First Cause is sentient

Why He needs?

I don’t know what you mean by consciousness. Sure, the brain creates the body of our sensory experience, and it is true that our cognitive capacity involves physical processes. But to suggest that what ultimately receives the experience and responds with intentionality to it’s experience is only reducible to blind physical activity alone - as such that the two are identical in nature - is a materialistic assertion and is not self evident either to science or philosophy. It is merely a philosophical extrapolation that is begging the question rather than actually proving a logical consistency in the assertion.

Accept that there is no logical possibility of it being true, since an act of rational intention is the very antithesis of a physical object blindly moving to an end naturally as a result of blind deterministic or random forces.

If you say the word shoe because it was determined by the firing of synapses alone, then the effect isn’t really because of a rational intent. It is only because of blind physical activity resulting from processes that began 13.8 billion years ago.

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.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit