Mind is anomalous therefore it cannot be created

[STT]

I was going to attempt to address your very non-standard syllogistic sets, but saw this line at the bottom and thought it would be more pertinent.

Could we please try to we focus on syllogistic? This way I understand what is wrong with my non-standard syllogistic (I am not a philosopher ). You didn’t show what is wrong with them.

If you would like to declare “the mind cannot be created” as self-evident, then you shouldn’t have attempted to base it on a premise like “the mind is anomalous”.

What is wrong with that?

You simply declare self-evident things and leave them for people to freely accept or reject with no penalty to their rationale either way.

Any syllogism is self-evident.

Not even a little. To your original argument (simplified for assistance):
P: The mind is anomalous (All M is A)
P: Created things are non-anomalous (All C are non-A)
C: The mind is not created (All M is non-C).

I don’t understand. This is what I am trying to show:
P1: Mind is anomalous (anomalous means that it does not exist a theory which can predict your decision) since will is a faculty of mind.
P2: Knowledge is required for the act of creation but it does not exist any theory which can describe mind (all theories build all body of knowledge).
C: Therefore God cannot create mind.

The standard syllogism is longer I guess.

Premise #1 is under dispute this very moment. I know which way I lean on the matter. But to declare it as “true” would be unsound.

The premises is correct given the definition of anomalous and mind.

Premise #2 is flatly wrong. We old dogs remember our Nintendos in the 80s. They weren’t designed to flash the color screens when the cartridge/system had some sort of read error. But they sure did. Anomaly creeps into designed systems as a matter of expected course. Chaos theory dictates that the more sophisticated a system is, designed or no, the greater the chance of anomalous manifestation.

Chaos theory is an analytical theory therefore it should exist a function which is the solution of any chaotic equation. The problem arises when you want to solve the equation numerically. Therefore a chaotic equation is not anomalous.

 

[STT]

P1 Theories are constructs required by contingent agents who lack knowledge about things.
P2 God is a non-contingent agent who created everything and therefore does not lack knowledge.
C God does not need or use theories

P1 is self contradictory since it explains something therefore it is part of knowledge.
C does not follow.

P1 Theories are used to explain things to someone
P2 God possesses all being and has no need to explain things to Himself
C God does not need or use theories

Knowledge is structured in term of theories. Therefore C is evidently wrong. No need to say that C doesn’t follow from P1 and P2.

 

[reggieM]

P1 is self contradictory since it explains something therefore it is part of knowledge.
C does not follow.

“Theories are constructs required by contingent agents who lack knowledge about things.”

P1 explains something? No, P1 defines something.
A theory is required because knowledge is lacking.

Knowledge is structured in term of theories.

Knowledge is received through the senses. I know what a tomato tastes like. I know what cold feels like. No theories are required to know such things.

 

[davidv]

Yes. That is a good definition. Considering the fact that the only way to explain something could be through stimulating and observing its behavior then a theory by definition gives the outcome a situation given circumstances.

Theory is system of ideas which explain things. Knowledge to me is a large set of theories and needed for any act.

I am sorry, but this does not answer my question. Why does God need to have things explained? By definition He already knows.

 

[STT]

“Theories are constructs required by contingent agents who lack knowledge about things.”

P1 explains something? No, P1 defines something.
A theory is required because knowledge is lacking.

That is correct. I think I misread you. Where do you want to go now?

Knowledge is received through the senses. I know what a tomato tastes like. I know what cold feels like. No theories are required to know such things.

We perceive information. We then construct knowledge if it is necessary, like the taste of tomato makes you feel good.

 

[STT]

I am sorry, but this does not answer my question. Why does God need to have things explained? By definition He already knows.

God needs the proper knowledge for creating mind which He doesn’t have.

 

[Vonsalza]

Could we please try to we focus on syllogistic?

As really, REALLY basic introduction to Aristotelian modals would be that premises follow a general form:

[All,Some,None][X,Non-X][are,are not][Y,Non-Y]

You’re establishing a specific relationship between two things and defining whether it is universal (all, none) or particular (some).

