or No" or “I don’t know”? Or can you choose to ignore the question? If not why not?