We are rational because of our brains, not our souls

[GEddie]

The mind is a good servant but a poor master.

That sounds nice but really makes no sense.

We have a mind and a body; the mind is the only “part” of us that is fit to control anything.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bahman]

What is reason? To Thomists, rationality is the ability to abstract universals.

Reason: The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Define form, and then define information, and then explain the difference between structured and unstructured information, please

Form: The visible shape or configuration of something.
Information: Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
Structured and unstructured: Think of a sentence as knowledge and each word as a information.

Your claims are too vague: I can’t understand them

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I hope things are clear now.

 

[Bahman]

Photons are not information in the sense that universals like numbers are information. You are confusing sensory information with conceptual information. Concepts are immaterial, since matter is the principle that allows for particulars, and universals are normally not particular.

Photons are smallest pack of information. Sensory and conceptual information are not that different. Concepts are not immaterial. No brain no concepts.

Here’s another question, what is physical? If rationally is merely physical, what does it mean to be physical?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Physical: Everything related to matter and forces.

 

[Bahman]

Hiw we currently can deal with it yes in how nuerons fire, but would you deny the POSSIBILITY that the info could be held within the energy within us? That essentially in a way we currently cannot access or see?

I would say it is like the fact that our brain runs on electric, logically I should maybe be able to use electrical signals to interect with my bodies atoms and change say the electron count in my fingertips like rubbbing a pen on your hair and subsequently “magnestize” my hand to pick up pieces of paper as the pen trick works? We cannot do this now. But it is conceivable, therefore once we break that simplistic plain, how about interacting via energy to affect atoms in general? Water to wine etc? Now keep apllying such thought up to spirit form humans who can do much?

Information can only be stored through wiring inside brain. Information can be processed by neurons firing.

 

[Bahman]

I mean why doesnt information take up more and more space in our heads as it accumulates?

What else do you expect?

Bradski wasn’t joking.

I know.

 

[Bahman]

premise is that rationality requires knowledge: therefore, no knowledge = no rationality. That’s like saying that a cup is not a cup unless it contains contents. (In other words, I’m asking you to try again, because your premise is faulty. )

I am afraid that your analogy doesn’t work.

So, you’re claiming that ‘knowledge’ is physical? OK, then: what’s its shape? its weight? its color? (Again, faulty premise.)

By physical I mean that knowledge needs a physical substrate, brain.

Photons are not information; they’re energy. They may be interpreted as information, but they’re not information itself, so to speak.

Photon are pack of information.

Moreover, vision is not “produced”, it is the interpretative conclusion of a mind that takes in light and attempts to process it.

Mind? What is mind and how it could process information?

 

[Vico]

Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason. This requires knowledge. Knowledge is structured information and information requires form. Form occupies space. Hence those are our brains which produce reason since soul doesn’t occupy any space.

Both in ordinary life and in philosophical discussions the term reason is of frequent occurrence in different significations. …

in Aristotle we have a clear distinction between intellect (voûs), as the intuitive faculty, and reason (lógos), as the discursive or inferential faculty. This distinction was maintained by the Schoolmen. …

St. Thomas, with the rest of the Schoolmen, amends this portion of the Aristotelean tradition, accepting the rest with no important modifications. St. Thomas’s doctrine is briefly as follows:

• the rational soul, which is one with the sensitive and vegetative principle, is the form of the body. This was defined as of faith by the Council of Vienne of 1311;
• the soul is a substance, but an incomplete substance, i.e. it has a natural aptitude and exigency for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the substantial unity of human nature;
• though connaturally related to the body, it is itself absolutely simple, i.e. of an unextended and spiritual nature. It is not wholly immersed in matter, its higher operations being intrinsically independent of the organism;
• the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.

Maher, M., & Bolland, J. (1912). Soul. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

 

[LethalMouse]

Information can only be stored through wiring inside brain. Information can be processed by neurons firing.

Post #15 you admit info can be in a different medium, if it can be transmitted as such then the only way you are not disagreeing with yourself is if you are essentially claiming a guaranteed tine limit on such a transfer mediums storage.

