How to Engage in Argumentum ad Gannitum

_{Barry Arrington

November 13, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Today I coin a new Latin phrase in honor of our frequent interlocutor daveS. Here it is: Argumentum ad Gannitum – the argument from whining. (“Gannitum” being Latin for “whining”).

The argument from whining takes this form:

Person A makes an argument supported by logic and evidence that he believes compels a conclusion.

Person B, instead of making a counter argument based on logic and evidence, says something like “Admit that you may be wrong” or “It’s not my job to show you how you are wrong.”

Here is an example from a recent combox discussion with daveS:

Barry makes the following argument:

Either there is a God or there is not. If there is a God, meaning is possible. If there is no God, meaning is not possible. Let us, therefore, assume for the sake of argument that an atheist such as yourself is correct. There is no God. Therefore, meaning is not possible.

daveS responds:

Barry, Is it possible that you are wrong?

No, really, that is his response. Check it out here.

Uh, yeah dave, it is certainly possible that I am wrong. But no one will ever know that I am wrong if all you do is whine about my argument instead of attempt to rebut it.

In fairness, dave later made a run at trying to show meaning in a meaningless universe. It amounted to “I know there is no meaning, but I feel like there is, so there is.”

Comments

SB,
Your rhetorical nonsense never ends. Why would the abstract concept of truth have dimensions?
I notice that you are using all the rhetoric while I am simply asking questions. We are not discussing abstract truths. We are discussing your claim that thoughts are made of matter and the ridiculous consequence of that belief, such that thoughts have weight, size, and are extended in space. Why did you change the subject? Also, you totally ignored my challenge: Here it is again: Based on your definition of a thoughts as "firing neurons, what is your response to the following. Remember, I am using your definitions to make my points, which are: *A material thought cannot produce an immaterial effect (concept) because matter, the cause, does not have non-matter to give. A cause cannot give what it does not have. Thus, a material thought cannot produce an immaterial concept. *A material thought, which is always changing by virtue of being matter in motion, cannot produce an unchanging concept. *A material thought made of of molecules in motion cannot produce an entity that contains no molecules. (non-matter). Although this would seem obvious to anyone and everyone, you seem to disagree. Why? Notice that I have no fear of answering your question:
If a person can remember being alive after they’ve died then why do people with Alzheimer’s forget who they are?
A diseased mind is one that has been seriously compromised by a compromised brain. Insofar as the brain does not do its job, the mind will be affected. However, this condition, this vulnerability, is a function of a mind that requires a brain to operate. That is because a human being is a single unit, a composite of body and soul, (matter and spirit), meaning that the mind and brain are one unit, though the former is an immaterial faculty for knowing, (forming concepts), and the latter is a material organ that processes, among other things, sensory elements, such as images, memory etc. However, the human mind is not, by any means, totally dependent on the brain since it also has the power to affect the brain. In this sense, the mind/body phenomenon is a bi-causal process whereby the faculty can affect the organ and vice versa. After death, the mind can call on those same powers, which are free from bodily encumbrances, The disembodied soul can think and will, perhaps even more freely than one that was tied to a body because no disease process can limit its application and no bodily appetites or passions can distract it by demanding to be fed or controlled. It will understand reality more profoundly than ever before. So a disembodied soul can remember having been alive because it has the intellectual power to do so and diseased mind is limited in that capacity– but not forever. The immaterial soul, unlike the body, does not have parts, so it cannot disintegrate, decay, or die. It will live forever. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So please gird up your loins and answer my questions.
You’re in the rather odd position of claiming that the designer lacks such capability or is prevented from doing so by flimsy logic that falls apart under scrutiny.
Another sterling example of how you shamelessly put words in my mouth and make up things in a rhetorical frenzy, while saying that I am using rhetoric. Just so readers will know, I do not believe any such thing nor have I said anything like that. Some people would call this lying, but its it Thanksgiving, so I will be generous.StephenB_{November 22, 2018
November
11
Nov
22
22
2018
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

