Because we were made in the image of God.
- Status
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I think that there are different levels of operation. On the one hand you have a lower level which includes the activity of the atoms and subatomic particles in the brain, and on the other hand, you have a higher level which involves the complex interactions of cranial bionetworks and relational patterns described by a complex systems theory of the brain. Further quantum mechanics may not be the lowest level of operation, but there could be a deterministic subquantum level which needs to be explored.
B
Ben_Shipman
Guest
As an aside, the post Young Woman Considering An Abortion has my concern. Readers might consider praying a Rosary or two over this.
I
inocente
Guest
You’re assigning the things you can’t explain to an immaterial homunculus.
Morphic resonance, NDEs, L Ron Hubbard’s engrams, ectoplasm, inner and outer auras … the list is endless. But they never get anywhere, each falls by the wayside to get replaced by the latest fad.
Whereas, in contrast, neuroscientists keep chipping away at the problem, they make progress, the progress builds. At one time people thought an invisible immaterial sun god pushed the sun across the sky, now we know better. What is supposedly immaterial or paranormal always shrinks before knowledge, and it seems unlikely that explaining the mind will be any different.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
So I guess you are a materialist then even though it says you are a Baptist. I find the whole science will eventually explain everything as some physical process argument weak. I could care less if someone worshipped the sun. My religion has always had only one God who created all things and in which all things have their being. And he has revealed himself to us through his Son. Not once has science disproved him, nor will it be able to, because he exists. I have experienced him in my own life and others. If the mind is immaterial then your whole science will explain it falls apart. Since most neurologists I hear make the assumption of materialism. You have put science above God.
B
Ben_Shipman
Guest
String theory is supposed to be fundamental, and it is indeterministic in the same way that quantum theory is indeterministic. It doesn’t look like there is any deterministic level beneath the quantum level.
G
GEddie
Guest
That doesn’t save free will, however, if the human mind is assumed to be physical; it simply replaces free will with chance.
While I for one think that free will in human life is overstated, ISTM that if the water of a spiritual mind is thrown out, the free-will baby will perforce go with it.
ICXC NIKA
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Not sure. Here is a paper that argues for a discrete deterministic interpretation of String theory:
arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3612v2.pdf
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
What is an immaterial homunculus? A small invisible dwarf?
Why is positing an immaterial mind to handle immaterial thoughts bad in your opinion except that it contradicts your dogma of materialism? How does positing an unobserved multiverse make more sense? Except that it fits your paradigm of materialism no matter how much it contradicts occams razor.
R
Richca
Guest
Actually, not only the activity of the brain but the entire human body is animated by the spiritual soul as the CCC says. The spiritual activity of the human soul involves the spiritual powers of the intellect and will which in the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas on human beings operate independently of any bodily organ, though, in this life on earth, the intellect and will depend on the body and the lower powers of the soul for their proper operation. The human soul, according to the teaching of Aquinas, also possesses sensory and vegetative powers in common with other non-human animal souls. The sensory and vegetative powers of the soul operate through some bodily organ which these powers depend on for their proper operation. The animation of the body is the effect of the soul and its powers and we can obviously study these effects as for example in biology or bio-chemistry. The body which is material is in some degree going to follow the laws of physics especially if we consider the vegetative powers of the soul which involve, nutrition, growth, and reproduction. But, the human body is ruled principally by the human soul’s highest spiritual powers of intellect and will which is beyond the observation of the natural sciences although we can see the effects of these powers. For example, we can will to go take a walk in the park and we obviously go with our body but the will itself is not any part of the body but a spiritual power of the soul which cannot be observed by the senses. In fact, the whole soul or any of its powers cannot be observed by the senses for the soul is immaterial. We can only observe the effects the soul’s powers have on the body. Consequently, in modern science such as in biology I don’t believe you will find the concept of the soul or powers of the soul because modern biology is only interested in what can be brought under observation or observed by the senses.
B
Ben_Shipman
Guest
If the immaterial soul causes the body to do material things, then there must be some juncture at which there are material effects with immaterial causes. The material half of this juncture would in principle be observable with scientific instruments, and the presence of an immaterial influence would be discernable. This would be scientifically revolutionary. It hasn’t happened so far.
The alternative is that the immaterial effect is merely to collapse the material system in accord with the probabilities predicted by quantum mechanics. This would be all but impossible to observe, and more in line with the intuition that the body operates according to the laws of physics. It wouldn’t seem amenable enough to free will to satisfy some of the people on this thread, however.
M
Michael19682
Guest
Caution should be used when attributing causes and effects to frictional relationships. If for not other reason than because the friction could be caused by a “FICTIONAL” attribution. IOW, though God is true, we believe, much of what a person holds in regards him might very well be delusion. If one considers God’s transcendent nature, all of our ordinary beliefs about him insofar as concern spiritual exertion over matter could simply be attributed to the imputation of these fictional or delusional beliefs.