Then in relation to what I said I offered a possibility not a definitive. You say only ONE way for the nfo to be processed which is to deny alternate possibility. If there is no alternate possibility than “we” hunans or at least Bahman claims we have nothing new to discover. Therefore this info is the totality of truth and further research into the mysteries of the universe are futile, as all that can be known is known… No one can have a convo about possibility against such a stance.

 

[Lucretius]

Photons are smallest pack of information. Sensory and conceptual information are not that different.

Of course they are. One is particular, and one is universal.

Concepts are not immaterial. No brain no concepts.

This is fallacious; it begs the question. What is at issue is whether the intellect is immaterial

Physical: Everything related to matter and forces.

First, I assume you involve fields in there somewhere too, yes? Second, what is matter?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Gorgias]

I am afraid that your analogy doesn’t work.

Freely asserted, freely denied. Yet, I can see below that you’ve changed your definition, so let’s work with whether or not the new definition holds water…

By physical I mean that knowledge needs a physical substrate, brain.

OK – we can work with this new definition. It’s still deficient, though. Tell me – does the knowledge “E=mc[sup]2[/sup]” require a ‘brain’ (or even a person!) in order to be true? Was the equation false before the first brain came into existence? If not, then you’re still barking up the wrong tree: knowledge is neither physical nor does it need a physical substrate.

However, perhaps you’re trying to say something different? Perhaps you’re simply asserting that for a person to know something, it requires the person to store that knowledge in a physical substrate?

Photon are pack of information.

No, they’re energy. It is possible to devise a scheme by which the energy might be interpreted as information, but on its own? Just. Plain. Energy.

Mind? What is mind and how it could process information?

Wait… you’re trying to define ‘rationality’ and concluding that the soul is not the seat of rationality, and you don’t even have a definition of ‘mind’ with which to argue your case?

In any case, you’ve already used the term ‘mind’ as part of your definition of ‘reason’ to Lucretius, so you’ve already agreed that the ‘mind’ processes information:

Lucretius:

What is reason?

Bahman:

Reason: The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes. That is knowledge. The neurons inside our brain rewire when we learn a new things. No space, no brain, no knowledge.

Is the equation E=mc squared still true if Bob over there does not know it? Never mind I see this is being covered above.:hey_bud:

 

[LittleFlower378]

In heaven St.Thomas teaches that the soul will have its own space. Another words a soul cannot be combined into another soul. Not to mention a soul will be combined with a glorified body. I would think then a soul does take up space. In the book I am reading Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott one part reads: "The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body (De Fide)"

 

[Vico]

In heaven St.Thomas teaches that the soul will have its own space. Another words a soul cannot be combined into another soul. Not to mention a soul will be combined with a glorified body. I would think then a soul does take up space. In the book I am reading Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott one part reads: "The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body (De Fide)"

Form is the nature or essence of a thing.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Immaterial:

Not having matter or the properties of matter. Negatively it is the noncorporeal; positively the spiritual. What is immaterial has no extension in space, no size, shape, parts, or quantity, no mass or weight. It is nonmeasurable reality. Three kinds of immateriality are known to Christian thought:

• Some beings are partially without matter but essentially dependent on matter for their existence and operation, e.g., the power of sensation.
• Others are essentially spiritual and independent of matter for their existence but in this life depend on matter for their operation, e.g., the human soul in its activity of knowing and loving.
• Still others are totally immaterial because they are independent of matter for their existence and activity. Thus the angels, who are pure spirits, whose immateriality is a created gift, and God, who is immaterial by his essence.
  /INDENT]

 

[Bahman]

Post #15 you admit info can be in a different medium, if it can be transmitted as such then the only way you are not disagreeing with yourself is if you are essentially claiming a guaranteed tine limit on such a transfer mediums storage.

Then in relation to what I said I offered a possibility not a definitive. You say only ONE way for the nfo to be processed which is to deny alternate possibility. If there is no alternate possibility than “we” hunans or at least Bahman claims we have nothing new to discover. Therefore this info is the totality of truth and further research into the mysteries of the universe are futile, as all that can be known is known… No one can have a convo about possibility against such a stance.

I mean in human case the information can only be preserved in brain.

 

[Bahman]

Of course they are. One is particular, and one is universal.

I said “that different”. In both case you need neurons firing when you see something or recall a concept.

This is fallacious; it begs the question. What is at issue is whether the intellect is immaterial

Intellect is material since it requires neuron firing.

First, I assume you involve fields in there somewhere too, yes? Second, what is matter?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Matter is physical substance.

 

[Bahman]

Freely asserted, freely denied. Yet, I can see below that you’ve changed your definition, so let’s work with whether or not the new definition holds water…

I don’t recall that I have changed my definition.

OK – we can work with this new definition. It’s still deficient, though. Tell me – does the knowledge “E=mc[sup]2[/sup]” require a ‘brain’ (or even a person!) in order to be true?

No, concepts do not need brain to be true. But we need a brain to memorize, find and process them.

Was the equation false before the first brain came into existence?

No, because it describe what reality is.

If not, then you’re still barking up the wrong tree: knowledge is neither physical nor does it need a physical substrate.

I am not barking up the wrong tree. You need to explain how soul which is spiritual and occupy no space and it doesn’t have any form could do anything in principle.

However, perhaps you’re trying to say something different? Perhaps you’re simply asserting that for a person to know something, it requires the person to store that knowledge in a physical substrate?

Yes.

No, they’re energy. It is possible to devise a scheme by which the energy might be interpreted as information, but on its own? Just. Plain. Energy.

Photons are pack of information since they allow to have vision.

Wait… you’re trying to define ‘rationality’ and concluding that the soul is not the seat of rationality, and you don’t even have a definition of ‘mind’ with which to argue your case?

The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel.

In any case, you’ve already used the term ‘mind’ as part of your definition of ‘reason’ to Lucretius, so you’ve already agreed that the ‘mind’ processes information:

Mind is manifestation of neurons firing. All processes are done with neurons firing in the microscopic level.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t recall that I have changed my definition.

You really did.

First, you said that knowledge itself is physical. Then, you modified that to claim that knowledge requires a physical substrate.

It’s a rather subtle change, but a change nevertheless. The first assertion makes a claim about knowledge itself; the second only claims that information must necessarily take on physical representations. We have less problems with the second claim (although it’s still in error): all things that exist may be represented – however, these representations are generally (but not necessarily) physical. (After all, I can represent the idea of ‘tree’ in my rational mind … but that doesn’t mean that this idea has any physical manifestation.)

Moreover, representations may vary: we can represent “E=mc[sup]2[/sup]” by these letters in this post (physically, in ASCII encoding in computers); or, we can represent it in a spoken description (physically, in sound waves); or, if we agree on the representation scheme, we can represent it with mugs of chicken soup arranged cleverly (physically, in yummy yummy soup)… or, it can be an idea (non-physically). The representation isn’t the information itself.

No, concepts do not need brain to be true. But we need a brain to memorize, find and process them.

That’s a whole different claim than the one you’ve been making, then! It’s not the information that’s physical, as you’ve just demonstrated: the concepts themselves are true – and therefore, they exist! – even in the absence of brains.

On the other hand, now you’re talking about how humans think: when we’re alive in our bodies, we utilize our brains. That utilization includes a physical component. However, that does not mean that the information that we process is itself physical – rather, any representations we make in our brains are physical.

See the difference? Information (or, as you’ve been calling it, ‘knowledge’) is immaterial; representations (in our brains, or in mugs of chicken soup) can be physical.

I am not barking up the wrong tree. You need to explain how soul which is spiritual and occupy no space and it doesn’t have any form could do anything in principle.

That’s not what you’ve been discussing, however. If you wish to abandon these claims you’ve been making in this thread (which have been thoroughly debunked – including by you in your response to me!), then we can talk about mind-brain interactions as a new discussion.

