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

[thinkandmull]

Except us, “six years olds” have overwhelming physical evidence for the mind being the product / activity of the brain. Do you have evidence for the soul? You don’t even have a coherent definition for it.

You can’t find the soul through science, but since you deny its existence you must have some idea what it is. You cannot disprove that it exists. The brain is like curtains. It can keep the sun in or out, but it is not the sun. You need to explain how matter could understand what a soul is also

 

[yppop]

Except us, “six years olds” have overwhelming physical evidence for the mind being the product / activity of the brain. Do you have evidence for the soul? You don’t even have a coherent definition for it.

Yes, the mind is a “product/activity” of the brain. Neurobiologists usually contend that the mind is an “emergent” property of the brain. No one that I have ever read claims that the mind is the brain. And no one that I have ever read can explain what an “emergent” property is in “physical” terms.

Why don’t you tell me what you think the “mind” and/or emergent “properties” are. You probably can describe them, but I bet you can’t explain them.

Since we can neither prove or disprove the presence of immaterial substance; those that assume that such a substance exists can evoke such to explain the mind and its emergent contents, but those that deny the existence of an immaterial substance will never explain the mind with or without evidence.

Yppop

 

[Solmyr]

Yes, the mind is a “product/activity” of the brain. Neurobiologists usually contend that the mind is an “emergent” property of the brain. No one that I have ever read claims that the mind is the brain.

Thank you. At last someone understands the principle. Just like no one asserts that “walking” is the “legs”. It is the activity or the “emergent property” of the legs.

And no one that I have ever read can explain what an “emergent” property is in “physical” terms.

I am not sure what you mean by purely “physical terms”. The “wetness” of water cannot be explained by referring to the purely “physical properties” of oxygen and hydrogen. To do that we need chemistry. No one can explain in purely “physical / chemical terms” what life is. To do that we need “biology”. No one can explain in "purely physical / chemical / biological terms the social interactions of humans. To that we need sociology.

These ever more complicated pieces of reality are all built upon the underlying physics / chemistry / biology / sociology / etc… but there is NO direct reductionism. I can’t emphasize it enough: “the physicalist / materialist approach does not mean that everything MUST be directly described by the interactions of elementary particles, even though everything is composed of those elementary particles”. Each level of reality needs their own respective tools to explain them. Even if we could directly “reduce” chemistry to the basic mathematical equations of physics (or quantum physics), it would have no extra explanatory value.

But I must emphasize… nowhere in this chain is there a need for any “supernatural” substance.

Why don’t you tell me what you think the “mind” and/or emergent “properties” are. You probably can describe them, but I bet you can’t explain them.

Again, I don’t know what you mean by “explaining”. Do you want someone to describe the mathematical equations which describe the relationship between the neural activity and the process of “decision making”? I am sure we did not get that far in neuro-science, and even if we did, neither you nor I could understand the math of it. And what would be the point? We know beyond any doubt that exciting the neurons of the brain will elicit pleasure and pain. We know that introducing chemicals into the brain will enhance the speed and clarity of thinking. We can use EEG to observe the activity of the neurons.

Since we can neither prove or disprove the presence of immaterial substance; those that assume that such a substance exists can evoke such to explain the mind and its emergent contents, but those that deny the existence of an immaterial substance will never explain the mind with or without evidence.

There are MANY immaterial “substances”, they are called “concepts” and “ideas”. But there are no immaterial “substances” which would be physically active, which could act upon the physical reality. By the way, if there would be such substances, we could “grab” them on the interface between the physical and the alleged “non-physical” realm.

There are some new-agers, who speak of “mind-energy”, who assert “telekinesis” or “extra-sensory-perception”, but there is no sign of anything like that. So the only rational approach is to stay open to the possibility, and let the proponents bring up evidence for their claims. I use the same approach in conjunction with the religious claims. I wait for the proponents to provide the evidence. And before someone jumps in and says that there is evidence… let’s clarify: “evidence is something that does not require a-priori acceptance (aka faith) and which can be repeated by a skeptic and the experiment will yield the same asserted result”. No hearsay is accepted.

No such evidence has ever been provided to my best knowledge.

 

[Bradski]

The answer is that none of us have it.

