We are rational because of our brains, not our souls

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
You are equating knowledge with physical structure. However, knowledge can not be physical structure. Since no physical material is knowledge. Even something like a hard drive which stores information on it doesn’t itself have knowledge. It takes a mind to interpret the symbols stored on it. Otherwise, it is meaningless ones and zeros. Without a human mind to interpret the images on a computer screen the images are meaningless.

So really here you are begging the question by assuming knowledge equates to physical structure. You have to first establish that. Otherwise your argument is circular.
 
Neurons don’t ‘create’ knowledge. They have something to do with physical storage of information, granted, but neurons don’t create it…
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/separator.gif
We are several states of matter depending on how matter is arranged. One of this state is state of mind.
If you mean that knowledge ‘emerges’ (like magic) once information is stored there, then no.
There is no magic there. It is power of mind that enable us to experience thing.
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.
Data is physical. Data is simply information which is stored in wiring inside our brain etc.
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.
You mind is manifestation of neuron firing.
I think you mean “representation free”, don’t you?
Yes. Representation is only a form of wiring.
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!
I don’t understand you. Photon are pack of energy that is how we receive them and have prower of vision.
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!
You mean that laws of physics are not natural concepts?
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!
That could be true.
It’s stored and processed in encoded form. 😉
That could be true. I really don’t know.
Can you prove that?
Yes. Mind/consciousness is manifestation if process in the brain. There is noway that a physical thing can interact with unphysical otherwise we could experience mind as a separate entity.
Please do me the favor of explaining why you believe it doesn’t work. 😉
Photon are pack of energy which carry very specific information, its energy or frequency.
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?
Shoot a person in head and we will see.
 
I acknowledge it. Man needs phantasms to conceive.
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.
We have two things in our disposal: 1) Neuron, 2) Neuron firing. While neurons are for storing information, including concepts, their firing are for processing information.
Giggle So, physical is everything related to matter and forces., yet matter is physical substance. Hmmmmmmm, what a perfect circle 😃

Christi pax,

Lucretius
We have two physical objects A and B so called physical substance. They interact with each other so called force. physics is the study how A and B interact and move.
 
Shoot a person in head and we will see
Well, that’s true, strictly because head-shot human beings normally die, and dead bodies are mindless. All that proves is that one needs life to have a mind.

After all, people also die if their necks are broken, or the skin is pulled from the body; yet no-one argues that the mind resides in the neck or in the skin.

ICXC NIKA
 
You are equating knowledge with physical structure. However, knowledge can not be physical structure. Since no physical material is knowledge. Even something like a hard drive which stores information on it doesn’t itself have knowledge. It takes a mind to interpret the symbols stored on it. Otherwise, it is meaningless ones and zeros. Without a human mind to interpret the images on a computer screen the images are meaningless.

So really here you are begging the question by assuming knowledge equates to physical structure. You have to first establish that. Otherwise your argument is circular.
I am not equating knowledge with physical structure. Physical structure is what stores information and we can recall a concept by firing a specific set of neurons neuron .
 
We have two things in our disposal: 1) Neuron, 2) Neuron firing. While neurons are for storing information, including concepts, their firing are for processing information.
Neurologists have never been able to indicate that a brain is contemplating concepts. Precepts, maybe, but not concepts. You are confusing the two: concepts aren’t vague and generalized precepts, because even this kind of precept is particular. Concepts, on the other hand, are universal.
We have two physical objects A and B so called physical substance. They interact with each other so called force. physics is the study how A and B interact and move.
That still doesn’t explain what physical is.

What I wanted to point out is:
  1. materialists usually never give a coherent definition of matter, and
  2. physicality is inherently particular.
Because of (2), concepts, which are universal, must necessarily be immaterial.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Well, that’s true, strictly because head-shot human beings normally die, and dead bodies are mindless. All that proves is that one needs life to have a mind.

After all, people also die if their necks are broken, or the skin is pulled from the body; yet no-one argues that the mind resides in the neck or in the skin.

ICXC NIKA
We are alive until our brains are not shut down completely.
 
Neurologists have never been able to indicate that a brain is contemplating concepts.
Are you an expert in the filled. Could you cite something?
Precepts, maybe, but not concepts. You are confusing the two: concepts aren’t vague and generalized precepts, because even this kind of precept is particular. Concepts, on the other hand, are universal.
Two concept, perception and knowledge, are similar because they both need neurons firing to activate them.
That still doesn’t explain what physical is.
Physical: Everything that we can experience them either directly through our senses or indirectly using an apparatus.
What I wanted to point out is:
  1. materialists usually never give a coherent definition of matter, and
  2. physicality is inherently particular.
Because of (2), concepts, which are universal, must necessarily be immaterial.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
A particular thing simply means that we need different neurons wiring and a universal thing we need a unique wiring.
 