In this debate, the spiritualist is at a disadvantage against the atheist because the former is no longer basing his thinking on the Trinity, but on the human spirit. The atheist never needed a spirit to complete his arguments whereas the Theist now is in the unlucky position of espousing what looks like pantheism.
In this debate, the spiritualist is at a disadvantage against the atheist because the former is no longer basing his thinking on the Trinity, but on the human spirit. The atheist never needed a spirit to complete his arguments whereas the Theist now is in the unlucky position of espousing what looks like pantheism.
M
Michael19682
Guest
The physical can have freewill, I think. The environmental interface of the senses suffices to give the mind a challenge that looks a lot like free will. Calling an organism’s responses to the environment “chance” effectively lowers him into the mired doctrine of non creative atheism. Simply put, we don’t know if the stories we do create to describe our actions are either true to our sacrosanct, reflexive selves or else are induced by a higher power beyond conditioning, i.e., the “ocean of notions” in which we are immersed since creation began and which is intelligible only because we have freewill. If it were not freewill imparting the intelligence, then on what other basis would the idea of chance itself be intelligible?
I
inocente
Guest
Hmm
. Nowhere is it written that Christians must believe paranormal fads and New Age superstitions rather than use our God-given brain.God isn’t confined to some hidden immaterial realm, He is everywhere in nature. God is openness and light, not darkness and occult. “Truth cannot contradict truth” - Thomas Aquinas
Theologians have a phrase for the fallacy of taking gaps in knowledge as proofs of God - they call it god-of-the-gaps: “How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
In philosophy of mind, the homunculus fallacy is the assumption that a little guy in our head is doing the thinking. For instance, take that earlier reference to Nirenberg’s work. It’s a well-established fact from many pieces of work that the only information leaving the eye down the optic nerve is a stream of pulses. Yet in your head, you see a “movie” of the world. Whatever is decoding the bit stream is producing the “movie”.
The homunculus fallacy is to assume that there’s a little “you” in your head watching and interpreting the movie. It leads to an infinite regression - the little “you” needs an even smaller “you” in his head to watch the movie, etc.
There are two main ways to avoid the infinite regression. One is to say that “you” is both the movie and the watcher. This is how most neuroscientists (including Christians) expect it to work. The other is to say that the homunculus is immaterial and that the immaterial is inexplicable, so no further explanation is possible. I see that as a cop-out, a non-explanation, a lazy non-argument.
You might consider that calling me a materialist when we’ve only just met, when you know nothing about me, is a also a non-argument. Technically, it’s an ad hominem fallacy. If you have a case, how about giving positive reasons. For instance, it seems to come as a surprise to some that the only information leaving the eyes is a stream of pulses. Does that mean your immaterial realm is digital? (Would that mean God is digital?
)
Y
You
Guest
We have no choice but to believe in an immaterial spirit which interacts with and guides our spirit.Hmm
God isn’t confined to some hidden immaterial realm, He is everywhere in nature. God is openness and light, not darkness and occult. “Truth cannot contradict truth” - Thomas Aquinas
Theologians have a phrase for the fallacy of taking gaps in knowledge as proofs of God - they call it god-of-the-gaps: “How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
In philosophy of mind, the homunculus fallacy is the assumption that a little guy in our head is doing the thinking. For instance, take that earlier reference to Nirenberg’s work. It’s a well-established fact from many pieces of work that the only information leaving the eye down the optic nerve is a stream of pulses. Yet in your head, you see a “movie” of the world. Whatever is decoding the bit stream is producing the “movie”.
The homunculus fallacy is to assume that there’s a little “you” in your head watching and interpreting the movie. It leads to an infinite regression - the little “you” needs an even smaller “you” in his head to watch the movie, etc.
There are two main ways to avoid the infinite regression. One is to say that “you” is both the movie and the watcher. This is how most neuroscientists (including Christians) expect it to work. The other is to say that the homunculus is immaterial and that the immaterial is inexplicable, so no further explanation is possible. I see that as a cop-out, a non-explanation, a lazy non-argument.
You might consider that calling me a materialist when we’ve only just met, when you know nothing about me, is a also a non-argument. Technically, it’s an ad hominem fallacy. If you have a case, how about giving positive reasons. For instance, it seems to come as a surprise to some that the only information leaving the eyes is a stream of pulses. Does that mean your immaterial realm is digital? (Would that mean God is digital?
And he promised to send his Spirit:
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.
Luke 8:55
And her spirit returned, and she arose immediately. And he bid them give her to eat.
Matthew 12:43
And when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none.
Matthew 12:18
Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul hath been well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Matthew 10:20
For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.
Matthew 3:16
And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.