OK…so you have evidence that it exists but nobody has access to it. I’m really not sure that it matters whether it exists or not in that case. Does it make any sense to claim that it does?

I say no.

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible for us to locate a particular thought or decision.

? Where?

All we know is that they are usually associated with brain activity.

• But then again…

?

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.
So where does it occur? You’re not going to say ‘Your soul’ are you? Surely not.

“where” implies location in time and space but the truth isn’t limited to the here and now. Nor is the mind. We can think of the past and future and eternal truths…

And inspiration requires knowledge of the matter in hand. You are just joining the dots in a way that previously didn’t occur to you. It’s like walking down stairs. Think too hard about it and you’ll fall over. Let the subconscious take over and Eureka! But nobody and I mean nobody ever had an inspirational moment when they didn’t have access to the information necessary to have it.

Information is not the same as inspiration. It implies an extra dimension. Our minds are far more flexible, receptive, original and creative than computers.

Same with intuition. It’s a gut feeling. Your sub conscious already knows the answer. It just hasn’t told you. When it does, you call it an intuitive moment.

How does the subconscious already know the answer if it has never known it?

And introspection? What are you looking at if not the information about yourself that you already possess?

Information doesn’t consist only of known facts but inferences and ideas we’ve never had before. The mind is far more than a receptacle. It has amazing creative power we cannot explain by mechanical processes. Its hindsight, insight and foresight far exceed anything else we have ever encountered. It is a mistake to underestimate its power which has transformed not only the world but those who use it far more than we do. One thing is certain: we neglect its potential compared to those in the east who aren’t consumed by material considerations. Compared to them we are slaves of our physical surroundings and do not perceive the factors that really matter. There is far more in life than meets the eye - or nose, ears, tongue or skin! As Hamlet said, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy… and that applies to all of us. Science is the least important of our sources of knowledge when it comes to making the most of life for ourselves and others…

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible for us to locate a particular thought or decision. All we know is that they are usually associated with brain activity.

Even chess which is concerned solely with physical events requires creative insight that cannot be explained mechanistically.

Since you are unable to present even one counter example, what are we talking about?

How about a eureka moment? How do you explain novelty and originality? Does science explain itself?

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.

Did you actually try the experiment? I did, and it was pretty funny that I tried to think about something else, but a zebra, and that frigging zebra kept on popping into my head… Of course this is an old psychological test, tried many times. The point is that we do NOT have full control over our conscious mind, and we have absolutely no control over our subconscious. Most (maybe all) of our decisions happen in the subconscious, and that have been verified many times… not just as an empty hypothesis, but tried, tested and verified many times.

“do NOT have full control” and “most” are not sufficient grounds for concluding “all”. And if they were they would eliminate self-control. We would be mental slaves incapable of thinking for ourselves…

Your effort to sidetrack the issue by asking if ALL thoughts and decisions are certainly confined to our brain is just as irrational as if you would demand a “proof” for the assertion that a “pebble will ALWAYS fall down and never fall UP”, no matter how many times we conduct this experiment.

The analogy of a pebble is unsound because it begs the question of whether all mental events have physical causes. It also doesn’t correspond to the way we live and behave as if we have some control over our thoughts and actions. The plea of mental impotence wouldn’t satisfy a judge or jury!

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?

The answer obvious: “I don’t know, but I very strongly suspect that there is”. And I have very good reasons for this belief.

Are you compelled to have that belief? If not why not?

 

[Frankenfurter]

Yes, the mind is a “product/activity” of the brain. Neurobiologists usually contend that the mind is an “emergent” property of the brain. No one that I have ever read claims that the mind is the brain. And no one that I have ever read can explain what an “emergent” property is in “physical” terms.

Why don’t you tell me what you think the “mind” and/or emergent “properties” are. You probably can describe them, but I bet you can’t explain them.

Since we can neither prove or disprove the presence of immaterial substance; those that assume that such a substance exists can evoke such to explain the mind and its emergent contents, but those that deny the existence of an immaterial substance will never explain the mind with or without evidence.

Yppop

Is there some way we can end this thread on your note? That would be great.

 

[Solmyr]

Even chess which is concerned solely with physical events requires creative insight that cannot be explained mechanistically.

