Is there any mind?


But this is merely an analogous representation of pain. Its picking up the activity of nerve endings. Its not actually being effected by pain itself.

The point is we have experiences that are not physically measurable. They are not quantitative. They have no mass. It is not made of matter. Yet it exists in our experience.

Is there an atom that is pain? Of course not, that is ridiculous. A strict materialism cannot account for these things.


That is like asking whether there is an atom which reproduces itself by mating with another atom.


No its not.The point i’m trying to make is that if only physical things exist and If the experience we call pain was purely physical in nature then surely pain would have an atomic structure. Not everything that we experience is physical. If only physical things exist then how does one explain such experiences?


Atoms are not complex living biological systems.


So? What difference does that make? Is pain a complex living biological system?


Pain is a product of a complex living biological system.


Seventh step:

Someone will say: Sensation is an emergent property of matter when it is organized as a nervous system. What can it mean? Sensations might be emergent in the sense that what did not exist before the apparition of nervous systems, comes into existence with them; but saying that they are a property of certain organized matter is not rigorous: As I have said before, a property of a material object is either an aspect of its organization (or structure) or one of its interaction modes; however, sensation is clearly none of these.

But sensation exists only in association with a nervous system!

It is known that if a part of the nervous paths of a living being is altered or destroyed, sensation may disappear. Also, if one of the chemical substances which participates in the interaction chains of the actuating nervous system is inhibited by a foreign reagent, sensation will be transformed or inhibited as well. Finally, if the material thing which is interacting with our body is withdrawn, sensation will fade out and eventually it will disappear. So, we can establish a gross correlation between sensation and the interactions of these material things; but such correlation cannot be intended to mean that sensation is a physical property of any of those material things. It is just a coexistence kind of correlation.

You might be acquainted with that experiment in which a bucket is filled with hot water and another with cold water. Then you immerse one of your hands into the hot water and the other into the cold one and keep them there for a while. Afterwards, both volumes of liquid are mixed in a bigger container and you immerse your hands into the resulting mixture which is now warm. You have the sensation of hotness in one of your hands and of coldness in the other. So, what is the object of your apparently conflicting sensations? Obviously it is not a property of the warm water. At any rate it would have to do with the energy transfer between your hands and the warm water: while one of your hands is releasing energy, the other is absorbing it. That would dissolve the apparent conflict; but then the object of your sensations of hotness and coldness would be an interaction between the warm liquid and your hands. However, that is not the only interaction which is taking place. I have said already that there is a complex set. And I have mentioned as well that if the series is broken at one point the sensation may disappear. So, it would seem that the object of your sensation is the whole series of interactions. If it is incomplete for any possible circumstance, there will be no object of your sensation, and therefore no sensation. And that would explain why sensation exists only in association with a well conformed nervous system interacting with an external material entity.


In all of Creation ONLY humanity emulates Our GOD:

God has a mind, therefore humanity has a mind,


You mean, “when pain is provoked”. I mentioned in a previous post that those devices detect electrical phenomena. But electrical phenomena are not “pain”.


The point is: Are sensitive living beings well explained by means of a reductionist materialistic language. I believe the answer is “No”, and this is what I am trying to justify.


We understand reality through correlation between things. There will be no base for us to agree on reality if we question this main principle. Think of causality. Why do we believe that it exists? Because there is a correlation between motion of things.

Moreover, you need to elaborate that what is the use of brain if we experience, decide understand and think with our minds.


Eighth step

What if we take into account that the amount of atoms in a sensitive living being is enormous? They form cells, and these, in great amounts too, form tissues; and these, organs; and these, a living organism. What if we take into account that the amount of cells in our nervous system is incredibly large? May a large number of nervous cells display interaction modes that are not observed in individual cells? May sensation be explained resorting to the potentiality of large numbers?

For new interaction modes to appear when several individual entities become together, those entities must have appropriate interaction modes themselves:

One or some of them in the group interact with their environment, and by doing so they suffer a modification “A”, according to their individual “nature”. The other entities which are close to them react to such modification in a determined fashion and acquire another modification “B” themselves (always according to their “nature”). Something similar happens now to their neighbors, and this way an interaction chain develops. It may happen as well that the interaction chain forms a loop, as the first entities in the chain -surrounded now by modified entities-, change their reaction mode “A” to “ A’ ”. If this kind of orchestrated interactions as a whole produces a change in the surroundings of the group, then this is what we call an “emergent interaction mode” of the group, and we begin to see the group as a system.

Evidently the emergent interaction mode is observable in its effects (otherwise it could not be called an “interaction mode”), and it might be observable too in its development as an orchestrated symphony of individual interactions. The new interaction mode is the result of a dynamic structure that has taken form. But the associated sensation, if any, cannot be observed in any way; therefore, it is not an “emergent interaction mode” itself.

Nevertheless, if the emergent interaction mode is the object of sensation, it could be said that sensation has been explained meaning that its object has been explained. But nothing more than this.


I do not question causality, and as for correlation I distinguish other types besides cause-effect.

I have not talked yet about understanding nor decisions, but only about sensation, which is a kind of experience. You can read again my last posts and perhaps you could make the inference that in my opinion our body is the object of our sensations.


Yes, it seems that emergent property just appear when the number of constitutes is large enough. No need to say that I don’t understand emergent property. Mark A. Bedau said (

I understand what you are trying to say but I don’t think that is a correct way to describe an emergent phenomena. Emergent phenomena in some simple system, like superconductor, is related to collective and coherent motion of electrons in the system.

It is strange to me that you think of consciousness as an emergent property. I think that should be a property of soul in your system of belief.


Why don’t you question causality? We accept it as a fact only by observing the motion in things.

Ok. I read that part and discuss it.


Electrical conductivity (and supervonductivity) is the property of a very complex material system, such like a metal. Nothing simple in it.

If you read my posts again and conclude that for me conciousness is not an emergent property of matter, then your reading will be better this time.


What else do you think is needed to accept causality?


You have problems because you want to ascertain/measure everything with a construct/device/vehicle of science… it can’t be done!

How do you determine why some people are rejected or embraced just on sight?

How do you determine how/where love/hate/anger/disgust/distrust/trust/happiness/loneliness/greed/generosity… (the list goes on and on and on…) takes place, is generated, is nurtured, is quenched, is naturally occurring, is counter socially learned/taught rules…?

I remember watching a portion of an episode from Jerry Springer’s show–it dealt with racism; he had whites and blacks on the set spewing their hatred of one another while their children, unbeknown to them were playfully engaged with each other… instead of following their parental overlords’ hatred, these children were following their own mindset: ‘see a child, engage a child.’

This is not mere experience.

Maran atha!



We cannot of course directly observe pain. That is only the person who is in pain that is directly, first person, observes/experience pain. We can however measure pain if we knew the relation of pain with specific part of brain activity.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. What do you mean with object of sensation? Could you please elaborate?


I meant that we realize causality through the correlation in motion of things. The correlation is the key thing here. Why we cannot apply the same principle to correlation between brain activity and consciousness saying that the brain activity create consciousness?

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