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

[Aloysium]

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. . . 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.

Did you really think I was asking you to cite a paper about physicalism? < sigh > On that same site you’ll find the results of a survey of professional philosophers. The majority said they accept or lean towards physicalism. So dead easy to find papers about physicalism. < sigh > But what I asked for was a paper, any paper, which ignores the whole of chemistry, biology, neurobiology, etc. by claiming a person is just particles, as if all those physicalist philosophers look at their baby daughter and see only particles.

There are five ways in which I can interpret your “sigh”:

• It is frustrating that people cannot read your mind.
• It is frustrating that you are unable to communicate easily what you really mean.
• You are annoyed that the person who responded to your post is too stupid to understand what you mean.
• It is an over-reaction to a minor embarrassment, seeking to project it onto the other person.
• You will switch your position 180 degrees to win an argument.
  Is there a sixth I’ve missed?

I think the point that people have been trying to make, and for some reason you seem to disagree with (maybe), is that such philosophies have nothing to do with reality.
Feel free to set me straight.

 

[tonyrey]

Did you really think I was asking you to cite a paper about physicalism?

< sigh >

On that same site you’ll find the results of a survey of professional philosophers. The majority said they accept or lean towards physicalism. So dead easy to find papers about physicalism.

< sigh >

But what I asked for was a paper, any paper, which ignores the whole of chemistry, biology, neurobiology, etc. by claiming a person is just particles, as if all those physicalist philosophers look at their baby daughter and see only particles.

The issue is whether the essence of a person is the sum total of his atoms. Physicalism is the theory that everything is composed of atoms. A person, for example, consists of nothing more than arrangements of atoms. Physicalists see nothing but arrangements of atoms when they are at work. The fact that they are inconsistent elsewhere doesn’t alter the fact that they are physicalists - in theory but not in daily life.

 

[tonyrey]

The analytic method is flawed because it overlooks the need for synthesis. It is also flawed because it is retrospective and restricts explanations to past events. It is more logical to have a panoramic view of reality and take the future into account as well. A complete explanation consists of purposes as well as causes. To attribute every event to a previous situation is to ignore our power to determine - to some extent - what happens in the future. That is where science loses its grip on the nature of reality!

False dichotomy, we never need to choose between science and religion - truth cannot contradict truth, as Aquinas said.
False dichotomy, a posteriori knowledge does not stop us predicting and changing the future.
False dichotomy, our choice is not between no purposes and whatever purposes you would dictate, we are each free to choose our own purposes.

We are discussing the theory that a person is** nothing more than** the sum total of his atoms and by implication everything else consists solely of atoms - which excludes intangibles like truth, freedom, persons and purposes. You are not taking materialism (physicalism) to its logical conclusion.

 

[Solmyr]

Physicalism is the theory that everything is composed of atoms.

Says who? Quote us some “physicalist” who subscribes to this concept. Observe your own highlighted word EVERYTHING". Abstractions, like “distance”, relationships like “next to”, actions like the “wind” are not composed of “atoms”, but none of these point to some supernatural existence… whatever that may be. Physicalism simply states that the objectively existing ontological entities are all composed of matter/energy.

Your collection of “intangibles” do not exist as ontological objects.

We are discussing the theory that a person is** nothing more than** the sum total of his atoms and by implication everything else consists solely of atoms - which excludes intangibles like truth, freedom, persons and purposes. You are not taking materialism (physicalism) to its logical conclusion.

Let’s translate:

We are discussing YOUR THEORY that a house is nothing more than the sum of its bricks. And that excludes the intangibles like “walls”, “rooms”, “doors”, “stairways” and “windows”… etc… None of which are bricks. The same number of bricks will just be a pile of bricks, once a wrecking ball will be smashed into the walls. The “house” will disappear.

If you wish to argue about or against “physicalism”, you should really learn about it first.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I found this description of physicalism on philosophybasics.com.

I note that they don’t say that the essence of a person can be described physically, but that the mind can. Again, this is an example of how modern philosophy seems to turn toward the subject (mind) rather than the object (creation).

Physicalism (also known as Materialistic Monism - see the sections on Materialism and Monism) is the philosophical position that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical. Therefore, it argues, the mind is a purely physical construct, and will eventually be explained entirely by physical theory, as it continues to evolve. With the huge strides in science in the 20th Century (especially in atomic theory, evolution, neuroscience and computer technology), Physicalism of various types (see below) has become the dominant doctrine in the Mind/Body argument (see the section on Philosophy of Mind).