Photons are pack of information since they allow to have vision.

No – and this is a critical distinction that you’ll need to make, if you’re going to understand the philosophy of the mind or metaphysics or even epistemology: physical entities aren’t ‘information’. Maybe they’re ‘data’, at best. But, they’re not information until some being uses them as such.

As an example, we might take your statement and modify it: “green peas are [a] pack of information since they allow to [represent knowledge]”. (That’s all vision is, really – data processed as information and represented ‘visually’ by our minds.) So, if I really wanted to, I could use a pile of green peas to spell out “E equals m c squared”. Would the peas themselves be ‘information’? Of course not. They’re just the physical representation that I’d have chosen to utilize as a representation of information that I already possess.

The same goes with photons: they’re just energy. They can be data. And they’re information only inasmuch as they’re used by entities – decoded and re-encoded representationally – to produce a processed ‘image’.

The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel.

Mind is manifestation of neurons firing. All processes are done with neurons firing in the microscopic level.

That’s quite the assertion! Can you prove it? Otherwise, it’s just an opinion…

 

[Bahman]

You really did.

Thanks for being precise.

First, you said that knowledge itself is physical. Then, you modified that to claim that knowledge requires a physical substrate.

The second claim doesn’t contradict with the first one. Knowledge simply emerges from wiring of neurons. So it is physical since it emerges.

It’s a rather subtle change, but a change nevertheless. The first assertion makes a claim about knowledge itself; the second only claims that information must necessarily take on physical representations. We have less problems with the second claim (although it’s still in error): all things that exist may be represented – however, these representations are generally (but not necessarily) physical. (After all, I can represent the idea of ‘tree’ in my rational mind … but that doesn’t mean that this idea has any physical manifestation.)

Do you agree that information does emerge from wiring inside our brain? Knowledge is structured information. Information is like a word and knowledge is like a sentence.

Moreover, representations may vary: we can represent “E=mc[sup]2[/sup]” by these letters in this post (physically, in ASCII encoding in computers); or, we can represent it in a spoken description (physically, in sound waves); or, if we agree on the representation scheme, we can represent it with mugs of chicken soup arranged cleverly (physically, in yummy yummy soup)… or, it can be an idea (non-physically). The representation isn’t the information itself.

That means that our brains function as represent free.

That’s a whole different claim than the one you’ve been making, then! It’s not the information that’s physical, as you’ve just demonstrated: the concepts themselves are true – and therefore, they exist! – even in the absence of brains.

Photons for example are smallest pack of information. Concepts exist in nature and they are physical, laws of physics for example.

On the other hand, now you’re talking about how humans think: when we’re alive in our bodies, we utilize our brains. That utilization includes a physical component. However, that does not mean that the information that we process is itself physical – rather, any representations we make in our brains are physical.

Information directly are stored in our brain through wiring of neurons. What is the point of representation?

See the difference? Information (or, as you’ve been calling it, ‘knowledge’) is immaterial; representations (in our brains, or in mugs of chicken soup) can be physical.

I don’t understand what is the use of representation when information can physically stored and processed in our brain.

That’s not what you’ve been discussing, however. If you wish to abandon these claims you’ve been making in this thread (which have been thoroughly debunked – including by you in your response to me!), then we can talk about mind-brain interactions as a new discussion.

Mind and brain don’t interact with each other. Mind is manifestation of brain functioning.

No – and this is a critical distinction that you’ll need to make, if you’re going to understand the philosophy of the mind or metaphysics or even epistemology: physical entities aren’t ‘information’. Maybe they’re ‘data’, at best. But, they’re not information until some being uses them as such.

I didn’t claim that physical beings are information. Information simply like force which allow two distinct beings interact or exchange information in more complex system.

As an example, we might take your statement and modify it: “green peas are [a] pack of information since they allow to [represent knowledge]”. (That’s all vision is, really – data processed as information and represented ‘visually’ by our minds.) So, if I really wanted to, I could use a pile of green peas to spell out “E equals m c squared”. Would the peas themselves be ‘information’? Of course not. They’re just the physical representation that I’d have chosen to utilize as a representation of information that I already possess.