A conclusion might possibly be drawn when two premises intersect at a given term.

Jim is Athenian. [J is A]
All Athenians are Greek. [All A are G]
Ergo, Jim is Greek. [J is G]

If Jim isn’t Athenian [J is non-A], then the conclusion is structurally invalid. If only some Athenians are Greek [Some A are G], then the conclusion is invalid. If Jim’s Athenian-ness is questionable or whether all Athenians are actually Greek is questionable, the argument may still be structurally valid, but there are questions concerning the truth value of the premises. Thus they may be “unsound”.

An argument dies from a lack of validity or a lack of soundness. To quote Dr. H, “arguments are fragile”.

Another tip - the more complex your argument is, the greater the risk of validity and soundness issues. One tiny problem kills the whole thing. Chaos theory is very real when crafting an argument. A conclusion built on 1000 premises with only one of them being demonstrably unsound is a fully unsound conclusion.

Pick up a cheap Philo text and take a gander. Buy a cheap older edition. This stuff hasn’t changed much in centuries. The new $200 textbook will contain few, if any, innovations on this specific matter compared to the 20 year-old $5 text in the bargain bin.

 

[Vonsalza]

When you grasp the basics, you can move on to next level modals like impossibility, contingency, necessity and… I forget the 4th… probability?

 

[STT]

As really, REALLY basic introduction to Aristotelian modals would be that premises follow a general form:

[All,Some,None][X,Non-X][are,are not][Y,Non-Y]

You’re establishing a specific relationship between two things and defining whether it is universal (all, none) or particular (some).

A conclusion might possibly be drawn when two premises intersect at a given term.

Jim is Athenian. [J is A]
All Athenians are Greek. [All A are G]
Ergo, Jim is Greek. [J is G]

If Jim isn’t Athenian [J is non-A], then the conclusion is structurally invalid. If only some Athenians are Greek [Some A are G], then the conclusion is invalid. If Jim’s Athenian-ness is questionable or whether all Athenians are actually Greek is questionable, the argument may still be structurally valid, but there are questions concerning the truth value of the premises. Thus they may be “unsound”.

An argument dies from a lack of validity or a lack of soundness. To quote Dr. H, “arguments are fragile”.

Another tip - the more complex your argument is, the greater the risk of validity and soundness issues. One tiny problem kills the whole thing. Chaos theory is very real when crafting an argument. A conclusion built on 1000 premises with only one of them being demonstrably unsound is a fully unsound conclusion.

Pick up a cheap Philo text and take a gander. Buy a cheap older edition. This stuff hasn’t changed much in centuries. The new $200 textbook will contain few, if any, innovations on this specific matter compared to the 20 year-old $5 text in the bargain bin.

I cannot understand why you don’t engage in a discussion about my argument.

Let me try another time, first definition and then the argument:

DEFINITIONS:

D1: anomalous means that it does not exist a theory which can explain subject matter or predict a behavior.
D2: Theory is a system of ideas which describe how things are.

ARGUMENT:

P1: Will is faculty of mind.
P2: There exist not any theory which can predict will.
C1: Mind is anomalous (from D1, P1 and P2).
P3: Knowledge is structured by theories.
C2: The knowledge for explaining mind does not exist (from C1 and P3).
P4: Knowledge is required for any act.
C3: Therefore God cannot create mind (from C2 and P4).

I hope things are clear by now.

 

[davidv]

God needs the proper knowledge for creating mind which He doesn’t have.

God is omniscient. He is lacking no knowledge. My question remains unanswered.

 

[STT]

God is omniscient

I question that in post #43.

