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

[Vico]

I am not a philosopher, but I am interested in this.
From what you say, i understand that he would have categorized relation as an accident of a substance.
Words are complicated and by relation he and I might mean something different.
I mean it in the sense that we are connected to everything else and to the source of our being as a fundamental aspect of the simplicity that is the soul as self-other.
To be rational requires a connection to what is other.
I know the Trinity is not an accident of God.
In a similar manner, being created in His image, are we not relational to our core?
We cannot exist outside our relationship with our Father.
Rocks interact; they cannot form relationships.
We are different.
Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut you may offer.

Fundamental existence is as a primary substance, not as a relative. The accidents do not define the nature.

From Aristotle Categories, relation is Greek pros ti, “toward something” - it is the way in which one object may be related to another.

 

[tonyrey]

My positive suggestion is that you cite any philosophy paper you like which makes the claim that persons are particles or can be reduced to particles, and we’ll proceed from there. Until then, I’ve never heard anyone make that claim and so can’t help you.

Robert G. B. Reid a Professor of Biology at the University of Victoria published a book Biological Emergences (2007) with a theory on how emergent novelties are generated in evolution. As it is a banned topic there is no more to be said except that the claim that persons are particles or can be reduced to particles is alive and kicking very hard in secular societies like the UK and the US.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Material things must have a basis and subdividing material does not allow us define the *nature *of the material thing. Rather, philosophically (Aristotle), we must define a thing as a whole before predicating parts and quantity. Aristotle used ten categories of which the first is substance - is the primary mode of being - the remainder are accidents. One of those categories is relation.

Indeed. I agree.

But over time the ‘atomists’ or materialists have hijacked modern thinking. The essence of a thing is now considered to be material only. This is not really doubted or even examined. Even above when I suggest otherwise, there are claims of this being a need for supernatural causes. As if things like, purpose, and relationships and will are things NOT part of nature as we know it., and, that we can claim full knowledge of all that is natural.

I thank those that have pointed out the ‘emergence’ stuff and I did not mean to bring up a banned topic. Anyone can surf for themselves and read atomists theories of the nature of all existence to their heart’s content. If you find that you think that they are wrong, I would appreciate at least an answer to my simple question.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Fundamental existence is as a primary substance, not as a relative. The accidents do not define the nature.

From Aristotle Categories, relation is Greek pros ti, “toward something” - it is the way in which one object may be related to another.

OK. We don’t need and try to define the essence of a thing, or its substance, and if that we includes relation or not, etc. But I do take your point, that Aristotle did not include relations as part of substance. Thanks for that.

My question simply poses that we, at this point in time do not possess full knowledge of what makes up the essence of something.

I merely want to know if we are SURE that materials alone make up the essence of a thing, or if instead it is possible that this substance (or essence) of a thing is instead non-material? Perhaps the essence of a person consists of pure information (organization), patterns, purpose, will, fun, love, passion, memory, spirit. These things are NOT supernatural. They are part of the natural world. This would also indicate that a person could be eternal if his essence can be captured in non-materials which do not decay.

But I don’t need to say what this essence is. Only that it is not pure material. And therefore, the substance of Christ could be present in the Eucharist even though the materialist would deny it.

The problem is in the materialist’s default assumption that the essence of something is material. This would present a stumbling block to understating Catholic faith.

 

[zyzz]

But I don’t need to say what this essence is. Only that it is not pure material.

If you don’t even know what this “essence” might be, how can you know what it is, or what it is NOT?

What you said reminds me of an old expression: “We don’t know if Homer lived or not, all we know that he was blind”…

The problem is in the materialist’s default assumption that the essence of something is material. This would present a stumbling block to understating Catholic faith.

I cannot speak for other atheists, but as far as I am concerned, the whole “essence” is sheer nonsense. But, then again, what can you expect form someone who believed that the brain is simply the organ to cool the blood?

 

[Vico]

OK. We don’t need and try to define the essence of a thing, or its substance, and if that we includes relation or not, etc. But I do take your point, that Aristotle did not include relations as part of substance. Thanks for that.

My question simply poses that we, at this point in time do not possess full knowledge of what makes up the essence of something.

I merely want to know if we are SURE that materials alone make up the essence of a thing, or if instead it is possible that this substance (or essence) of a thing is instead non-material? Perhaps the essence of a person consists of pure information (organization), patterns, purpose, will, fun, love, passion, memory, spirit. These things are NOT supernatural. They are part of the natural world. This would also indicate that a person could be eternal if his essence can be captured in non-materials which do not decay.

But I don’t need to say what this essence is. Only that it is not pure material. And therefore, the substance of Christ could be present in the Eucharist even though the materialist would deny it.