SB, Does your hard drive weigh more when it's got more files on it? The brain is not a hard drive but it's obvious that a medium which contains material representations of abstractions doesn't necessarily need to change dimensions or weight depending on what it stores.
What are the physical dimensions of truth?
Your rhetorical nonsense never ends. Why would the abstract concept of truth have dimensions? We're talking about thoughts, which are representations of abstractions. Representations of abstractions can and do exist materially. I don't know why you're digging up what we've been over and pretending it's new. Perhaps you're hoping that people will only read the last post. Whatever makes you happy.
Does the brain become more crowded with each new piece of acquired wisdom? How many thoughts can the brain contain until the skull runs out of room? Does truth contain more molecules than opinions?
I was wondering how long it would take the argument from ignorance to come out. Congratulations on waiting this long. This amounts to saying that the brain can't contain representations of abstractions because we don't know how it does. Would you like me to explain to you exactly how the brain stored thoughts about abstract concepts? I'd be happy to, as soon as you tell me how the immaterial mind does so, and exactly how it's impeded by dementia and schizophrenia within the material brain. And when a schizophrenic thinks that people are conspiring against him, does that originate with the brain or the supposed immaterial mind? I happen to believe that the human brain is designed. I also believe that its designer is smart enough to build something that can produce and maintain representations of abstract concepts. You're in the rather odd position of claiming that the designer lacks such capability or is prevented from doing so by flimsy logic that falls apart under scrutiny. Not only does your bad logic force you to come up with complicated explanations for things like dementia and schizophrenia (although you haven't, still a big open question) but it also forces you to place limitations on God. Check your math.OldAndrew_{November 22, 2018
November
11
Nov
22
22
2018
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Old Andrew
Yet again, “so,” as if one follows from the other. It doesn’t.
Let's make the "so's" more obvious by using your own definitions. I will base them on your definition of a thought as physical process ("neurons firing") and relate it to a concept, which we both agree is immaterial. *A material thought cannot produce an immaterial effect (concept) because matter, the cause, does not have non-matter to give. A cause cannot give what it does not have. Thus, a material thought cannot produce an immaterial concept. *A material thought, which is always changing by virtue of being matter in motion, cannot produce an unchanging concept. *A material thought made of of molecules in motion cannot produce an entity that contains no molecules. (non-matter). Although this would seem obvious to anyone and everyone, you seem to disagree. Why? Meanwhile, you have remained silent on the 800 pound elephant in the room, which I asked about in an earlier correspondence. If thoughts are made of matter, there are several issues you must deal with: So how much does justice weight? If person [a] understands justice and person [b] does not, does that mean that, all other things being equal, that a’s brain weighs more than b’s brain. What are the physical dimensions of truth? Does the brain become more crowded with each new piece of acquired wisdom? How many thoughts can the brain contain until the skull runs out of room? Does truth contain more molecules than opinions? Does love take up more space in the brain than hate? The whole idea is nonsensical in the extreme. Only those steeped in the irrational philosophy of materialism could believe it.StephenB_{November 22, 2018
November
11
Nov
22
22
2018
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