 

[John_Martin]

Let me try another time, first definition and then the argument:
Okay, let’s try another time:
DEFINITIONS:

D1: anomalous means that it does not exist a theory which can explain subject matter or predict a behavior.
**ACTUAL DEFINITION: deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected: **
D2: Theory is a system of ideas which describe how things are.
ACTUAL DEFINITION: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:

ARGUMENT:

P1: Will is faculty of mind.
This is Your Supposition, whereas the normal supposition of Mind is that it is “intellect” (a different ‘faculty’ of the soul than Will)
P2: There exist not any theory which can predict will.
**Anything that is “indeterminate” or “potential to various manifestations” is predictable that it will be what is necessary when the necessity arises. We theorize and predict THAT the Will SHALL choose, but it is not at all necessary to predict WHAT the Will shall choose. **
C1: Mind is anomalous (from D1, P1 and P2).
Intellect is not abnormal (the Mind), and neither is it abnormal to say that the Will makes choices that it chooses, whatever they may be, nor is it abnormal to say that one cannot predict the actual choice
P3: Knowledge is structured by theories.
Knowledge is that the intellect invents theories based upon reasoning about experience, with the intent of habituating interaction with the non-self
C2: The knowledge for explaining mind does not exist (from C1 and P3).
From P3 bold part, the mind, the intellect, reasons about its own being, thus concluding (inventing) theories about its experience of its own being in a ‘self-knowledge’, with the intent of habituating interaction with itself.
P4: Knowledge is required for any act.
From C2 bold part, the self, in theorizing about itself, is in act as itself with its self knowledge.
C3: Therefore God cannot create mind (from C2 and P4).
God does not create ‘determined intellect’ (full self-understanding), but the indeterminate and habitual intellect of the soul, which has the capacity to habituate understanding of the world and of itself, thus itself moving from form to Act as it habituates knowing.

I hope things are clear by now.
I, also.

 

[STT]

Let me try another time, first definition and then the argument:
Okay, let’s try another time:

Thanks .

DEFINITIONS:

D1: anomalous means that it does not exist a theory which can explain subject matter or predict a behavior.
**ACTUAL DEFINITION: deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected: **

Could we please stick to my definition for the sake of argument?

D2: Theory is a system of ideas which describe how things are.
ACTUAL DEFINITION: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:

I agree with that.

ARGUMENT:

P1: Will is faculty of mind.
This is Your Supposition, whereas the normal supposition of Mind is that it is “intellect” (a different ‘faculty’ of the soul than Will)

We know that we have free will. We are minds. Doesn’t that mean that will is faculty of mind?

P2: There exist not any theory which can predict will.
**Anything that is “indeterminate” or “potential to various manifestations” is predictable that it will be what is necessary when the necessity arises. We theorize and predict THAT the Will SHALL choose, but it is not at all necessary to predict WHAT the Will shall choose. **

To me mind is unpredictable. I don’t understand how what you said is related to the argument.

C1: Mind is anomalous (from D1, P1 and P2).
Intellect is not abnormal (the Mind), and neither is it abnormal to say that the Will makes choices that it chooses, whatever they may be, nor is it abnormal to say that one cannot predict the actual choice

Mind is anomalous given my definition.

P3: Knowledge is structured by theories.
Knowledge is that the intellect invents theories based upon reasoning about experience, with the intent of habituating interaction with the non-self

Good.

C2: The knowledge for explaining mind does not exist (from C1 and P3).
From P3 bold part, the mind, the intellect, reasons about its own being, thus concluding (inventing) theories about its experience of its own being in a ‘self-knowledge’, with the intent of habituating interaction with itself.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

P4: Knowledge is required for any act.
From C2 bold part, the self, in theorizing about itself, is in act as itself with its self knowledge.

That is not what I am trying to say.

C3: Therefore God cannot create mind (from C2 and P4).
God does not create ‘determined intellect’ (full self-understanding), but the indeterminate and habitual intellect of the soul, which has the capacity to habituate understanding of the world and of itself, thus itself moving from form to Act as it habituates knowing.

I hope things are clear by now.
I, also.

You need to prove that. I already proved the opposite.

 

[Vonsalza]

Could we please stick to my definition for the sake of argument?

Respectfully, this is one of the greatest faults that you consistently display in your rhetoric.

We wish to discuss objective truth. A subjective, personalized definition moves the needle away from objectivity. As such, the discussion becomes less and less valuable.

To be sure, we can pick our definitions per Voltaire. But your definitions need to be as credible as possible. A profound, true conclusion drawn from a very personalized set of premises is a conclusion that is ultimately of very little value to anyone besides the definer.