Does the equation E=mc squared take up space?
Technically, yes. The understanding and memory of the equation take up space through synapses in our brains, just as every thought does.
 
I just breeze through, pardon if I make an incorrect understanding.

Souls approve our concept of *what God is.

Brains approve that our systematic understanding of God is real.
 
Two concept, perception and knowledge, are similar because they both need neurons firing to activate them.
Yes, but because one is material and the other isn’t, precepts require matter per se, while concepts require matter per accidens.
Physical: Everything that we can experience them either directly through our senses or indirectly using an apparatus.
That’s better (even though it doesn’t tell me what physical is per se). If you’ve noticed, all objects of sensory experience are particular things, yet we also see the universal behind the things. So, when I see my cat Peanut, I also see cat.

Now, in order for me to truly see the universal, one aspect of my mind must correspond to the universal in some way. But universals are immaterial! So, at least a part of my mind must be immaterial, the part that see universals, in order to actually be able to see them.
A particular thing simply means that we need different neurons wiring and a universal thing we need a unique wiring.
Maybe, but universals are obviously not material, as basically everyone has been saying. What matter is two made of? Where is it? What does it look like? How does it feel like when I touch it? Can I taste it?

As you can see, all these questions are absurd. If we use your definition of material above, then universal cannot be made of matter, because they are not sensed directly by material sensory organs.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Technically, yes. The understanding and memory of the equation take up space through synapses in our brains, just as every thought does.
That’s not the equation, though: that’s the physical representation of an individual’s understanding of the equation. The two are distinct. You’re not dealing with ‘equation’, but rather, ‘understanding’, and ‘encoded representation of understanding’ at that!

The point that is being made here, in contrast to Bahman’s assertions, is that there’s a difference between “knowledge” and “data”, as well as a difference between “data” and one particular physical instance of the data, and also, between “data” and an (encoded) representation of the data. All of these are distinct concepts – and attempting to conflate one or more of these pairs leads to faulty understandings of what’s in play here…
 
Yes, but because one is material and the other isn’t, precepts require matter per se, while concepts require matter per accidens.
Could you elaborate on what do you mean with “matter per see” and "matter per accident?
That’s better (even though it doesn’t tell me what physical is per se). If you’ve noticed, all objects of sensory experience are particular things, yet we also see the universal behind the things. So, when I see my cat Peanut, I also see cat.
I am sure that anything that we experienced is related to coherent firing of neurons. Experience however has at least two coherent layers, the first one related to perception and second is about abstraction, for example category, classes, mathematics etc.
Now, in order for me to truly see the universal, one aspect of my mind must correspond to the universal in some way. But universals are immaterial! So, at least a part of my mind must be immaterial, the part that see universals, in order to actually be able to see them.
Universal is simply a state of mind which allows us to think and understand abstractly. Of course they are physical otherwise we couldn’t talk about abstract things using language.
 
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.
You’re right. Mostly. I’m a little confused on how knowledge occupies space though.

BTW, the soul is intrinsically immaterial, so it never occupies physical space.
 
Well, that’s true, strictly because head-shot human beings normally die, and dead bodies are mindless. All that proves is that one needs life to have a mind.
One needs mind in order to have life.
After all, people also die if their necks are broken, or the skin is pulled from the body; yet no-one argues that the mind resides in the neck or in the skin.

ICXC NIKA
You need to shut down brain to have a dead person.
 
You’re right. Mostly. I’m a little confused on how knowledge occupies space though.

BTW, the soul is intrinsically immaterial, so it never occupies physical space.
Per Aristotle, cited by Aquinas, the active intellect is something in the soul, and which causes the phantasms received from the senses to be intelligible by a process of abstraction. The universal cause, from which the human soul derives a particular power is the Word. Intellect and sense are different.
Psalm 4:7, “The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us.”
John 1:9, “He was the true light that enlighteneth every man coming into this world.”

When the body dies, the soul remains without the memories that were in the brain, but with the acquired wisdom. (Per St. Thomas Aquinas.)
 
Could you elaborate on what do you mean with “matter per see” and "matter per accident?
Matter per se refers to the essence of matter, while matter per accidens refers something about matter that is not essential. For example, the common cold can be caused by infected air, but that is only a per accidens cause; the per se cause is a rhinovirus.
I am sure that anything that we experienced is related to coherent firing of neurons. Experience however has at least two coherent layers, the first one related to perception and second is about abstraction, for example category, classes, mathematics etc.
I basically agree.
Universal is simply a state of mind which allows us to think and understand abstractly.
I guess (?) that’s correct? I would prefer the statement be that universals are abstractions from concrete reality, and of course correspond to that reality.
Of course they are physical otherwise we couldn’t talk about abstract things using language.
I think you confusing syntax with semantics, the sound is a symbol of an idea. The sound doesn’t inherently possess the idea.

Like I said before, concepts can’t be physical, because physical things are essentially particular, and concepts are inherently universal.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top