There is a static pattern of electromagnetic field in a stone too. How can you prove that a stone doesn’t have a static consciousness? If you claim that the pattern is important then how about putting effort in science to design and build conscious beings? If only pattern important then we can in principle create it.
You are begging the question here. You are assuming that because there is a unity between the brain and the mind, that therefore the two are the same nature. But it does not follow that this is a logically consistent conclusion based only on the fact that it appears that way on the surface. It’s just a shallow inference that is in error because it ultimately leads to a contradiction.
You don’t seem too interested in using logic since you have not addressed my argument. So lets agree to disagree.
I can’t locate the meaning of the word justice in the symbols used to represent it, and it doesn’t follow rationally that the symbolic language used to represent justice are identical in nature to justice itself, even if the meaning is represented by the word.
Just because we express ourselves physically doesn’t mean that we are only physical in nature.
I didn’t say conscious pattern experienced by a stone is similar to us.
Complex pattern of consciousness is the result of complex pattern of physical activity. Simple pattern of consciousness is the result of simple pattern of physical activity.
If pattern matters then in principle is feasible to create consciousness if one is advance enough. What is your proof that conscious experience is the result of existence of specific pattern? How could you disprove that simple pattern can also lead to simple pattern of experience?
If you want to believe that the mind is completely material in nature then that is up to you. But you have failed to demonstrate that your position is logically consistent and you haven’t addressed my argument, which means we are just going around in circles for no reason.
Thanks for the discussion.
No, consciousness is simple. Intellectual consciousness is complex.
I’m afraid you misunderstood the analogy. It is not the machines that give the patient life. Whatever powers the machines, fuel or electricity, does not matter in determining if the patient is alive or dead.
To improve upon your car analogy: Your car may at times be out of fuel or have a dead battery but your car will never work if it’s animating principle is not present. Guess what. You are that animating principle. What “left” your car was you.
I can leave my car and it will still run. I can start other cars. Someone else can start and use mine. We can give it ‘life’ when we start it but we are not what makes it run or helps it continue to run. It doesn’t need us from that point. We can ‘kill’ it by turning it off. But it doesn’t die. And we don’t need to turn it off for it to stop working. I can keep it fed and watered but it just wears out and stops. I am not involved in that process.
Nothing leaves me when I die. I just run down and stop working. I no longer fulfill the requirements of life. As an anology for what you call the soul, it leaves a lot to be desired.
But you have a great argument for vitalism. We should discuss phlogiston next.
Because we’re more intelligent and our brains do more on this.
Also, just for clarification if there’s any confusion, STT isn’t a Thomist.
It is your analogy, not mine. I agree it leaves a lot to be desired as all analogies leave something out. However, your extension seems a good start to analogize the body’s/car’s resurrection principle.
No, of course it’s related. But material in itself is incapable of moving from singulars to contemplation of abstract universals.
As an indication that there is no vitalism associated with cars or people. They work. Then they run down. And then they stop working. This ‘essence of life’ argument was dead in the water before the 20th century got going.
Why not simply admit to it being a religious and faith based view? I have no argument with that.
You need to catch up on your reading. The advances in biology require a re-think on the essence of life.
From the paper’s conclusions:
Regarding its implementation in nature, life seems to be a miracle, owing to three magical chemical mechanisms (to realize its two aspects): the replication of DNA/RNA-like polymers by residue-pairing, the sequence-dependent folding of RNA/protein-like polymers engendering special functions, and the assembly of phospholipid-like amphiphiles forming vesicles.
Doubling down on vitalism? Good grief.
You do know that the article is not concerned with anything whatsoever that you have been proposing? But is concerned with the definition of life as it relates to terms defining individual organisms versus Dawinian terminology. From a reviewer in the same piece:
‘This philosophical piece by Wentao Ma is a discussion of the definition of life. Ma covers well-trodden territory, arguing primarily for a Darwinian definition of life.’
You need to go back to the faith based concession. Finding an obscure few paragraphs containing the word ‘miracle’ and suggesting that it somehow confirms your position is a fail I’m afraid.
You need to read the entire paper as your citation certainly shows you have not. Searching on “Darwin” and “copy/pasting” the first hit just will not do.
And, as the posts show, it was you who attempted to divert the discussion to “essence of life” as I guess you realized that your car metaphor just wasn’t getting any traction or at least not taking you to where you wanted to go.
Unlike your faith based position in Dawkins, et al., I stand with the pagan Aristotle. Have you heard of him? I think we’re done here.
That might be your problem when discussing modern biology and science. You get your info from Greek philosophers from 300BC.
You shoulda stuck with the faith based explanation.
This is the “Philosophy Forum” and since Aristotle is right on the soul it doesn’t matter when the truth came to him. You should study the man’s work. His work has been examined and taught for centuries especially since 1200 AD.
It appears only one of us falls back on faith to support their position and that, again, is you.
You should stick to it. You get found out discussing science.
And I thought you were gone? If you need the last word, be my guest.
Actually, that is not quite correct. The idea of a simple subsistent soul/mind is one of the greatest ideas ever suggested. That is true because a thing must be simple if it has free will, otherwise, it is made of parts which this brings this question that which part is really free, all of them, one? The problem with this world view is that simple subsistent thing cannot be created (I have an argument for that). The worst idea ever is materialistic view on this subject which suggests that blind matter has the capacity to create consciousness and can decide. This is what you call it a derivative reality. You suggest that matter is a created thing and this created thing can create another reality in which there is a created entity there, so-called self, which self has the ability to decide and think. Other Christian suggest that the soul that is created and is simple has the ability to decide and think and needs a body to perceive and move around. So you are basically saying the same thing with the exception that what you call the self is created out of the material activity and in their case it is created by God. Their mistake is that they assign intellect which is a complex faculty to the soul. They however rightfully assign the ability to decide to soul since the soul is simple. What materialist gets correct is that they assign intellect to the brain but their mistake is that the brain has parts and cannot possibly decide unless one argues that the brain can create an entity so-called self which self can decide. Regardless, what is missing from both points of view is that they take for granted that something which is created can decide and think.