SB, You don't seem to have anything left to say except re-asserting that your logic is correct.
No. [c] follows infallibly from [a] and [b] because the conclusions of all valid arguments are infallibly true. If you don’t know that, then you are not familiar with logic.
The conclusions of all valid arguments are true. That is how logic works. [C] is not a conclusion from [a] and [b]. Your assertion of [c] is not logic. Your rhetorical style of arguing is just so tiresome, such as when you assert that a rejection of your illogical conclusion is a rejection of logic itself. I can't respond to anything you say without having to sort through the empty rhetoric to try and find some substance. I'd ask you to stop, but I think it's your hobby.
A concept is simply the substance of what one is thinking about.
Yes, a concept is what a thought is about.
So even though the two cannot be used interchangeably, both must be immaterial.
Yet again, "so," as if one follows from the other. It doesn't. Of course a concept can have representation in a physical medium. Your conclusion seems to depend on that not being true, even though it evidently is. There's some law of noncontradiction for you. A concept can have representation in a physical medium. If your conclusion requires the opposite to be true then the logic which arrives at that conclusion is faulty. Referring to Alzheimer's and dementia,
I covered that ground as well. Go back and read please.
If by covering it, you mean, "Because the former is free from bodily encumbrances while the latter is not," then, no, you didn't. My question is unanswered. Here's another one (but don't forget the first one): A schizophrenic person believes people are talking about him. That's a thought. Does the thought originate with the immaterial mind or the material brain?
Defined properly, a thought is an abstract thing in the same way that a concept is an abstract thing.
That's elaborate question-begging. In a discussion about whether thoughts are material or immaterial, you assert that they are immaterial because that's the proper definition. How utterly circular. Did you think no one noticed? People are smarter than you think. Your logic appears to have run its course, while your rhetoric and self-congratulation is a bottomless pit.OldAndrew_{November 22, 2018
November
11
Nov
22
22
2018
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Old Andrew:
A thought is not the same thing as the concept the thought is about. If you disagree, why?
Yes, I do disagree. When you think about an apple or a table, you are thinking about the concept of apple or table. That is what it means to think – to form a concept in the mind - an abstract thing that corresponds to the physical thing that exists outside the mind, that is, the apple or table. Defined properly, a thought is an abstract thing in the same way that a concept is an abstract thing. You, on the other hand, define a thought as “neurons firing,” which is an imposition of materialistic ideology and a confusion between an abstract thing (a thought) and a physical process (neurons firing).StephenB_{November 22, 2018
November
11
Nov
22
22
2018
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Old Andrew
What reason would you have to hope that? Because you said it again and called your own reasoning ‘infallible’?
No. [c] follows infallibly from [a] and [b] because the conclusions of all valid arguments are infallibly true. If you don’t know that, then you are not familiar with logic.
I reasoned to show why your logic is faulty.
And you failed. If you had not falsely accused me of confusing the meaning of “concept” with the meaning of “thought” you might have recognized the validity of my argument long ago. When I pointed out that I didn’t use the word “thought,” you ignored the point. Not good.
You’re not offering anything new in response. You’ve just skipped over it and restated your conclusion.
I didn’t skip over anything. I pointed about the above error. With respect to my argument, there is nothing new to offer. It works and any rational person will recognize that point. SB: I was very careful not to use the word “thought” when I formed the argument @94. Please reread it to confirm that fact.
You were very careful to make sure that your comment wasn’t about what we’re talking about? That’s advanced.
We have been talking about my argument @94. Now that you understand that it works, you want to change the subject. Not good.
At @51 you said, “Immaterial thoughts cannot come from a material organ.”
Yes, and that is a true statement, which I defended several times. So what? ----"but now you’re pointing out that your line of reasoning switched, and now it applies to concepts, not thoughts." I didn’t switch anything. I provided arguments for immaterial thoughts and I also provided arguments for immaterial concepts. However, I put the latter in an [a], [b], [c] format. Just because I didn’t put my arguments about the immateriality of thoughts in that same format doesn’t mean that I didn’t make those arguments I did. A material thought cannot produce an immaterial concept. Nor can it come from a material brain. I can argue that point all day long – and I have.
That’s pointless because no one is saying that concepts are material. I’m not talking about concepts. We were talking about thoughts. I’m still talking about thoughts.
A concept is simply the substance of what one is thinking about. So even though the two cannot be used interchangeably, both must be immaterial. I have explained why that is the case several times and in many different ways. During that clumsy time, you put several words in my mouth and argued against your own terms. I called your attention to the error, and you had no response. I couldn’t be sure if it was just a case of sloppy imprecise language or outright dishonesty.
Your logic still doesn’t hold up. The brain is material. Concepts are immaterial. It does not “follow” that a material brain cannot have thoughts about immaterial concepts. You’re not even attempting to explain why you think it follows. You’re just asserting, yet again, that it does, infallibly.
My logic holds up fine. A Material brain cannot *produce* (the word “have” will not suffice) an immaterial thought. I have already covered this ground. A material cause cannot produce an immaterial effect because a material cause cannot give what it doesn’t have to give – immateriality. It also cannot produce an immaterial effect because changeability is incompatible with unchangeability – and because movement is incompatible with non-movement. The problem is that you do not understand the meaning of proportionate cause.
You’ve also done nothing to explain why Alzheimer’s affects the memories of an immaterial mind. Something about the “encumbrances” of the physical body. (It sounds like a line from The Matrix.)
I covered that ground as well. Go back and read please.
So on top of the faulty logic, there’s that too.
No faulty logic. Only confusion on your part. Meanwhile, I need a specific response on the argument about concepts. Are you ready to acknowledge that [c] follows from [a] and [b]. You finally agreed with [a] and [b] kicking and screaming, but you said that [c] doesn’t follow because, by your mistaken claim, I conflated thoughts with concepts. Now that we both know that such is not the case, and since that seems to be your only excuse, do you now acknowledge that [c] follows from [a] and [b]?StephenB_{November 21, 2018
November
11
Nov
21
21
2018
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

SB,
In any case, I hope that you now understand that [c] follows infallibly from [a] and [b].
What reason would you have to hope that? Because you said it again and called your own reasoning 'infallible'? I reasoned to show why your logic is faulty. You're not offering anything new in response. You've just skipped over it and restated your conclusion. Why, just a few hours after pointing out the hole in your logic, would I suddenly accept the same faulty conclusion based on the same faulty logic?
I was very careful not to use the word “thought” when I formed the argument @94. Please reread it to confirm that fact.
You were very careful to make sure that your comment wasn't about what we're talking about? That's advanced. At @51 you said,
Immaterial thoughts cannot come from a material organ
...but now you're pointing out that your line of reasoning switched, and now it applies to concepts, not thoughts. That's pointless because no one is saying that concepts are material. I'm not talking about concepts. We were talking about thoughts. I'm still talking about thoughts. Your logic still doesn't hold up. The brain is material. Concepts are immaterial. It does not "follow" that a material brain cannot have thoughts about immaterial concepts. You're not even attempting to explain why you think it follows. You're just asserting, yet again, that it does, infallibly. You've also done nothing to explain why Alzheimer's affects the memories of an immaterial mind. Something about the "encumbrances" of the physical body. (It sounds like a line from The Matrix.) Now your idea gets even more complicated. It's like the epicycles that Cornelius Hunter writes about. When your conclusion is wrong you have to make up even more stuff to explain away the evidence. It's like monkeys floating across oceans on tree limbs, but now it's the immaterial mind forgetting stuff because its material brain-host has dementia (I'd love to hear you explain how that works) but once the brain stops being sick and starts being dead the mind is okay again. So on top of the faulty logic, there's that too.OldAndrew_{November 21, 2018
November
11
Nov
21
21
2018
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Old Andrew
[a] A concept is immaterial. [b] A physical thing cannot be a concept Those are both true statements.
At last, you confess the truth after all those distractions. Why do you do that?
A thought is not the same thing as the concept the thought is about. If you disagree, why? If you agree, then why do you repeatedly insist that the logic by which you establish that the concept is immaterial applies to the thought?
I was very careful not to use the word “thought” when I formed the argument @94. Please reread it to confirm that fact. In any case, I hope that you now understand that [c] follows infallibly from [a] and [b]. Here again is the argument: [a] Concepts are intellectual formations about universals, classes, or kinds of things. They are not about particular or individual things. [b] Nothing that exists physically is a universal or a kind of thing. It is always a particular or this individual thing. [c] If [a] and [b] are true, then it follows infallibly that concepts must be the product of an immaterial mind, and not a material organ, such as a brain.StephenB_{November 21, 2018
November
11
Nov
21
21
2018
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

SB
A concept is a universal, by definition.
Now you're saying the exact same things, yet again (!!) using different words, as if it changes something. I previously explained that you are confusing a thought with the abstract concept of a thought. Apparently you didn't catch that. A thought is not a concept. A thought is my brain firing neurons. The thought is about a concept. It's about justice. It's about a unicorn. A concept is immaterial. A thought about a concept is not. It's brain activity. A physical medium can contain a representation of abstract concepts. If it could not, communication of abstract concepts would be impossible unless our supposed immaterial minds communicated with one another via some immaterial medium. What you don't seem to grasp is that A and B do not establish C - not infallibly (what a word) or otherwise. A concept is immaterial. A physical thing cannot be a concept. Those are both true statements. Here's where you keep getting tripped up: A thought about justice is not justice. It is a material representation of the abstract concept of justice, formed in the neurons of a brain. If a thought had to actually be the thing that the thought was about, then a thought would have to be immaterial. But a thought is not the same as the concept the thought is about. It is a representation. A representation can be material. A thought is not the same thing as the concept the thought is about. If you disagree, why? If you agree, then why do you repeatedly insist that the logic by which you establish that the concept is immaterial applies to the thought?OldAndrew_{November 21, 2018
November
11
Nov
21
21
2018
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

SB: [a] Concepts are intellectual formations about universals, classes, or kinds of things. They are not about particular or individual things. Old Andrew
…. I just imagined a unicorn. Then I imagined another unicorn. Then I thought about the first unicorn again. That’s how long it took to disprove your infallible assertion that a thought represents a universal kind of thing. (I do not think that word means what you think it means.)
A concept is a universal, by definition. Even if it is unreal, it is still a universal, not a particular. The issue is universal vs particular, not real vs unreal. There are millions of concepts about things that don’t exist, but the logic doesn’t change. Let’s use a syllogism using an imaginary (false) major and minor premise to make the point: Old Andrew is a unicorn; all unicorns are mortal, therefore, Old Andrew is mortal. That is a valid argument. It is not a sound argument because one of the premises is false. Old Andrew is not a unicorn. If Old Andrew was a unicorn, then it would be a valid argument and a sound argument.
Think about your computer keyboard. Too late! Now you did it too. Thank you for participating.
Irrelevant. A concept is a universal, not a particular. That is all that matters at this point. Now let’s go on to [b]. [b] Nothing that exists physically is a universal or a kind of thing. It is always a particular or this individual thing.
I think I see where you’re getting lost. You’re confusing a thought, which is a representation of an abstract concept (something that may or may not exist) with the abstract concept of a thought. In other words, you don’t understand the difference between a thought and what the thought is about.
I said go on to [b], not rehash [a]. [b] is about things and particulars. I didn’t say anything here about thoughts or concepts at all. (Everything else you have written, most of it false, is irrelevant to the argument). So --- If [a] and [b] are true, then it follows infallibly, yes infallibly, that [c] concepts must be the product of an immaterial mind, and not a material organ, such as a brain. Here, then is the argument: [a] Concepts are intellectual formations about universals, classes, or kinds of things. They are not about particular or individual things. [b] Nothing that exists physically is a universal or a kind of thing. It is always a particular or this individual thing. If [a] and [b] are true, then it follows infallibly that concepts must be the product of an immaterial mind, and not a material organ, such as a brain. Do you think you can refute it? I invite you to try.StephenB_{November 21, 2018
November
11
Nov
21
21
2018
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