An important concept within Physicalism is that of supervenience, which is the idea that higher levels of existence are dependent on lower levels, such that there can only be a change in the higher level if there is also a change in the lower level (the higher level is said to supervene on the lower level).

*There are two main categories of Physicalism, Reductive and Non-Reductive:

Reductive Physicalism, which asserts that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states, has been the most popular form during the 20th Century.*

*Non-Reductive Physicalism, which argues that, although the brain is all there is to the mind, the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science. *

 

[tonyrey]

False dichotomy, we never need to choose between science and religion - truth cannot contradict truth, as Aquinas said.

False dichotomy, a posteriori knowledge does not stop us predicting and changing the future.

False dichotomy, our choice is not between no purposes and whatever purposes you would dictate, we are each free to choose our own purposes.

I can understand your incredulity because I share it! It is preposterous that there is nothing but the sum total of atoms of which bodies are composed. (I make the description impersonal deliberately because persons don’t exist in the physicalist/materialist scheme of things.) You have overlooked the significance of the word “reductive”…

 

[tonyrey]

I found this description of physicalism on philosophybasics.com.

I note that they don’t say that the essence of a person can be described physically, but that the mind can. Again, this is an example of how modern philosophy seems to turn toward the subject (mind) rather than the object (creation).

Physicalism (also known as Materialistic Monism - see the sections on Materialism and Monism) is the philosophical position that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical. Therefore, it argues, the mind is a purely physical construct, and will eventually be explained entirely by physical theory, as it continues to evolve. With the huge strides in science in the 20th Century (especially in atomic theory, evolution, neuroscience and computer technology), Physicalism of various types (see below) has become the dominant doctrine in the Mind/Body argument (see the section on Philosophy of Mind).

An important concept within Physicalism is that of supervenience, which is the idea that higher levels of existence are dependent on lower levels, such that there can only be a change in the higher level if there is also a change in the lower level (the higher level is said to supervene on the lower level).

*There are two main categories of Physicalism, Reductive and Non-Reductive:

Reductive Physicalism, which asserts that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states, has been the most popular form during the 20th Century.*

*Non-Reductive Physicalism, which argues that, although the brain is all there is to the mind, the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science. *

An excellent exposition - which is also an exposure of Reductive Physicalism’s absurdity,!

 

[inocente]

There are five ways in which I can interpret your “sigh”:

• It is frustrating that people cannot read your mind.
• It is frustrating that you are unable to communicate easily what you really mean.
• You are annoyed that the person who responded to your post is too stupid to understand what you mean.
• It is an over-reaction to a minor embarrassment, seeking to project it onto the other person.
• You will switch your position 180 degrees to win an argument.
  Is there a sixth I’ve missed?

There’s a potentially more important issue. The kinds of thoughts you had there are often born out of hate. The hate grows with each successive line, until it ends up being completely irrational. Never seen you do anything like that before. Hopefully you just had a bad day or were trying for comedic irony and missed .

I think the point that people have been trying to make, and for some reason you seem to disagree with (maybe), is that such philosophies have nothing to do with reality.
Feel free to set me straight.

A majority of living professional philosophers say they “accept or lean towards physicalism”, and so do a large number of other people. It’s all too easy to paint cartoon stereotypes which belittle other beliefs, which therefore belittle the people who hold those beliefs, and which are therefore decisive, black and white, them and us. For example, when each side says the other has nothing to do with reality. Seems to be all based on fear.

 

[inocente]

The issue is whether the essence of a person is the sum total of his atoms. Physicalism is the theory that everything is composed of atoms. A person, for example, consists of nothing more than arrangements of atoms. Physicalists see nothing but arrangements of atoms when they are at work. The fact that they are inconsistent elsewhere doesn’t alter the fact that they are physicalists - in theory but not in daily life.

You seem to be describing an emasculated version of atomism there. I’ll quote some public definitions of physicalism by way of contrast:

*“Physicalism: The doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.” - oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/physicalism

“In philosophy, physicalism is the ontological thesis that “everything is physical”, that there is “nothing over and above” the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

“Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/*

We are discussing the theory that a person is** nothing more than** the sum total of his atoms and by implication everything else consists solely of atoms - which excludes intangibles like truth, freedom, persons and purposes. You are not taking materialism (physicalism) to its logical conclusion.