The problem is in the materialist’s default assumption that the essence of something is material. This would present a stumbling block to understating Catholic faith.

So, for Catholics:

“Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is, an equivalent of the *to ti en einai *of Aristotle (Metaph., VII, 7). … Essence and nature express the same reality envisaged in the two points of view as being or acting.”

newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm

 

[GEddie]

It still has never been explained how entities such as persons have emerged from impersonal particles. Any positive suggestions or is to be negative your New Year resolution?

BTW I have no idea what a Chick Tract is and as far as I know Philosophy Colouring Books don’t exist

TR, mon ami,

Chick tracts are Protestant mini-comic books used for evangelism. They are mostly found the NA-based culture, although available in a score of languages.

Generally, they present the “gospel” in a vastly oversimplified and searingly anti-Catholic form.

Mr. Jack Chick, though now over 90 years old, seems to be going strong. Samples of the Tracts can be seen (and ordered) at Chick.com.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[thinkandmull]

Does anyone know the precise translation of this: “Est omnino evidens in re positâ extra suas causas, in statu actualitatis, ne ratione quidem abstrahi posse formalem existentiam”?

It’s from the Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Frankenfurter]

If you don’t even know what this “essence” might be, how can you know what it is, or what it is NOT?

Yes, that is my point.

I am purposely not using Aristotle’s definition of essence. I am saying that we DO know what the essence is in terms of how it functions and relates to reality. The essence is the collection of things we need to wholly reproduce something else and bring that replica into existence just like the original.

 

[inocente]

Can we agree that the essence of something or someone (and I have defined what I mean by essence above) cannot be described by things we consider to be within the known ‘natural’ laws of the material world as we understand them today?

No. To do so commits a logical fallacy - philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

 

[inocente]

Robert G. B. Reid a Professor of Biology at the University of Victoria published a book Biological Emergences (2007) with a theory on how emergent novelties are generated in evolution. As it is a banned topic there is no more to be said except that the claim that persons are particles or can be reduced to particles is alive and kicking very hard in secular societies like the UK and the US.

A lot more can be said. There are thousands of books on that subject, and I’m betting not one of them claims that a person can be explained by the physics of elementary particles.

The reason is simple. There are around 20 trillion atoms on one neuron. There are around 85 billion neurons in the brain. So even without the connections and everything else, that’s thousands of billions of trillions of atoms in the brain alone. No one can get straight from particle to person. There’s the whole of physics, chemistry, biology, neurobiology, etc. needed as well.

We are the most complicated thing we know of. Just the brain alone is the most complicated thing we know of. And you’re expecting me to believe that anyone, anywhere, claims a person can be explained by particles? All I’m asking is you cite just one paper. Have a look at the professional philosophy clearing house here, or any of the science clearing houses such as here, and please cite just one paper which makes such a claim.

 

[Frankenfurter]

“Biological atomism postulates that all life is composed of elementary and indivisible vital units. The activity of a living organism is thus conceived as the result of the activities and interactions of its elementary constituents, each of which individually already exhibits all the attributes proper to life.” - Daniel J. Nicholson (2010). Biological Atomism and Cell Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 41 (3):202-211.

 

[Frankenfurter]

No. To do so commits a logical fallacy - philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

A logical fallacy because nobody claims that the essence of a person can be reduced to elementary particles and known physical laws? I have found many folks who do actually.

But no matter, I can rephrase my question to avoid the issue.

Perhaps you an I are in agreement? Sounds like we are.

How about this question instead:

Can the essence of a person (and I have defined essence above) be determined by known physical laws of materials?

Hopefully I have not made any errors in assembling that question. And yes, I can find many people who hold the affirmative. I also believe it is the default assumption of the common person that this is true because the atomist theory of everything has crept into modern culturally accepted use of words.

 

[inocente]

A logical fallacy because nobody claims that the essence of a person can be reduced to elementary particles and known physical laws?.

No of course not. Something’s either a fallacy or it isn’t.

You asked if we could agree “that the essence of something or someone (and I have defined what I mean by essence above) cannot be described by things we consider to be within the known ‘natural’ laws of the material world as we understand them today?”.

And that’s an appeal to ignorance because you’re asking me to agree with something only because it’s not been proven otherwise.

I have found many folks who do actually.

Then cite just one paper.

*How about this question instead:

Can the essence of a person (and I have defined essence above) be determined by known physical laws of materials?*

Let’s try to make that a tiny bit more rigorous . First, I don’t know what a physical law of materials might be. Second, no one has any idea whether all the laws of nature needed are yet known. Third, rather than making up your own definitions, why not use the standard philosophical definition of essence, which is “a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is”.