SB
Old Andrew, I am going to make this easy:
It was already easy. You've just said the same thing again (!) and inserted the word "infallibly" for Jedi mind-trick effect. You can keep repeating it, but the problem isn't that I don't understand it. I do. It's not that complicated. It's just awful logic that doesn't hold up under the slightest scrutiny.
[a] Concepts are intellectual formations about universals, classes, or kinds of things. They are not about particular or individual things.
Really? Because I just imagined a unicorn. Then I imagined another unicorn. Then I thought about the first unicorn again. That's how long it took to disprove your infallible assertion that a thought represents a universal kind of thing. (I do not think that word means what you think it means.) Think about your computer keyboard. Too late! Now you did it too. Thank you for participating.
Nothing that exists physically is a universal or a kind of thing. It is always a particular or this individual thing.
I think I see where you're getting lost. You're confusing a thought, which is a representation of an abstract concept (something that may or may not exist) with the abstract concept of a thought. In other words, you don't understand the difference between a thought and what the thought is about. I know, it's tricky, but I'll try to slow it down for you. (Personally I like this better when we just exchange ideas instead of talking trash like children.) The unicorn doesn't exist. It's an immaterial abstraction. As far as anyone knows, the thought about the unicorn is generated and exists in the neurons of my brain. You see, the thought is not the same as the abstract concept which it is about. The word "unicorn" is material. It exists as a printed or spoken word, or as the thought of the word "unicorn" which is materially generated within my material mind. The word is an abstraction in a material medium. No unicorn required. A picture of a unicorn is material. It exists on paper. I can also generate a picture of a unicorn using my material mind. The process within my material brain which I perceive as a thought about a unicorn (and another unicorn) is material. It's about an immaterial abstraction. Case blah blah blah.OldAndrew_{November 21, 2018
November
11
Nov
21
21
2018
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

Old Andrew, I am going to make this easy: [a] Concepts are intellectual formations about universals, classes, or kinds of things. They are not about particular or individual things. [b] Nothing that exists physically is a universal or a kind of thing. It is always a particular or this individual thing. If [a] and [b] are true, then it follows infallibly that concepts must be the product of an immaterial mind, and not a material organ, such as a brain. Case closedStephenB_{November 20, 2018
November
11
Nov
20
20
2018
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

SB: A particular apple, which is made of matter, cannot also be the universal concept of apple, which is the thought. Old Andrew:
A thought about an apple isn’t an apple, and an apple isn’t a thought about an apple. I fully understood that when I said everything that I said. It’s not new information. It doesn’t add or change anything.
Apparently, you don’t understand it. Otherwise, you would not continue to say that the thought of the apple is made out of the same stuff as the physical apple. SB: You also do not seem to understand that all matter is in flux, which means that a material apple, which is always *changing* cannot also be the fixed or *unchanging* concept of an apple. Again, this is basic logic.
I feel like I’m arguing with that little guy from The Princess Bride.
Non responsive: The fact remains that a changing physical thing cannot also be an unchanging concept.
You typed the word “apple.” It’s matter and energy. Ever-changing, fluxing, whatever. And yet it represents the abstract concept of an apple.
Bad logic: To represent an abstract concept is not to be an abstract concept.
The difference is that the brain can manage far more complex abstractions. You’re saying that it can’t.
The brain cannot grasp the meaning of justice, truth, beauty, or love, all of which are more complex than the idea of an apple, but the mind can. Justice, unlike matter, is not extended in space, nor does it weigh anything, or contain atoms and molecules, or anything else that can be physically measured. Even so, you have said that abstract concepts like justice are made of matter. So how much does justice weight? If person [a] understands justice and person [b] does not, does that mean that, all other things being equal, that a’s brain weighs more than b’s brain. What are the physical dimensions of truth? Does the brain become more crowded with each new piece of acquired wisdom? How many thoughts can the brain contain until the skull runs out of room? Does truth contain more molecules than opinions? Does love take up more space in the brain than hate? The whole idea is nonsensical in the extreme. Only those steeped in the irrational philosophy of materialism could believe it.StephenB_{November 20, 2018
November
11
Nov
20
20
2018
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

SB
A particular apple, which is made of matter, cannot also be the universal concept of apple, which is the thought.
A thought about an apple isn't an apple, and an apple isn't a thought about an apple. I fully understood that when I said everything that I said. It's not new information. It doesn't add or change anything.
You also do not seem to understand that all matter is in flux, which means that a material apple, which is always *changing* cannot also be the fixed or *unchanging* concept of an apple. Again, this is basic logic.
I feel like I'm arguing with that little guy from The Princess Bride. You typed the word "apple." It's matter and energy. Ever-changing, fluxing, whatever. And yet it represents the abstract concept of an apple. But my physical brain can't hold the abstract concept of an apple? Because... logic? The difference is that the brain can manage far more complex abstractions. You're saying that it can't. I guess I'm impressed with the human brain, and you appear to think it's a sack of meat that can't hold the concept of an apple.
Anyway, if you don’t find my arguments persuasive, then it would seem that you do not yet comprehend them.
That's a delightful insight into how you view reality.OldAndrew_{November 20, 2018
November
11
Nov
20
20
2018
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Barry,
What? You can’t answer any of these questions? You are the one who said thoughts are material things. Material things can be measured Andrew.
You seem to be asserting that in order for me to argue that the brain is the physical medium for thoughts, that I must be able to specify exactly how the brain generates them. Is that correct? I'll counter: tell me exactly how the immaterial mind stores thoughts. I'm 100% certain that you cannot. It's amazing how similar this is to fallacious anti-ID arguments. For example, the anti-ID argument says that until you can explain exactly how a thing was designed and created, ID itself is invalid. Similarly, you're arguing that unless I can specify exactly how the brain generates thoughts, which chemicals, which neurons, and their exact physical properties, then they can't originate with the brain. (Meanwhile you have no idea how the "immaterial" mind does those things, but you're okay with that.) You can spot the faulty logic when it's used against something you believe, but then you turn around and employ the same faulty logic if it supports your beliefs. My assertion: I don't have to know how the brain generates thoughts or what their chemical composition is to conclude, based on available evidence, that it does.
How much does that unicorn you are thinking about weigh Andrew? What is its height, length and width? You are the one who is saying it is material. Surely you can answer simple questions.
Your questions just don't make any sense. How do you come to this bizarre conclusion that an abstract representation of something cannot exist materially? There's just no evidence that you're thinking this through. I can draw a picture of a unicorn. I can write the word "unicorn." Both are material while the idea is abstract. How much does the unicorn weigh? It doesn't have any weight. There is no unicorn. Obviously a thought about a unicorn is much more complex than a picture or a word. But if the abstract concept can exist in other physical forms, then it can exist in the chemicals and neurons of my brain. I don't have to know how, any more than you know how they supposedly exist an immaterial mind. I don't know why I bother with this. You're just going to start deleting comments again. When you can't win you take your ball and go home.OldAndrew_{November 20, 2018
November
11
Nov
20
20
2018
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Old Andrew:
A and B are simply meaningless hand-waving.
[a] Apparently, you do not understand the difference between the existence of a *particular* apple, which is made of matter and the *universal* concept of apple, which is its meaning as a member of a class. A particular apple, which is made of matter, cannot also be the universal concept of apple, which is the thought. A particular cannot also be a universal. Thus, if we rule out matter (body, brain) as an explanation for the thought, then non-matter (mind, soul) is the only other option. That is basic logic. [b] You also do not seem to understand that all matter is in flux, which means that a material apple, which is always *changing* cannot also be the fixed or *unchanging* concept of an apple. Again, this is basic logic. What is it about the difference between particular/universal or changing/unchanging that you need help with?
C is a reassertion of your conclusion.
No, it is a statement about the fundamental nature of causality. A cause, in this case, matter containing molecules, cannot give to an effect what it does not have to give (non-matter or spirit that contains no molecules).
We know how we perceive thoughts. We have absolutely no idea how they are generated.
I didn't say anything about *how* thoughts are generated (the process), but I provided logical reason why their source is the mind. There is a big difference between a process and a source.
The questions I posed offer strong evidence that the brain is the medium in which thoughts exist. Unless you have something persuasive to the contrary I don’t know why anyone should think otherwise.
Do you really believe that your questions constitute evidence? Anyway, if you don't find my arguments persuasive, then it would seem that you do not yet comprehend them.StephenB_{November 20, 2018
November
11
Nov
20
20
2018
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

SB @86: A and B are simply meaningless hand-waving. C is a reassertion of your conclusion. We know how we perceive thoughts. We have absolutely no idea how they are generated. To say that they don't "contain" molecules is irrelevant. How are they formed? Are molecules the medium in which they exist? I'm 100% certain that you don't know the answer. The questions I posed offer strong evidence that the brain is the medium in which thoughts exist. Unless you have something persuasive to the contrary I don't know why anyone should think otherwise.OldAndrew_{November 20, 2018
November
11
Nov
20
20
2018
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Thanks for that correction.daveS_{November 20, 2018
November
11
Nov
20
20
2018
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

SB, I think our age has been captivated by the apparent power of computational substrates. We have forgotten that these things we use to interact here are programmed and that they have no reflective awareness of the information stored in configurations [signals] that they process, equally blindly. The machines will process falsity or gibberish in much the same way as the most profoundly insightful truth, much as the flawed Pentiums would just as readily spew forth erroneous as accurate numerical results. It is we who draw the meanings, not the machines. A particular bit pattern is just a pattern, it has light and dark and an array of pixels, it in itself is neither inherently true or false. It is we who understand meaning and moral obligation to truth who then value the truth expressed in the glyph-strings, such as in this thread. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2018
November
11
Nov
20
20
2018
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

