General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 10962 times

Arthur42

  • ***
  • 1599 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2012, 01:33:21 pm »
cartersmith wrote:
Quote from: Arthur42
Carter, may I make a suggestion.  The fact that you seem to be unaware of any of the 2500 years of arguments that argue for at least one immaterial part of human consciousness (some with no theological ax to grind at all).  This message board works a whole lot better when people go read actual philosophy and then come back to discuss the finer points of it.  The alternative is people like you who just burst in, guns blazing, asking everyone to teach you the basics of philosophy of mind just so you can knock down the summary version of the arguments.  I've noticed you've done that on several topics now.  If you have access to JSTOR or another academic database through a school or library I suggest you get on there and look up some of the classics of these arguments and that will better acquaint you with the issues at hand.
Arthur, I am not unaware of them.  This is the point of this.

It appears that everyone here is unaware of them and unable to give an account.  I would like to know why you, or any dualist believes that an unembodied mind is possible.

What, besides an argument from ignorance, do dualists have?

I am aware of the Hard Problem and the other arguments, but I am still at a loss why people HERE can't explain why they think an unembodied mind is possible.

It is possible that I win the lottery if I never play?  Well, sure, I suppose somehow... but how?  Maybe by invoking the 5th dimension of philosophical woo?


I don't know how you're defining mind.  As a hylemorphic dualist, I think that the full human mind (which consists of a brain and a rational intellect) is necessarily embodied, and once an organism dies, the mind is gone.  However the rational intellect, as a non-material thing, continues.  This intellect is severely disabled and restricted by this separation, however, and can only regain its proper working function once it receives the "new body" promised in the resurrection.

I don't think this debate is relevant to what God is, however, because I wouldn't say that God is an "unembodied mind" nor that he has a mind.  Rather, God is God.  What we have as a mind is roughly analogous to what God is but it is not the same, and thus any comparisons between the two are limited.

1

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2012, 03:06:36 pm »
Arthur42 wrote:
Quote from: cartersmith
Quote from: Arthur42
Carter, may I make a suggestion.  The fact that you seem to be unaware of any of the 2500 years of arguments that argue for at least one immaterial part of human consciousness (some with no theological ax to grind at all).  This message board works a whole lot better when people go read actual philosophy and then come back to discuss the finer points of it.  The alternative is people like you who just burst in, guns blazing, asking everyone to teach you the basics of philosophy of mind just so you can knock down the summary version of the arguments.  I've noticed you've done that on several topics now.  If you have access to JSTOR or another academic database through a school or library I suggest you get on there and look up some of the classics of these arguments and that will better acquaint you with the issues at hand.
Arthur, I am not unaware of them.  This is the point of this.

It appears that everyone here is unaware of them and unable to give an account.  I would like to know why you, or any dualist believes that an unembodied mind is possible.

What, besides an argument from ignorance, do dualists have?

I am aware of the Hard Problem and the other arguments, but I am still at a loss why people HERE can't explain why they think an unembodied mind is possible.

It is possible that I win the lottery if I never play?  Well, sure, I suppose somehow... but how?  Maybe by invoking the 5th dimension of philosophical woo?


I don't know how you're defining mind.  As a hylemorphic dualist, I think that the full human mind (which consists of a brain and a rational intellect) is necessarily embodied, and once an organism dies, the mind is gone.  However the rational intellect, as a non-material thing, continues.  This intellect is severely disabled and restricted by this separation, however, and can only regain its proper working function once it receives the "new body" promised in the resurrection.

I don't think this debate is relevant to what God is, however, because I wouldn't say that God is an "unembodied mind" nor that he has a mind.  Rather, God is God.  What we have as a mind is roughly analogous to what God is but it is not the same, and thus any comparisons between the two are limited.

Why do you feel your view is a rational alternative?
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?

2

Arthur42

  • ***
  • 1599 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2012, 03:11:44 pm »
Because the arguments for hylemorphic dualism are convincing to me.

3

carter smith

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Argument against an Unembodied Mind
« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2012, 03:16:15 pm »
Arthur42 wrote: Because the arguments for hylemorphic dualism are convincing to me.

But surely they aren't to most people, and I would say that they are not just an alternative that you can declare as possible without showing they are possible (not just convincing to you).

But, either way, as I understand your post, you agree that an unembodied mind is incoherent.
But God doesn't exist.  How does that affect your arguments?