I have no idea what you mean by the word “mechanistically”. Levers and pulleys? . But I know that you evaded the answer to my questions. Namely:
Just consider a nice game of chess, where you contemplate your next move. Where does that decision “happen”? Outside our neural process? Where? And how does it get “transmitted” into our brain?
If you cannot answer it, just admit it. If you can, then do it. Just one example, where the thought or decision is independent from and unconnected to the neural functions of the brain. Where and how does it happen? How does it get transmitted into the brain?

Until you give an answer to this question, I am not going to entertain your posts.

 

[Solmyr]

Is there some way we can end this thread on your note? That would be great.

I should hope not. I gave a long and detailed answer to Poppy, and I hope to see his or her observation. If you are not interested, no one forces you to participate.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I have no idea what you mean by the word “mechanistically”. Levers and pulleys? . But I know that you evaded the answer to my questions. Namely:
Just consider a nice game of chess, where you contemplate your next move. Where does that decision “happen”? Outside our neural process? Where? And how does it get “transmitted” into our brain?
If you cannot answer it, just admit it. If you can, then do it. Just one example, where the thought or decision is independent from and unconnected to the neural functions of the brain. Where and how does it happen? How does it get transmitted into the brain?

Until you give an answer to this question, I am not going to entertain your posts.

npatrol:

Hey now, it was my little thread, No need to hijack things.

Please try to answer my question and not the side issues.

It is the physicalist who makes the claim and must defend it - ‘Everything is physical or supervenes on the physical’. You have the burden of proof.

The shifting of the burden of proof is a tactic of those with a weak argument.

I am content with ‘We don’t know’. Are you? Can we agree?

 

[Solmyr]

npatrol:

Hey now, it was my little thread, No need to hijack things.

Please try to answer my question and not the side issues.

It is the physicalist who makes the claim and must defend it - ‘Everything is physical or supervenes on the physical’. You have the burden of proof.

The shifting of the burden of proof is a tactic of those with a weak argument.

I am content with ‘We don’t know’. Are you? Can we agree?

Unfortunately my hyper-drive equipped and faster-than-light spaceship is currently in the shop for repair. So I am not in the position to check out ALL the stars, planets, planetoids, comets, dust clouds in the WHOLE universe. But as soon as the repair as done, and the super-drive will be calibrated, I will take a trip and check out the WHOLE universe. Due to time-dilation I will not age, but you will. So you will not be able to get my answer. However, that is not my problem.

But, joke aside: your question is nonsense. No one can verify every atom, every subatomic particle of the WHOLE universe, in search of something that is not a physical OBJECT. On the other hand, if you can present just ONE non-physical, yet active object, the question will be closed. This is not an evasion.

As a reminder: only in an axiomatic (deductive) system can one legitimately ask for something pertaining to an infinite set and all its elements. In an open, inductive system such questions are simply not allowed.

 

[Frankenfurter]

We have offered many non-physical things. But you have rejected them all. Yet most other people accept them and even insist on them being part of the essence of a person for sound logical reasons.

Therefore, I contend that between us all, we are still unsure as to the answer.

There is no need to build the space ship and scour the whole universe.

Although I would like to take a ride some time.

 

[Solmyr]

We have offered many non-physical things.

Like what?

But you have rejected them all. Yet most other people accept them and even insist on them being part of the essence of a person for sound logical reasons.

I can’t believe my eyes. Of course I accept many non-physical entities, and I said so, several times. The attributes, the actions and the relationships of physical OBJECTS are all non-physical. Concepts and ideas are all non-physical, and they “exist” - not as OBJECTS, but as non-physical entities. What I reject is the existence of non-physical OBJECTS.

And the “essence” is still an undefined concept. Of course I could not care less what “other” people accept or insist. Show me a non-physical, yet physically active OBJECT and I will accept it. Grab a “demon” or an “angel” - after all they both are supposed to be able to manifest themselves for us. By the way, do the demons have horns and hoofs and emit some sulphuric stench? Or do they use some Dior cologne to suppress it?

And “logical reasons” are only as valid as the underlying assumptions. A logically correct argument does not have to be logically sound.