SB" "the material brain cannot produce immaterial thoughts." Old Andrew:
As far as anyone knows, thoughts are a function of the cells in our brains. That makes them material.
Here are three reasons why thoughts must be immaterial: (there are more) [a] A particular material thing or things cannot also be a universal idea. [b] Changing matter cannot constitute an unchanging concept. [c] There is nothing in the cause (matter composed of molecules) that could possibly produce the effect (thoughts which contain no molecules).
As a side thought: If my mind is a separate immaterial entity that continues experiencing some form of sentience after my brain dies, then why don’t I experience conscious thought when I’m asleep?
Because you can't experience conscious thought when you are unconscious.
It doesn’t make sense that the mind can exist without the brain, yet it’s impaired when the brain is impaired, like when under the influence of alcohol. If the mind can function without the brain then why doesn’t it?
Why do you put words in my mouth and then say that the words don't make sense. No one has suggested that the brain doesn't influence the mind. Anyway, that fact is irrelevant to the point that the brain cannot produce thoughts. The mind can certainly exist without a brain but it cannot function without one *so long as the composite of body and soul remain a single unit.* I have already made that point. I guess you didn't read what I wrote, except for one sentence, which you misinterpreted.
If a person can remember being alive after they’ve died then why do people with Alzheimer’s forget who they are?
Because the former is free from bodily encumbrances while the latter is not.StephenB_{November 19, 2018
November
11
Nov
19
19
2018
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Andrew:
As far as anyone knows, thoughts are a function of the cells in our brains. That makes them material.
What is the mass of your thoughts Andrew? What is their specific gravity? What are their height, length and width? What? You can't answer any of these questions? You are the one who said thoughts are material things. Material things can be measured Andrew. Here's a clue: Your statement that I quoted above is not even a gesture toward an argument backed by reasoning and evidence. It is just an assertion of your religious belief.
Our perception of the thing we don’t understand . . .
Oh wait. Didn't you just say that you indisputably understand that thoughts are material? Now you are saying you don't understand them at all. Which is it Andrew?
why don’t I experience conscious thought when I’m asleep
Are you saying you don't dream? Or are you saying that dreams are not thoughts?
If it’s immaterial then dementia shouldn’t exist.
No one is saying the mind is not affected by the condition of the brain. Look at Stephen's comment above. He said just the opposite.
I get that thoughts can represent abstractions like unicorns and imaginary numbers. That is not evidence that the medium in which those thoughts exist is immaterial.
How much does that unicorn you are thinking about weigh Andrew? What is its height, length and width? You are the one who is saying it is material. Surely you can answer simple questions.Barry Arrington_{November 19, 2018
November
11
Nov
19
19
2018
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

the material brain cannot produce immaterial thoughts.
That's begging the question by using the assertion that thoughts are immaterial as evidence, when it's exactly the subject of discussion. As far as anyone knows, thoughts are a function of the cells in our brains. That makes them material. They don't feel material, but that's subjective. When we attempt to perceive the material or immaterial nature of our thoughts, we're doing so with more thoughts. Our perception of the thing we don't understand using the same thing we don't understand isn't reliable. I've heard it suggested that we can arrive at the conclusion of an immaterial mind using logic, but I haven't heard any sound logic to that effect. As a side thought: If my mind is a separate immaterial entity that continues experiencing some form of sentience after my brain dies, then why don't I experience conscious thought when I'm asleep? It doesn't make sense that the mind can exist without the brain, yet it's impaired when the brain is impaired, like when under the influence of alcohol. If the mind can function without the brain then why doesn't it? If a person can remember being alive after they've died then why do people with Alzheimer's forget who they are? An immaterial mind can't get Alzheimer's. If it's immaterial then dementia shouldn't exist. I get that thoughts can represent abstractions like unicorns and imaginary numbers. That is not evidence that the medium in which those thoughts exist is immaterial.OldAndrew_{November 19, 2018
November
11
Nov
19
19
2018
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

DaveS
I’ll reflect back to you my understanding thus far: The immaterial mind cannot cause any events to occur in the physical brain. The physical brain cannot cause any events to occur in the immaterial mind.
That would not be my position. We know that the immaterial mind can influence the material brain and the material brain can influence the immaterial mind. Let's go into more detail: What I am arguing is that the material brain cannot produce immaterial thoughts. It is the mind that generates thoughts using sensory input from the brain. So, for example, the brain allows you to experience this red, round, juicy something or other and the mind informs you that what you just came into contact with was an apple (the category that defines what all individual apples have in common). The brain cannot produce that immaterial concept of apple, but it can provide the input of sensory experience so that the mind can give meaning to that input (produce the thought). The sensory experience (contact with matter) comes first, processed by the brain and then the immaterial idea comes later, generated by the mind. The mind also generates all other immaterial concepts, such as love, justice, beauty, truth, etc. The brain simply cannot do that.StephenB_{November 19, 2018
November
11
Nov
19
19
2018
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I'll reflect back to you my understanding thus far: 1. The immaterial mind cannot cause any events to occur in the physical brain. The physical brain cannot cause any events to occur in the immaterial mind. 2. The immaterial mind can influence the state of the physical brain. The physical brain can influence the state of the immaterial mind. Is that correct?daveS_{November 19, 2018
November
11
Nov
19
19
2018
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

