L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I am using the kind of reasoning that Aristotle used when writing On the Soul, Sense and the Sensible, and Memory and Reminiscience. So take your pickThe difference isn’t about science. A priori means independent of experience - “no bachelor is married” is always true everywhere, by definition. Whereas a posteriori depends on experience - “I see the Sun set every day” would not be true if you lived above the Arctic Circle. All laws of nature must be a posteriori, since they rely on reasoning based on objective evidence of what is always experienced in our world, and may not be true in other possible worlds.

Aristotle regarded it as a part of the natural order, so did Aquinas. I know it is hard on modern ears. Every thing God created is a part of the natural order - even angels.Whereas you’re trying to invent a new category of laws of nature which is not based on objective evidence, which is illogical. And that wouldn’t be allowed in departments of philosophy.
Just taking after Aristotle, who regraded philosophical truth as the summit of man’s search for truth. But since his time, that has been superceded by Revelation.Hang on. Not only have you invented a new kind of law of nature, and a new type of reasoning you call philosophical reasoning, but now a new type of truth you call philosophical truth, as if philosophical truth can contradict the usual kind of truth, and to top it off you say that memory sticks block this philosophical truth from the modern mind.
Not only mine but Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ as well. The Cheshire Cat is a figure of fantasy, so is Hal. Hal had to be programed, his designer supplied him with ideas and concepts and language. But ideas, thoughts, etc are immaterial and an immaterial effects reqire an immaterial cause, the human soul.Again, that’s your personal belief. The communication taking place on these forums proves there is communication going on. It doesn’t even prove that the communication is taking place between humans, you could be the Cheshire Cat or a HAL 9000 for all I know.
It carries out the directions of the spiritual, rational soul. Man is a unified composit ot body and soul. Until the Refermation this was acknowledged by all believers. Even the early Reformers believed that.In modern terminology, we have a central nervous system.
You could raise the same objection for all living bings, even the non-intellectual. Some things are necessarily hidden. Aristotle and Aquinas would say that they do what they do naturally, by the dictates of their natures.I’d ask for the schematics showing how this immaterial spiritual substance interfaces with the material brain, but somehow doubt there’s any funding for such research. Well, there you go, the modren mind, blocked as you say from philosophical truth, only gets funding to research the brain, the mere interface to the soul, and nada, zilch, zippo for researching immaterial spiritual substances. This modernity is madness I tells you, madness!
Linus2nd