Please please please use definitions that you did not create or paraphrase. The arguments that flow from them will be far, far more valuable and credible to other people.

Going back to validity and soundness; providing your own definitions pre-loads questionable soundness into the arguments you craft based upon them. Its akin to deploying a tank that lacks armor plating and accompanied by a massive banner advertising the fact to your opposition. “Shoot here for easy kill”.

STT: “Hey, but I just want you to assume my defs are perfectly sound”.

Welcome to debate. Most of the time it doesn’t move past semantics because semantics is where the critical differences between sides are often (maybe “usually”) found. The validity of the arguments that flow from them are often good. It’s the soundness that is in question. You cannot reasonably ask your opposition to just accept your premises.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I question that in post #43.

The trouble with your theory is you assume God has the mind similar to that of man. He doesn’t. Don’t assume anything about God or you will be in big trouble.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Respectfully, this is one of the greatest faults that you consistently display in your rhetoric.

We wish to discuss objective truth. A subjective, personalized definition moves the needle away from objectivity. As such, the discussion becomes less and less valuable.

To be sure, we can pick our definitions per Voltaire. But your definitions need to be as credible as possible. A profound, true conclusion drawn from a very personalized set of premises is a conclusion that is ultimately of very little value to anyone besides the definer.

Please please please use definitions that you did not create or paraphrase. The arguments that flow from them will be far, far more valuable and credible to other people.

Going back to validity and soundness; providing your own definitions pre-loads questionable soundness into the arguments you craft based upon them. Its akin to deploying a tank that lacks armor plating and accompanied by a massive banner advertising the fact to your opposition. “Shoot here for easy kill”.

STT: “Hey, but I just want you to assume my defs are perfectly sound”.

Welcome to debate. Most of the time it doesn’t move past semantics because semantics is where the critical differences between sides are often (maybe “usually”) found. The validity of the arguments that flow from them are often good. It’s the soundness that is in question. You cannot reasonably ask your opposition to just accept your premises.

That is the problem with these posits by STT. They don’t make any sense!

 

[STT]

Respectfully, this is one of the greatest faults that you consistently display in your rhetoric.

Thanks for informing me.

We wish to discuss objective truth. A subjective, personalized definition moves the needle away from objectivity. As such, the discussion becomes less and less valuable.

That I understand. My problem is that English is not my first language so I have very limited vocabulary. That is why I pick up definition which might not sounds well but anyhow they are part of my argument. For example I don’t know what is appropriate word which can describe a situation in which “it does not exist a theory which can explain subject matter or predict a behavior”. I use anomalous. Do you have a better candidate?

To be sure, we can pick our definitions per Voltaire. But your definitions need to be as credible as possible. A profound, true conclusion drawn from a very personalized set of premises is a conclusion that is ultimately of very little value to anyone besides the definer.

Well, then lets discuss the definition first.

Please please please use definitions that you did not create or paraphrase. The arguments that flow from them will be far, far more valuable and credible to other people.

Ok lets try it.

Going back to validity and soundness; providing your own definitions pre-loads questionable soundness into the arguments you craft based upon them. Its akin to deploying a tank that lacks armor plating and accompanied by a massive banner advertising the fact to your opposition. “Shoot here for easy kill”.

Ok.

STT: “Hey, but I just want you to assume my defs are perfectly sound”.

I am ready to start with the definition.

Welcome to debate. Most of the time it doesn’t move past semantics because semantics is where the critical differences between sides are often (maybe “usually”) found. The validity of the arguments that flow from them are often good. It’s the soundness that is in question. You cannot reasonably ask your opposition to just accept your premises.

Well, lets fix the definition first so we can then start with premises.

 

[STT]

The trouble with your theory is you assume God has the mind similar to that of man. He doesn’t. Don’t assume anything about God or you will be in big trouble.

Can you please find the word “mind” in my argument?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Can you please find the word “mind” in my argument?

Your first post!

 

[STT]

Your first post!

I meant in the new version of my argument which is posted #49.