Now, do you understand what is meant by Cartesian dualism? That’s the claim that there are two kinds of substance, one substance from which all mental things are made, and a separate substance from which all physical things are made.

Whereas the Church denies there are two substances. The CCC instead says the soul is the form of the body. Physicalism (materialism) also denies there are two substances.

Perhaps you could say whether you’re a Cartesian dualist or else whether you agree with the Church. Then, if you agree with the Church, rephrase your question to make a distinction between what you think is Church teaching and what you think materialists are saying about the person.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Second, no one has any idea whether all the laws of nature needed are yet known.

OK. I agree. That is all I am asking. Whatever the essence of a person is, are we able to say that we have grasped it within our understanding of the laws of nature?

I say no.

You say no too, but add, that nobody says yes. Thank you for that.

 

[fisherman_carl]

You need to understand that the “2 + 2 = 4” is only correct in the abstract world of mathematics. In real life, “2 + 2” does not necessarily equal 4, it might be less than or more than 4. The real world is NOT linear. If you are interested, read some essays of Isaac Asimov, especially in the collection of the “Tragedy of the Moon”. He explains the questions you are interested in a form suitable for laymen, like you and me…

No one questioned what you wrote. So I will since what you are saying is nonsensical. Can you prove your assertion that 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. And please do not just use a different number base as that does not prove it at all.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Now, do you understand what is meant by Cartesian dualism? That’s the claim that there are two kinds of substance, one substance from which all mental things are made, and a separate substance from which all physical things are made.

Whereas the Church denies there are two substances. The CCC instead says the soul is the form of the body. Physicalism (materialism) also denies there are two substances.

Perhaps you could say whether you’re a Cartesian dualist or else whether you agree with the Church. Then, if you agree with the Church, rephrase your question to make a distinction between what you think is Church teaching and what you think materialists are saying about the person.

Descartes is precisely when the change in philosophy went from being about the object, to the subject.

I am therefore I think vs I think therefore I am.

I am NOT a Cartesian dualist and as you point out either is the church OR the materialists. I am with them. I simply point out that the materialists cannot explain everything, and therefore this substance (singular and objective) may actually be outside of the material realm as we currently understand it: purpose,will, pure information, love, etc may be needed to define the essence and these things cannot be found in materials exclusively as we understand them currently.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

It seems to me that the totality of the person cannot be explained by known physical laws.
That said, the material workings of the person, which we can observe through the senses and their extensions are all explainable in terms of physical laws.

This of course is an idea. Related concepts could be described pictorially, mathematically formulaically as well as verbally. What we are engaging in obviously belongs to the system that is the mind. It includes perception, thoughts, feelings and desires. All we ever know comes through this faculty.

The mind is responsible for much of what the brain does; it explains why it is taking place as it does. However, none of it is physical; there are no forces involved here. What occurs physically when we think happens because we are a physical and spiritual unity. The unity that is the person participates in the physical universe of which he/she is a part, perceiving, thinking and acting. We search for memories, create art, discover facts about our world, embrace and hurt one another; we decide how we are to behave, essentially who we want to be.

We are physical beings, psychological and also spiritual. Our being is rational; I prefer to call it relational. The mystery of our selves is connected, giving, taking, or just being with what is other. To think/perceive/act involves a thinker/perceiver/actor and that which is being thought about/perceived/acted upon. I like relational better than rational because it more so implies love. We truly know something and someone when we love them. It is this relational soul that, united with our physical nature, makes us human.

 

[zyzz]

No one questioned what you wrote. So I will since what you are saying is nonsensical. Can you prove your assertion that 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. And please do not just use a different number base as that does not prove it at all.

As I said, the world is NOT linear. If you add two buckets of sand to another two buckets of sand, the result will be four buckets of sand. But if you add two buckets of U235 to another two buckets of U235 the result will NOT be four buckets of U235, rather a huge detonation and some leftover material.

Quantitative changes MAY lead to qualitative changes. That is all. The point is that complex entities cannot always reduced to their constituent parts. The “wetness” of water cannot be reduced to the properties of the oxygen and hydrogen atoms. But that does not require the introduction of some supernatural “wetness-god”. Straight physics is insufficient, but chemistry explains it just fine.

 

[Vico]

Does anyone know the precise translation of this: “Est omnino evidens in re positâ extra suas causas, in statu actualitatis, ne ratione quidem abstrahi posse formalem existentiam”?

It’s from the Catholic Encyclopedia

My translation:

It is altogether evident that in reality in setting out of its causes, in the state of actuality, no way a formal existence is possible to be abstracted.