 

[Richca]

We have offered many non-physical things. But you have rejected them all. Yet most other people accept them and even insist on them being part of the essence of a person for sound logical reasons.

Therefore, I contend that between us all, we are still unsure as to the answer.

There is no need to build the space ship and scour the whole universe.

Although I would like to take a ride some time.

For catholics, there is no uncertainty in this matter. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Catholic Church teaches as a truth and dogma of the faith, a truth divinely revealed by God, that a human person is one being composed of both spirit [soul] and body [matter] (CCC#362).
“We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God…creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common.” (4th Lateran Council & Vatican Council I).

This is an objective truth, reality, and whether a person believes this truth or not does not make it true or untrue. Neither is this truth in the realm of theological opinion, it is in the realm of an article of the catholic faith. It is a truth revealed by God and taught to us by the Church and so a catholic must hold to it on the authority of God revealing and His Church without a shadow of doubt and with absolute certainty. Both the learned and the unlearned have access to this truth. The spirituality of the human soul can also be discovered by the natural light of reason but only with difficulty as the various opinions offered on this thread manifest as well as the various philosophical opinions offered by various thinkers throughout the history of philosophical thinking show which opinions may be contrary to the immortality and spirituality of the human soul. But God has made known to us through divine revelation and taught by His Church who is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the truth concerning the spirituality and immortality of the human soul so that all mankind can know this truth with ease and with certainty. It is the human soul or spirit with its spiritual powers of intellect and will by which we are principally made in the “image and likeness of God” (Gen. 1:26).

 

[tonyrey]

I have no idea what you mean by the word “mechanistically”. Levers and pulleys? . But I know that you evaded the answer to my questions. Namely:Just consider a nice game of chess, where you contemplate your next move. Where does that decision “happen”? Outside our neural process? Where? And how does it get “transmitted” into our brain?If you cannot answer it, just admit it. If you can, then do it. Just one example, where the thought or decision is independent from and unconnected to the neural functions of the brain. Where and how does it happen? How does it get transmitted into the brain?

Until you give an answer to this question, I am not going to entertain your posts.

The definition of “mechanistic” should be known by anyone who is discussing philosophical questions: “relating to theories which explain phenomena in purely physical or deterministic terms”. I have no idea how thoughts and decisions are transmitted to the brain but neither do you know how the brain **comprehends **neural functions. What exactly happens when we comprehend something? Does a computer have insight into what it is doing?

 

[Solmyr]

The definition of “mechanistic” should be known by anyone who is discussing philosophical questions: “relating to theories which explain phenomena in purely physical or deterministic terms”.

That is already problematic. Physical does not equal deterministic. And does the term “physical” include the chemical, biological, sociological, economical parts of reality? Because it is impossible to reduce everything to the level of sub-atomic particles, or the atoms, or the molecules. However this lack of reductionism leaves NO “loophole” for the soul or other imaginary objects.

I have no idea how thoughts and decisions are transmitted to the brain…

That is ok. But do you know how that “non-physical” thingy (soul?) processes the decisions? Decisions do not happen in a vacuum. Memories play a very important part in them. Even animals remember prior “uncomfortable” experiences and avoid them when possible.

Rats are very intelligent beings. They observe the others, who consumed a fast-acting poison, and learn from the experience of OTHERS. That is why only slow acting poisons are used by the exterminators. Do the rats have a “rational soul?” Learning is simply the creation of new neural connections and recalling those connections allow us (and the rats!) to avoid danger. And those memories are stored in the neural network of the brain. That is beyond any doubt.

Where are the memories stored in your hypothetical “soul-based” model? Where is the non-physical CPU which makes the decisions?

…but neither do you know how the brain **comprehends **neural functions. What exactly happens when we comprehend something?

The new neural connections are mapped onto the old ones. How do we recognize the face of our mother, even on a blurred photograph? There is enough information to compare our stored image with the picture. Modern face-recognition software is also able to recognize faces. And there is no “extra-physical” soul for them to do the recognition. To comprehend something new is to map it onto something we already know and incorporate the new information into the hierarchy of the existing informations.

Does a computer have insight into what it is doing?

The current computers do not have this ability - as far as I know. But even the whole internet (millions of computers) together are very primitive compared to the complexity of the brain.