Hopefully you can see from the above definitions that you’re not describing physicalism as it is believed, but are instead attacking a strawman of your own devising.

 

[Frankenfurter]

You seem to be describing an emasculated version of atomism there. I’ll quote some public definitions of physicalism by way of contrast:

“Physicalism: The doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world.” - oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/physicalism

“In philosophy, physicalism is the ontological thesis that “everything is physical”, that there is “nothing over and above” the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

“Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental. The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.” - plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Hopefully you can see from the above definitions that you’re not describing physicalism as it is believed, but are instead attacking a strawman of your own devising.

The Gentlemen simply said that Physicalism was the theory that everything is ‘atoms’ to which you say he is wrong and are saying instead that everything is ‘physical’.

But I hate definitions that use the word itself in the definition. From the point of view of my question I don’t think there is a difference. Certainly the gentlemen was not creating a ‘straw man’.

So the key here is that supervene word. Everything they say, supervenes on the physical. That makes the physical the START of any process.

Are there processes that START (like your existence) and then are played out on the physical? It would seem the physicalists says no, that can’t happen. Right?!?

I am quite sure for example that math exists in the abstract without the need for a physical universe to be played on. I can think of so many others of late too now that I have allowed myself to question this bias we seem to have to looking to the physical for the essence of reality.

It is now seeming quite absurb to me that we have this physical bias. I thought that this thread was in unity against this notion. But perhaps I misunderstood your posts.

Suppose I rephrase the question based on your insights:

Is the essence of a person physical?

 

[Aloysium]

There’s a potentially more important issue. The kinds of thoughts you had there are often born out of hate. The hate grows with each successive line, until it ends up being completely irrational. Never seen you do anything like that before. Hopefully you just had a bad day or were trying for comedic irony and missed .

A majority of living professional philosophers say they “accept or lean towards physicalism”, and so do a large number of other people. It’s all too easy to paint cartoon stereotypes which belittle other beliefs, which therefore belittle the people who hold those beliefs, and which are therefore decisive, black and white, them and us. For example, when each side says the other has nothing to do with reality. Seems to be all based on fear.

There seems no point to our discussing this matter any further. I trust you are in agreement.

 

[Frankenfurter]

BTW, please understand my confusion regarding saying ‘atoms’ or ‘physical’. But I just opened up a classic text on Modern Physics and it opens this way:

All of modern physics is based upon the analysis of matter by reference to its elementary constituents - molecules, atoms, and “elementary particles.” But the atomicity of matter is not at all obvious, and the student may well wonder how we can place so much confidence in our analysis when our observations of these particles are necessarily so indirect. John D. McGervey, “Introduction to Modern Physics.”

The next 800 pages is to build up the theory of all of physics as based on these particles.

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

THANK YOU. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia said that is from Aquinas. I’ve been wondering what it meant

 

[Bradski]

If I may, having just caught up on this thread…

A person is nothing but the sum of his component parts. There is nothing else. No ‘essence’ or soul or mysterious life force. We are, to that extent, an object that obeys physical laws. If you were somehow able to recreate myself exactly, down to the last particle and then subject the ‘new’ me to exactly the same conditions and surroundings, that is, subject Bradski Mark II to exactly the same experiences that Mark I was having, then (subject to quantum indeterminism), you would have exactly the same person.

Think of ol’ Cap’n Kirk being beamed hither and thither. He is (apparently) being disassembled and reassembled each time, particle by particle, yet remains the same person. This is what would actually happen should we be able to do it. There would be no danger of Scotty slapping his forehead and admitting that he’s forgotten to include the ‘essence’ as well.

That said, if Bradski Mark I and Mark II did not experience exactly the same conditions, then they would immediately be different people. That is because we are not just the sum of our parts but the sum of our parts plus our experiences. That would equate to the hard drive information that we have stored in our brains. As that changes, so do we. None of us are the person we were yesterday. We are significantly different to the person we were 20 years ago (ignoring the fact that all the atoms from which we are formed have all been replaced).

If you were to wipe the slate clean and start with a new tabula rasa, then you would develop into someone who wasn’t you.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Think of ol’ Cap’n Kirk being beamed hither and thither. He is (apparently) being disassembled and reassembled each time, particle by particle, yet remains the same person. This is what would actually happen should we be able to do it. There would be no danger of Scotty slapping his forehead and admitting that he’s forgotten to include the ‘essence’ as well.

