What is "being human"?

[Nita]

The activity is the thought - it’s basically software running on hardware.

Two things in your analogy: hardware and software. Hardware=material Software=immaterial

Changes to the activity of the brain result in changes to thoughts and experience - hallucinogenic drugs, damage to nerves, etc.

Agreed. It’s the interelationship I referred to. It’s also possible for the activity of the soul to affect the physical.

For a healing to be a miracle, though, it has to violate the laws of nature.

Of course, if it doesn’t do that it isn’t a miracle. At least not in the Catholic Church.

A better candidate for a miracle might be something that simply doesn’t happen, ever - the regeneration of a limb, for example.

It’s happened.

Well, I’m sure you’ll agree that existence is primary, while consciousness secondary

Well, when I’m “dead”, all the material of my body present at the time of death, is still going to exist afterwards, but my consciousness won’t be present in it. From the perspective of the “material only” mentality, I’d consider consciousness primary in importance, and primary in being human. (Sorry couldn’t resist. I’m sure that is not what you were referring to.)

• that is, reality is how it is and is unaffected by how we think it is.

I absolutely believe in objective truth.

If your free will is an irreducible substance that is really and wholly free, then no matter how much I argue against it, your free will will remain the same. If, however, your free will is just an illusion of sorts created from an advanced network in the forward area of your skull, then that cannot be changed by your belief

.
My free will is not a substance. My soul is the immaterial “substance” (not proper terminology I’m sure). Free will is a power of my soul. (You know, kind of like the ability to lift objects is a power of your physical body. Darn, I know there are better analogies. )

I meant that common sense is very useful, but it cannot reveal to us all of the universe’s secrets. Common sense would not reveal General Relativity, or quantum mechanics, for example.

Again I agree about common sense. But there is a real problem when “common sense” is discarded. BTW, in the philosophy I’ve read, it’s a real “sense”; the “sense” that takes in all the (name removed by moderator)ut; analyzes and synthesizes and makes a conclusion.

Brain processing generally occurs right before and during actions, though. To move a cup, the brain processes what it needs to do, and sends signals to the appropriate muscles to contract at certain times. Removal of or damage to the parts of the brain associated with moving the arms/hands results in an inability to do just that. The same applies for damage to/removal of any other brain parts and their associated functions.

Of course. But you know what, even if there is physical damage that prevents movement of the arms/hands doesn’t mean that one also becomes unable to desire using them, deciding to try and move them, etc. It just means they won’t be physically successful in carrying out what they think about doing and will to do.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Two things in your analogy: hardware and software. Hardware=material Software=immaterial

Yes, and the software is destroyed if the hardware is destroyed. The software is composed only of hardware.

Nita:

They’ve happened.

In a well-documented setting? Do you have a link to a report on it?

Nita:

Well, when I’m “dead”, all the material present at the time of my body is still going to exist, but my consciousness won’t be present in it. From the perspective of the material only mentality, I’d consider consciousness primary to be primary in importance, and primary in being human. (Sorry couldn’t resist. I’m sure that is not what you were referring to.)

Ah, no, I just meant that reality is absolute and that it cannot be negated by ignoring it.
.

Nita:

My free will is not a substance. My soul is the immaterial “substance” (not proper terminology I’m sure). Free will is a power of my soul. (You know, kind of like the ability to lift objects is a power of your physical body. Darn, I know there are better analogies. )

Well, ok. “If free will is the result of…” is probably a better way to put it.

Nita:

Again I agree about common sense. But there is a real problem when “common sense” is discarded. BTW, in the philosophy I’ve read, it’s a real “sense”; the “sense” that takes in all the (name removed by moderator)ut; analyzes and synthesizes and makes a conclusion.

The best use of common sense, I think, is to appreciate its limits.

Out of curiosity, who’s philosophy was that?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Is the soul then a real, tangible thing, or is it more of an abstract?

Well, living matter is reducible to its basic chemical/physical interactions. There is no “gap” that a soul fills in. Which part of living matter holds this soul?

That is - more or less - what I was wondering about ​

One of the problems is, how does a spirit “hold together” an entity which is material ? And, are interactions properties of entities, or, entities-in- themselves ? Does matter even exist ? If the body is not a real entity, but a collection of interactions, can it accurately be described as acting or acted upon ?

 

[Nita]

Out of curiosity, who’s philosophy was that?

Aristotle and the Scholastics (Aquinas).
answers.com/topic/sensus-communis

 

[Nita]

Does matter even exist ?

Had to laugh when I read this question. It reminded me of something I had heard on a tape by a professor of metaphysics talking about college students who are agnostic or atheist as a result of modern philosophies. He said (paraphrased): “We don’t set out right away to teach them that God exists. First we have to convince them that they exist!”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Had to laugh when I read this question. It reminded me of something I had heard on a tape by a professor of metaphysics talking about college students who are agnostic or atheist as a result of modern philosophies. He said (paraphrased): “We don’t set out right away to teach them that God exists. First we have to convince them that they exist!”

It was asked in all seriousness - the more I think about it, the less obvious the anwer is. I’m glad you you got a laugh out of it, though ​

 

[RobbyS]

That is - more or less - what I was wondering about ​

One of the problems is, how does a spirit “hold together” an entity which is material ? And, are interactions properties of entities, or, entities-in- themselves ? Does matter even exist ? If the body is not a real entity, but a collection of interactions, can it accurately be described as acting or acted upon ?

It is immaterial if it does not consist of matter. Right. But what is matter? The scholastics spoke of it as that which is potential, and given our knowledge of atomic theory, matter in the sense that it was understood in the 19th Century, is certainly outdated, fof it is anything but " solid." except when it is organized. What is it that organizes it? When we look at a living being, say a man, the old cliche comes to mind, that we are, by mass, 98% water. When we die, our body more or less evaporates. It becomes water vapor and various gases, leaving behind a small residue of “dust.” So what we look at is really a form that “contains” all of this. But “we” are the same thing that we observe. What is it that is observing? What does it mean “to observe?”