 

[Frankenfurter]

For catholics, there is no uncertainty in this matter. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Catholic Church teaches as a truth and dogma of the faith, a truth divinely revealed by God, that a human person is one being composed of both spirit [soul] and body [matter] (CCC#362).
“We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God…creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common.” (4th Lateran Council & Vatican Council I).

This is an objective truth, reality, and whether a person believes this truth or not does not make it true or untrue. Neither is this truth in the realm of theological opinion, it is in the realm of an article of the catholic faith. It is a truth revealed by God and taught to us by the Church and so a catholic must hold to it on the authority of God revealing and His Church without a shadow of doubt and with absolute certainty. Both the learned and the unlearned have access to this truth. The spirituality of the human soul can also be discovered by the natural light of reason but only with difficulty as the various opinions offered on this thread manifest as well as the various philosophical opinions offered by various thinkers throughout the history of philosophical thinking show which opinions may be contrary to the immortality and spirituality of the human soul. But God has made known to us through divine revelation and taught by His Church who is guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the truth concerning the spirituality and immortality of the human soul so that all mankind can know this truth with ease and with certainty. It is the human soul or spirit with its spiritual powers of intellect and will by which we are principally made in the “image and likeness of God” (Gen. 1:26).

Indeed, that you for that.

 

[Frankenfurter]

That is already problematic. Physical does not equal deterministic. And does the term “physical” include the chemical, biological, sociological, economical parts of reality? Because it is impossible to reduce everything to the level of sub-atomic particles, or the atoms, or the molecules. However this lack of reductionism leaves NO “loophole” for the soul or other imaginary objects.

I got your point, thanks. No need to keep posting please. You can just make your point and get out. Thanks.I appreciate everyone’s (name removed by moderator)uts but not when one person tries to dominate.

I started this thread since I wanted to know the answer and I have it. This is a not for you to keep making your same points over and over. I concede that some people do not agree, that is part of my answer.

But I also see that answering the question in the negative is essential for an understanding of the Catholic faith.

No need to respond with “what is the definition of ‘answer’?” or some such thing.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I have no idea how thoughts and decisions are transmitted to the brain but neither do you know how the brain **comprehends **neural functions. What exactly happens when we comprehend something? . . .

:twocents:

I don’t think you can, since decisions are not transmitted to the brain.

The person “thinks” as a mind-spirit unity.
When exposed to either psychological or physical stimuli, it is a person who responds.
MRI, SPECT, and PET scanners reveal that specific physiological activity occurs depending on what the person thinks, perceives and feels.
Conversely, drugs, electrical stimulation and other forms of physical interventions result in different experiential phenomena.

In terms of what goes in, stimuli, either mental or physical, affect a person.
And speaking about what comes out, if one is to ask how the will influences the brain, one has to trace the causal relationship back to the person who is doing the thinking and acting.

The will is not a physical force to act upon matter.
It is a person who reads, understand and responds.
Psychological experience as well as neurochemical processes unfold as the we relate to what is.
The reality, simple in its complexity, is the person.

 

[tonyrey]

:clapping:

I don’t think you can, since decisions are not transmitted to the brain.

The person “thinks” as a mind-spirit unity.
When exposed to either psychological or physical stimuli, it is a person who responds.
MRI, SPECT, and PET scanners reveal that specific physiological activity occurs depending on what the person thinks, perceives and feels.
Conversely, drugs, electrical stimulation and other forms of physical interventions result in different experiential phenomena.

In terms of what goes in, stimuli, either mental or physical, affect a person.
And speaking about what comes out, if one is to ask how the will influences the brain, one has to trace the causal relationship back to the person who is doing the thinking and acting.

The will is not a physical force to act upon matter.
It is a person who reads, understand and responds.
Psychological experience as well as neurochemical processes unfold as the we relate to what is.
The reality, simple in its complexity, is the person.

:twocents: Indeed. It is a mistake to attempt to analyse a person into constituent parts. We are indivisible entities, not sets of physical organs controlled by one physical organ which doesn’t even know it exists or what it is doing! Materialism is a form of superstition which attributes magical power to minute neural impulses. According to that hypothesis electricity rules the world!