I’m glad you mentioned the Star Trek analog. There are those episodes where folks would get stuck in the transporter. Their essence if you will (that which takes to re-create them) is pure energy of some kind we are told.

Well, it would appear that the writers were describing a fictional case of someone having their essence moved around, from atoms, to pure energy. I would take it that these writer’s would NOT claim that a Star Trek person is the sum total of his atoms then since we have persons in Star Trek who have no atoms at all. Beings of pure energy were also contemplated many times. We have to conclude that they would have answered my question with a definite no. And since they are able to abstract this essence they might also consider that the essence of a person is an idea that can exist in the abstract (from our point of view). I mean energy can exist without matter certainly and is already a pretty abstract and general concept.

You are assuming that essence is supernatural and mysterious. But it appears that the essence of Mr Spock is plain, and purely abstract instead, requiring no matter or physical medium at all by your own example. The world of the abstract is just as natural or even more fundamental than the physical world. And these abstractions are objective and not merely thoughts in a mind. We tend to discount this realm as being un-real and supernatural by the accepted use of these words. I think that this is because the accepted philosophy is one of materials, or atoms, or of a physical reality only which has subtly crept into modern thought.

 

[inocente]

The Gentlemen simply said that Physicalism was the theory that everything is ‘atoms’ to which you say he is wrong and are saying instead that everything is ‘physical’.

But I hate definitions that use the word itself in the definition. From the point of view of my question I don’t think there is a difference. Certainly the gentlemen was not creating a ‘straw man’.

If a gentleman said that Christians only believe in letters, because after all scripture is written in words and words are made of letters, then you might think fine, but I’d call that creating a strawman.

And the definitions I linked are public, I didn’t make them up, and whether or not you hate it, you don’t get to dictate how other people define themselves.

*So the key here is that supervene word. Everything they say, supervenes on the physical. That makes the physical the START of any process.

Are there processes that START (like your existence) and then are played out on the physical? It would seem the physicalists says no, that can’t happen. Right?!?*

Not sure what you mean. The word supervene means “a fact or property entailed by or consequent on the existence or establishment of another”.

*I am quite sure for example that math exists in the abstract without the need for a physical universe to be played on. I can think of so many others of late too now that I have allowed myself to question this bias we seem to have to looking to the physical for the essence of reality.

It is now seeming quite absurb to me that we have this physical bias. I thought that this thread was in unity against this notion. But perhaps I misunderstood your posts.*

Yes you did misunderstand. You appear to be a Platonist as you claim math exists on some other perfect plane. I think maybe Thomists don’t agree with you, but am not sure.

Either way, how do you know God? If you’re looking for your essence of reality, a good place to start is whether, to you, God is merely a theorem, or whether (also) you have personally encountered God, and so to you God is more than an abstract theorem. No need to post your answer, just something to think about.

*Suppose I rephrase the question based on your insights:

Is the essence of a person physical?*

Well, returning to the definition of essence “A property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is”, it’s hard to believe you’d exist or be as you are, unless you were physical. I mean, why would God go to the bother of making a physical world otherwise? Why would Jesus be physical?

 

[inocente]

There seems no point to our discussing this matter any further. I trust you are in agreement.

Sure, if that’s what you want, see you around.

 

[inocente]

BTW, please understand my confusion regarding saying ‘atoms’ or ‘physical’. But I just opened up a classic text on Modern Physics and it opens this way:

All of modern physics is based upon the analysis of matter by reference to its elementary constituents - molecules, atoms, and “elementary particles.” But the atomicity of matter is not at all obvious, and the student may well wonder how we can place so much confidence in our analysis when our observations of these particles are necessarily so indirect. John D. McGervey, “Introduction to Modern Physics.”

The next 800 pages is to build up the theory of all of physics as based on these particles.

Couple of things there. First, that intro you quoted is wrong, as 70% of the universe is thought to be dark energy, nothing to do with atoms, and another 25% is thought to be dark matter, again not atoms. He can’t write much about them though, as very little is yet known.

Second, don’t confuse the science of physics with the philosophy of physicalism. There must be physicists who are not physicalists, for instance there must surely be some Catholic physicists who are not physicalists.

 

[tonyrey]

…We are significantly different to the person we were 20 years ago (ignoring the fact that all the atoms from which we are formed have all been replaced).

Then we cannot be responsible for what we did 20 years ago?

 

[Solmyr]

Then we cannot be responsible for what we did 20 years ago?

Remember the “statute of limitations”.