John 1:33
And I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1 Thessalonians 4:8
Therefore, he that despiseth these things, despiseth not man, but God, who also hath given his holy Spirit in us.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I see most of what you are writing as incoherent and doesn’t apply to what I have written. All this because I am convinced we have an immaterial mind? . Which is the position of most people throughout history. It sounds like you don’t know what you are talking about or what it means to believe in an immaterial mind. You say I believe in this homoxulous fallacy thing, but then say to get around that people believe in an immaterial mind which is what I believe. This is obviously incoherent. Nowhere have i even hinted at belief ina homoculous. You maka lot of assumptions according to bits that you may have read without any real understanding. For instance you start accussing me of the god of the gaps which does not apply here. Im not arguing for the existence of God but for an immaterial mind.Hmm
God isn’t confined to some hidden immaterial realm, He is everywhere in nature. God is openness and light, not darkness and occult. “Truth cannot contradict truth” - Thomas Aquinas
Theologians have a phrase for the fallacy of taking gaps in knowledge as proofs of God - they call it god-of-the-gaps: “How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
In philosophy of mind, the homunculus fallacy is the assumption that a little guy in our head is doing the thinking. For instance, take that earlier reference to Nirenberg’s work. It’s a well-established fact from many pieces of work that the only information leaving the eye down the optic nerve is a stream of pulses. Yet in your head, you see a “movie” of the world. Whatever is decoding the bit stream is producing the “movie”.
The homunculus fallacy is to assume that there’s a little “you” in your head watching and interpreting the movie. It leads to an infinite regression - the little “you” needs an even smaller “you” in his head to watch the movie, etc.
There are two main ways to avoid the infinite regression. One is to say that “you” is both the movie and the watcher. This is how most neuroscientists (including Christians) expect it to work. The other is to say that the homunculus is immaterial and that the immaterial is inexplicable, so no further explanation is possible. I see that as a cop-out, a non-explanation, a lazy non-argument.
You might consider that calling me a materialist when we’ve only just met, when you know nothing about me, is a also a non-argument. Technically, it’s an ad hominem fallacy. If you have a case, how about giving positive reasons. For instance, it seems to come as a surprise to some that the only information leaving the eyes is a stream of pulses. Does that mean your immaterial realm is digital? (Would that mean God is digital?
Do you deny being materialistic? I just find the whole materialistic assumptions by atheists to be arrogant and that is how you come across. Making snap judgments about me. This fallacy does not apply to me at all.
A stream of pulses is not necessarily digital. I doubt that our brains are binary. Old analog TVs took a stream across a cable through a tv tuner to display an image on the screen. I don’t see how that would remove the need for an immaterial mind. You still need a mind to interpret what you are seeing on the screen.
Also, the stuff about “new age” is uncalled for. I didn’t mention anything about that. Nor dis any of the links i provided.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I just want to quote myself to give some of my original reasoning for an immaterial mind. There is a lot more to it than this as i am only an amateur in the subject. But you would do well to read Feser.
B
Ben_Shipman
Guest
I never meant to call the whole of an organism’s responses to the environment chance, since those responses are so heavily dependent on how the organism is constituted. If you want to call this free will, I’m not sure what to say, since a very simple robot could also respond to the environment in a manner dictated by its programming.
Maybe the key is to see free will as a will that is changeable from interactions with the environment, and which thereby has a capacity for growth.
As I said, I believe in supernatural grace. I sum up my present notions of body, soul, and spirit as follows.
The body is natural. It is made of matter and obeys the laws of physics.
The soul is transnatural, by which I mean that it transcends physics, yet lives in the physical context of the body, and is thereby subject to physical law.
Spirit is supernatural; it transcends physics, and when it interacts with matter, physical laws cease to hold.
I have doubts that there is a specifically supernatural part of the human person. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, certainly is supernatural, and a person can receive supernatural benefits from the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. I do not think that people naturally lack intelligence, and receive it only as a supernatural gift. Rather, I think intelligence is inherent in human biology.
B
Ben_Shipman
Guest
I have. I intend to answer the most recent objection on my old thread about AI, which read as follows:
B
Ben_Shipman
Guest
Here is the exchange I had with Prof. Feser in 2013, but never posted:
Dear Prof. Feser,
Ben Shipman
Dear Prof. Feser,
Code:
I have been having a forum discussion in which I warn fellow Catholics that superintelligent machines may radically alter the human condition. One commenter cited your post "Kripke contra computationalism" as support for the position that such machines cannot be. I don't know whether [computationalism false] -> [functionally intelligent computers impossible], but I do see two commonsensical refutations of the argument you presented.- I can tell the skeptic that I have never performed the suboperation of comparation with 57 as part of what I call “addition”. Since that suboperation is necessary to perform quaddition, my “addition” cannot have been quaddition. If my testimony about my own thoughts counts as evidence, then we are done.
- I can point out to the skeptic that I just invoked my operation of “addition”, and that it did in fact behave like addition and not like quaddition. To believe that my “addition” was quaddition until recently is ridiculous: It means that I was complicating my thought process with an extra step that never had any effect on the output, and then dropped that step just before it finally would have had an effect.
I am offering you a chance to respond to my objections before I post, and/or to clarify the bearing of computationalism on strong artificial intelligence.
Ben Shipman
- Status