The same goes with photons: they’re just energy. They can be data. And they’re information only inasmuch as they’re used by entities – decoded and re-encoded representationally – to produce a processed ‘image’.

I am afraid that your analogy doesn’t work.

That’s quite the assertion! Can you prove it? Otherwise, it’s just an opinion…

What you want me to prove?

 

[Gorgias]

The second claim doesn’t contradict with the first one. Knowledge simply emerges from wiring of neurons. So it is physical since it emerges.

Neurons don’t ‘create’ knowledge. They have something to do with physical storage of information, granted, but neurons don’t create it…

Do you agree that information does emerge from wiring inside our brain?

If you mean that knowledge ‘emerges’ (like magic) once information is stored there, then no.

Knowledge is structured information. Information is like a word and knowledge is like a sentence.

So, you’re proposing a hierarchy:

Data is raw, unstructured, unprocessed quanta of some ‘stuff’.
Information is processed data.
Knowledge is structured information.

Therefore:
Data doesn’t have to be physical. (After all, any mathematical theorem is ‘data’, as well as any number; and neither of these are physical.)
If information is merely data that someone or something has processed, then information doesn’t have to be physical, either.
Finally, the knowledge that one gleans from structuring information (that is not necessarily physical) is itself not necessarily physical.

An example: suppose I think about a right triangle with sides of length 3 and 4. It’s just the concept of a triangle, mind you, not a physical triangle. If I process this data, I might conclude that the hypotenuse has length 5. The ‘knowledge’ that I might gain is that a[sup]2[/sup] + b[sup]2[/sup] = c[sup]2[/sup]. That knowledge, too, is immaterial. So, your construct fails to work.

That means that our brains function as represent free.

I think you mean “representation free”, don’t you?

And, if so, then you’re sadly mistaken. Any information that is physical has been encoded – that is, in order to record it in any physical medium, it is necessary to encode it in a way that’s particular to the medium in which it’s stored! Therefore, the encoding in our brains has to do with neurons and electrical pulses. That, itself, is a representation!

Photons for example are smallest pack of information.

No, photons are energy. They can be used as data by something that processes them, and the result of the process is information. It’s a subtle – but critical! – distinction!

Concepts exist in nature and they are physical, laws of physics for example.

No, the laws of physics are not physical! The laws themselves are abstract descriptions of things and processes that are physical! Therefore, the concept exists conceptually – that is, immaterially – and the things that the concepts describe are the physical things!

Information directly are stored in our brain through wiring of neurons. What is the point of representation?

The point is that the information is encoded as a representation… unless you’re making the claim that the knowledge of a 3-4-5 right triangle is natively electrical information (and that just doesn’t hold up). Whatever is in our brain is clearly encoded – or else we’d already be able to decode the information in our brains! The mere fact that we cannot is proof that there’s an encoding in the brain!

I don’t understand what is the use of representation when information can physically stored and processed in our brain.

It’s stored and processed in encoded form.

Mind and brain don’t interact with each other. Mind is manifestation of brain functioning.

Can you prove that?

I am afraid that your analogy doesn’t work.

Please do me the favor of explaining why you believe it doesn’t work.

What you want me to prove?

That ‘mind’ is nothing more than ‘neurons firing’. Since this is a physical process, then surely you have an empirical basis for making this claim, don’t you?

 

[Lucretius]

I said “that different”. In both case you need neurons firing when you see something or recall a concept.

I acknowledge it. Man needs phantasms to conceive.

Intellect is material since it requires neuron firing.

Non sequitur: Man needs phantasms to conceive, but it doesn’t follow that concepts are then material, but simply that man pulls concepts out of his precepts, which I recognize are bound to material.

Matter is physical substance.

Giggle So, physical is everything related to matter and forces., yet matter is physical substance. Hmmmmmmm, what a perfect circle

Christi pax,

Lucretius