STEM is incomplete

[Sarpedon]

Not in the least. As a matter of fact, this is the scientific method. But, in science, there is always the final arbitrator, the impersonal experiment, which will decide which one of the competing theories is right - if either one of them.

And precisely that is the missing step in the religious claims. There is no “experiment” to decide which party is right, and which one is wrong. I can devise such an experiment, but no one will undertake the test. They will say that “testing” God is not allowed.

The impersonal nature of the scientific method is the final arbitrator. The impersonal nature of declared catholic theology is a final arbirtrator (of a different sort). The point I was trying to make was that in neither case did the personal bias of individuals negate the impersonal method itself. Surely you agree with me?

Yes, I know. But that is still not an authorization, which can be verified. The church says that God authorized the church. Not convincing to the “heathens”.

That’s why we provide philosophic explanations that can be examined independantly.

Not for you, maybe. But for all the non-Catholics it would be pretty helpful.

Necessary graces are given to all individuals, regardless of religion (or lack thereof)

As far as your last sentence goes: everyone who is not Catholic. I rather think that I am sane, but I certainly do not accept the “infallibility” of the pope or the magistretium. These are both self-authenticated “authorities”.

Sorry, I did not state that well. I was talking about Catholics. The CCC basically meets the criteria for infallability, so it is not really possible to build a good case against it. Some people try because they don’t want to accept it, (i.e. some traditionalists), but I don’t think there is any merit at all to their claims. Since the CCC is presented at the definitive teaching of the church to the whole world, I can’t fathom how some dissident catholics could claim it is not infallible.

 

[tobias]

Well, then two questions.

If you equate the soul and the mind, what terminology would you suggest to describe the working the the brain? That is, if you differ from the ancient Greeks who thought that the brain is just the organ to cool the blood? Because I hope you would not hold such an antiquated concept.

i believe phsyche is the best understanding of the working of the brai n so far. And yes I’m aware of distinctions made between phsychological and neurological. For me, neurology is concerned with the hardware, and phychology with the software of the brain, but have no bearing on the mind.
i know many people who have taken medication for phycosis such as anxiety or depression, i’ve noted how people tend to say ‘They’re a whole different person’ when mexdication is effective, when my own oberservation is ‘The’re now able to function better’. Those with poor observational discernment mistake function for who a person is. When my oldest son was prescribed anti-anxiety medication the inbalance of caution was corrected, but he did not change.

The other question is: where do the traits of the personality come from? Some people are loving, caring, others are not. Some frequently exhibit anger, others are usually calm. Is the personality a function of the brain, or is it the function of the “soul”?

A person with a well funtioning brain has control of interactive functions, but if there is chemical imbalance or damage to the brain, whatever the mind would have the brain do in the affected region is handicapped in that area of expression. For instance, a person with turrets syndrome is not neccessarily vulgar, but that interactive function has a handicap. It does not change who they are.
My daughter has epilepsy and is on her 8th medication to prevent neural misfiring. 2 medications were effective but caused an allergic reaction and when she was on those 2 her ‘personality’ was restored to its preepileptic interactivity. The mind is still expressive in the same way when handicaps are removed. She has not changed, but her ability to interact is diminished.
So to be precise, in my view, expressability of personality is a function of the brain

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Again, intelligence is a function of matter and energy. You have yet to show how this is not so.

i believe phsyche is the best understanding of the working of the brai n so far.

Psyche is not an explaination of anything, it is a term to describe something.

Please explain your understand of what psyche is and how it explains the working of the brain and how this proves you claim that intelligence is not a function of matter and energy.

 

[tobias]

Again, intelligence is a function of matter and energy. You have yet to show how this is not so.
Psyche is not an explaination of anything, it is a term to describe something.

Atiesta asked me what **terminology **ii would use to describe brain function and personality.

Please explain your understand of what psyche is and how it explains the working of the brain and how this proves you claim that intelligence is not a function of matter and energy.

I thought I already had explained my understanding of phyche- expressability of personality (who one is), interactivity. I shared a couple of examples which reinforce my idea, being my opinion. but for the sake of argument consider the extreme example of Stephen Hawkins. without the aid of a computer to express himself, it might be thought that his mind was gone, it is not, expressability is severely handicapped in his case. You will probably assert that the memory strip is not damaged in his brain, all well and fine, but isn’t memory recall a function of expressability, linking bits of information into intelligable conjecture. If short term memory loss does not change who a person is, why would it be assumed total memory loss changes who a person is? What is certainly changed in both situations is expressability, anything more is merely assumption. As far as proof goes, it is demonstrable that brain activity is in fact matter and energy, what is not evident is whether or not mind and brain are one and the same. I do not purpote to be able to materially prove the immaterial nature of mind. So if you say the contrary is materially provable, by all means, demonstrate the facts.

 

[ateista]

Sorry abot the delay. I am quite busy these days, so I cannot participate in this discussion actively. Suffice it to say, that I don’t think any of the arguments presented here are valid to question the completeness of the STEM principle. All your questions have been asnwered. You will disagree, of course. So I bid you goodbye for the time being.