DaveS
For my edification, is it therefore impossible for physical organs to produce non-material events? And for non-material faculties to produce physical events?
Yes.
Is non-material a synonym for immaterial? And are one or both synonyms for non-physical?
Yes.
I am not going to say the mind is immaterial, because you say that immaterial things are immortal and unchanging. I believe our minds are not immortal.
A fair point that calls for more clarification on my part. What the mind is (a faculty for knowing) is unchangeable, but the conditions under which it operates can change as long as body and soul remain a composite unit - the material organ (brain) can influence immaterial faculty (mind) and vice versa.
Regarding the dictionary definition, I’m happy to switch to definition (a).
ExcellentStephenB_{November 18, 2018
November
11
Nov
18
18
2018
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
You did not address the issue of immaterial thoughts. The point would be that a physical organ will produce physical events and a non-material faculty will produce non-material events.
For my edification, is it therefore impossible for physical organs to produce non-material events? And for non-material faculties to produce physical events?
You say that it is not a physical organ, but you dismiss the prospect that it is a non-material mind. Why?
Is non-material a synonym for immaterial? And are one or both synonyms for non-physical? I am not going to say the mind is immaterial, because you say that immaterial things are immortal and unchanging. I believe our minds are not immortal. Now I accept the possibility our minds are non-physical, while always being dependent on a physical brain. Hence they cannot survive the death of the brain. Regarding the dictionary definition, I'm happy to switch to definition (a).daveS_{November 18, 2018
November
11
Nov
18
18
2018
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

DaveS
I can’t answer the first one. For that matter, I don’t know how an immaterial mind would produce immaterial thoughts either.
You did not address the issue of immaterial thoughts. The point would be that a physical organ will produce physical events and a non-material faculty will produce non-material events.
I will say I don’t think brains and minds are identical. At least I don’t use the terms as synonyms. The brain is an organ, while the mind is, according to Merriam-Webster, “the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism”.
Merriam-Webster provides more than one definition: a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons Keep your mind active as you grow older. b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism You left out (a) which tells us what the mind is, and offered only definition (b) which tells us what the mind does. I am asking you what that element is, not what it does. I say that it is a non-material faculty because only a non-material faculty can produce a non-material thought. You say that it is not a physical organ, but you dismiss the prospect that it is a non-material mind. Why? It cannot be the minds mental events (thoughts, reasoning) because the mind is the cause of those mental events. So only the first dictionary definition is rational and only the concept of an immaterial faculty makes sense.StephenB_{November 18, 2018
November
11
Nov
18
18
2018
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Those are very good questions. I can't answer the first one. For that matter, I don't know how an immaterial mind would produce immaterial thoughts either. I will say I don't think brains and minds are identical. At least I don't use the terms as synonyms. The brain is an organ, while the mind is, according to Merriam-Webster, "the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism". So the brain contains neurons, for example, but neurons are not mental events or capabilities. Perhaps there is a 1-1 correspondence between mental events and brain processes, but I don't have an informed opinion on that. The above would imply that while brains are made of matter, minds are not. I do not think that all that really exists (between mind and brain) is just the brain. I guess it could be that the mind is an effect of the brain in some way, and perhaps the mind can be completely explained in terms of the brain. But, as I said in a previous post, I know almost nothing about brains, minds, and so forth, as I haven't studied those things.daveS_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

DaveS
That’s actually pretty close to the situation I believe humans are in. That is, every element of our existence is subject to decay, and we don’t have immortal souls (or even minds).
That prompts several questions: How do you explain the existence of immaterial thoughts if they are not produced by an immaterial mind? What is the difference between the mind and the brain, or do you think they are one and the same thing? If both minds and brains exist, is each made of matter? Or do you think that only the material organ of the brain exists?StephenB_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
If the mind is immaterial, as I define it, then it cannot die. It isn’t a matter of evidence; it is a matter of logic. By definition, a non-material thing that doesn’t have any parts cannot die. Only physical things can die.
My hypothesis must therefore be that the mind is not immaterial in that sense, since I suspect they do cease to exist at some point.
I think dogs have instincts, since they can be trained, and feelings, since they seem to be able to show affection, but they they can’t reason in the abstract or make moral decisions.
Agreed.
My guess is that they cease to exist after death because they don’t have souls made in the image and likeness of God (conceptual minds and free will) like humans do. So there would seem to be nothing of substance that could live on. Indeed, it would seem that they are situated solely in the physical realm and that every element of their existence is subject to decay.
That's actually pretty close to the situation I believe humans are in. That is, every element of our existence is subject to decay, and we don't have immortal souls (or even minds).daveS_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply