Questions about the Ontological Argument

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
41

Sorry, let me be more accurate. You seem to subscribe to a certain belief about how to explain the apparent immateriality of our experiences, a belief which proposes them as entities separate from the material forms with which they are associated. That’s what I mean by “belief in the immaterial”: belief that immaterial things are separate from any material.

I don’t understand the end of your paragraph: how is avoiding a huge part of these immaterial things focussing on “the [phenomenon] of thought in [its] pure concrete facticity”? It seems that that interaction is an integral part of the fact, not a departure from it. But even if it is, the theory you propose is already saying something about the material side of it: “hypotheses about causation don’t get to that.” That right there is a claim about the relationship between immaterial and material, so you can’t turn around and refuse to continue down that path in the face of a difficult question. You’ve said that causation (which I am assuming to be a reference to material explanations. Correct me if I’m wrong) can’t explain the immaterial, but you’ve left us with another difficult question: how does positing stand-alone immaterial objects further the explanation?

42

I am not explaining, I am describing. In experience thought is unrelated to material forms which are theoretically associated with them. I am not proposing a theory I am making an observation about experience. Hypotheses about causation do not get to experience which as Hume pointed out is based on proximity in time and space. I have been down the path of the difficult question, I have no problem with it per se. It simply misses the naked facticity of mental phenomenon.

I am persisting on this point because, we have already forgotten what soul and spirit are and we are in the process of forgetting what mind is. Reductionism seeks to abolish autonomous subjective experience and cognitive freedom. I maintain that what is needed is for us to become acquainted with our inner self, to learn to get in touch with it, to exercise it, to stand up for it, and to realize the extent of its powers. If we cannot in the first place, recognize the existence of awareness and cognitive freedom, I see no hope of doing that.

43

But we have more than our inner perspective to help us understand what our thoughts are and what they are capable of. It is not to devalue or disparage our thoughts to recognize that our internal experience is one perspective on a phenomenon, and that what we observe of brains in the laboratory is another.

44

To equate the value of thought with the value of what you can observe of someone else’s brain “in the laboratory” is very much to devalue thinking. Without understanding what you see, an unobservable intangible mental process, whatever you sense of someone’s brain with your eyes or hands is worthless. Pure objectivity is impossible. Ceding the human spirit to the ratio-techno-politico meat grinder is very possible and it’s happening every day.

45

Yes music is. And this ‘immaterial’ aspect of the human mind is physically organized patterns of neural networking. If you take sound to be physical, then by the same token, for the analogy is directly parallel (you might not agree, please share why), you should be taking this metaphysical product in the same light.

I already explained what about the spirit is an illusory by-product, namely all of it. Imo, it’s merely a reflection of one’s self in their own intelligence, thus creating a very innate notion of an aspect of said intelligence that can easily be imagined to exist and survive outside the body, and indeed, live on afterwards.

Awareness is a highly evolved and sophisticated intelligence. And no, I don’t think it is immaterial, but I think strongly that it convinces us that it is because its nearly impossible for our own minds to comprehend our non-existence; the mind is incapable of imagining itself out of its own consciousness/awareness.

I’m not sure about your other questions, I’m not familiar enough about Buddhists to comment. As for Christians, “the spirit” is rooted in my aforementioned ability to create an independent consciousness and make it transient; basically the same thing, except exalted with supra-human qualities.

46

I agree, but I disagree that that is what I am trying to do, or that it is a necessary consequence of materialism. This is where I depart from the views of Celpha Fiael: I don’t think that the awareness is illusory, and I don’t think we should equate the value of thought with the value of brain. Rather, we should add the value of brain to the value of thought, as both are real phenomena of the thinking process. Just as music can be just as beautiful after we learn that it is also varied compression of the air stimulating our eardrums, so can thoughts be at least as valuable after we learn that it is also represented by neural processes. Where before we could only meditate, we can now medicate, operate, stimulate, and meditate.

47

To what shall I liken people today? We are like a man who is progressively losing his sight. But instead of recognizing that he is going blind, he claims the world itself is darkening. Senses, spiritual capacites are dead and dying. In their place, modern technology grows ever more powerful consuming abilities that were once the province of human beings. The blind man says there is no light, the deaf that there is no sound. The numb says there is no feeling. Close the book, turn out the lights, silence the music, wall up the senses. Humanity is ending without a whimper.

48

First and foremost, the number 1 is not infinite. Indeed, a given number is never infinite, only a given set of numbers can be infinite. If you are considering infinity as a possible number it is then a number, but infinity is never “a” number (the number one is a given number, the number one billion is a given number, and neither are infinite), but all integers would then be an infinite set of numbers. Alternately, you could say there are an infinite number “of them”, but you’re mincing your language in a way that might make it unclear, and confuse the issue.

Any given number is infinitely divisible. Is that what you were saying? But if I divide 1 by various numbers I am now getting a whole series of numbers, and am no longer dealing with solely the number one.

Infinity doesn’t have to be a given number in order for this to be sensible, and indeed, it is sensible. In mathematics this sort of thing is dealt with all the time, and it makes perfect sense and can be used quite readily. Just because you fail to make sense of a thing does not make it senseless.

As I stated: it’s an infinite set of numbers, not an infinite “given number”. Any singularly given number has a finite value. It doesn’t matter how large you want to term it, because the moment you stop adding zeros it’s done. The infinite number is actually a set of numbers, such as “all real numbers”, for example. Indeed, in algebra you’ll find that periodically “All Real Numbers” is the solution. Therefore, an infinite set of numbers will solve the equation. This is quite simple really, and honestly I don’t see where the problem arises.

Perhaps, the general “infinite” you’re wanting to deal with is “all possible numbers”, and if so, then it’s still a set of numbers. It just doesn’t exclude any numbers.

49

Felix, your prose is delightful, but your point is askew. Who’s claiming that the “world is darkening”? Why do you say “spiritual capacities are dead and dying”? What’s a “spiritual capacity,” anyway? What are we losing, and why is it something valuable enough that we should all be Luddites?
For all the flowery speech, it doesn’t seem you’ve clearly addressed my point; your post reads like propaganda. There is a pretty clear connection between my thoughts and my neural states. Changing my neural states changes my thoughts, and changing my thoughts changes my neural states. This seems to be good reason to see the two phenomena as different perspectives on the same thing. You seem to want to focus solely on the immaterial, internal side. Why? What’s the justification?

50

Carleas–

I actually posted the last message before I read your previous post. The world is darkening because of our spiritual blindness. That you do not know what the spirit is or what spiritual capacity might be is evidence of the very spiritual blindness that besets us. You don’t know what the word means. Read Hegel for instance. 200 years ago people knew what spirit was. We have forgotten. Mind is next. What was once known as "the humanities is dying. The intellectual heritage of western civilization is dying. Modern science was born from it you know?

I’m am not arguing for the abandoning of technology. It isn’t like we have a choice in the matter anyway since technology is already running us rather than vice versa as concensus would have it. Nor do I deny a relation between thinking and neural states. I am arguing the primacy of the spiritual over the physical.

51

Sorry. I meant to say, “Since every number is finite, infinity cannot be a number.” :blush: Does it make more sense to you now?

52

I understand your viewpoint, if you’ll believe it, I once shared it verbatim. But the more I discovered, the more this spiritual realm seemed superfluous and wishful thinking, certainly not primary.

The death of the realm of the immaterial discloses itself the moment the belief in it becomes optional and subsequently unnecessary. It becomes a swift cut of Ockham’s Razor. I agree that because our thoughts are products of material processes, this does not devalue the experience, as it shouldn’t. Knowing the chemical compound of chocolate for instance doesn’t force you to like it less. What I’m positing is that the essential capacity for wonder–perhaps what I would define ‘spirituality’ as–is retained in full when this (imo) superfluous addendum of the immaterial is outgrown and shed. I actually would describe myself as a very spiritual person; I write music, poetry, prose…and found it refreshingly enjoyable reading your depiction of the human condition.

On that note, I’d like to respectfully comment on it and humbly beg to differ. From my perspective, the world is getting brighter and my sight is becoming clearer; I see an optimistic inevitability of increased enlightenment for all of humankind, not a pessimistic apocalypse where an ominous cloud of ignorance slowly devours our species. Perhaps it’s just that the spectacles you are viewing the world through are dated themselves; from that perspective, of course it is going to seem like the world is darkening, when in actuality, the light of understanding is on the move and simply leaving you behind. This is not the Dark Ages and for good reasons.

There seems to still be some confusion, and I’d like very much to clear it up: I do not uphold that awareness itself is an illusion, just that the eternal and immaterial attributes we (admittedly innately) prescribe to ourselves via our awareness as the illusion. If awareness is our vision and a mirror is our introspective thought, then the “spirit” or “soul” is the reflection.

53

Job 42:5 says, “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.” Was” the spiritual” something you were taught about or part of your experience? Many are taught religion as children. The further they advance in secular education the more likely they are to forsake their childhood religion. How many have any spiritual depth before their minds are endarkened by the “educational” system? Alas, how many ever go on find their spiritual center?

“The death of the realm of the immaterial” --You got that right. Not the unreality but the death of a realm that was once accessible to people. It has always been “optional.” We shall see how “unnecessary” as we plunge into chaos. Did Ockham intend his razor for spiritual suicide? Are your music, poetry, and prose paeons to a one dimensional flatland of materialism?

Your optimism about enlightenment comes several hundred years too late. Perhaps you are blessed with the abysmal ignorance of history that facilitates the optimism of most Americans. The inhumanity of modern scientific progressivism was gloriously displayed in the 20th century for anyone who wishes to learn from history. Unfortunately, our current “leadership” are proving that they have learned nothing except more effective methods of propaganda with which to control the thinking of the masses. Therein we see applied social science at work.

Having forsaken the primacy of our highest impulses, humanity is free to pursue, the other lower options. Like our cattle humanity can freely be used as a stockpiled mass of raw material for “the deciders” to manipulate as they may. The desensitized destroy the earth and feel nothing. If you remember how to pray, pray that the silver bird of the spirit returns to the human race.

54

Felix, that I do not know what the spirit is or what spiritual capacity might be may also be considered evidence for their non-existence. But we’re talking about the referent of a word here, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that I’m ‘spiritually blind’ because I might be using a different word to refer to the same thing. So, to clear it up, please explain what specifically you claim we’re losing. Celpha seems to see spiritality flourishing, because her/his definition is one that does not require anything more than materialism. What is your definition of spirit, and why can’t it mesh with scientific materialism.
And I know we’ve had this discussion before, but I really think your view of science is a tad skewed. You’re absolutely right that science has been used to do great evil. But you ignore two facts: 1) it has also been used to do great good, and 2) the key to both its good and its bad is that it was used to do good and bad. Science is a tool, people are good and bad.
If you want to see the good and the spiritual that can result from science, take a look at the Dalai Lama. He’s is easily one of the most spiritual people in the world, and certain one of the most caring people in some seat of power. Yet, he advocates for people to take science over dogma. He embraces neuroscience, and applies what he learns from it to his meditation and prescription. If what science says conflicts with dogma, he says to relinquish dogma.
You would be hard-pressed to convince anyone that the Dalai Lama is ‘spiritually blind’, and yet he is quite knowledgeable about neuroscience, and weaves his spirituality in its context. How does he fit your claims?

Celpha, I have one point of disagreement with you, and I’m curious what difference it will make to Felix as well: You say “our thoughts are products of material processes.” I want to convince you that our thoughts are not products of, but just are material processes. Thoughts are the inner representation of the exact same phenomena. I think that this sort of compatibilism is very satisfactory, and I think that it should appeal to both camps: Materialists, because it still says that brain states and mental states are inextricably related, and Spiritualists because it maintains thoughts as a privileged perspective on the phenomena which cannot be experienced materially. Thoughts?

55

Yes good points. I agree with your distinction, I merely worded it in the way I did earlier taking for granted that those “products” can seem immaterial. I was attempting to meet Felix halfway.

Oh, and I’m a guy :slight_smile:

56

Spirit is a dimension of life. The human spirit is that function of life characterizes humans as human. It is expressed in religion, culture and morality. The Holy Spirit or Spirit refers to the divine presence.
The spiritual dimension is where we go beyond our self to commune with the unconditioned creative ground.

Or perhaps we are science’s tool. For example, “whiz kid” Robert McNamara, when asked if it was he who decided to fire-bomb Tokyo during World War II replied that he was part of a mechanism that made the decision. So did he decide for good or bad or was he a tool or at least part of one?

If scientific technology were under human control, would we have created nuclear weapons that can destroy ourselves? What about the compulsion that drives governments and now “terrorists” to acquire this power?

What has neuroscience added to the Dalai Lama’s bliss or serenity?

57

I see some overlap between Felix’ definition of spirit and Celpha’s. Celpha mentions writing as his outlet for spirituality, and Felix says that “the spiritual dimension is where we go beyond our self to commune with the unconditioned creative ground.” If the spirit is what “characterizes humans as human”, then art and similar such expression can be a deeply spiritual exercise.
The difference seems to be in the context of the belief. Felix is a believer in the divine, so he understands the spirit in terms of that divinity. If it takes God to create intelligence and self-awareness, then that intelligence and self-awareness, that spirit, is divine in nature. Celpha, on the other hand, sees intelligence as the operation of the system of the brain. His spirituality is similar in how it operates, but he doesn’t use the divine to explain it. I tend to agree with him. In fact, I would go so far to say that, not only is my spirituality contextualized by scientific understanding, but that science itself is a spiritual endeavor for me, because it is an endeavor that increases my understanding of my self and my relation to the Universe.
I would guess that the Dalai Lama feels similarly, but that is only conjecture. I do know, though, that the Dalai Lama uses his understanding of neuroscience to create meditation techniques, or at least to understand and propagate them. For instance, there is a meditative technique where you think of the the person you hate the most, you arch enemy, and you focus on them and try to feel love and human compassion for them. This trains the brain to feel love, to relate to people even while they do things you dislike. And neuroscientifically, it’s understandable as a product of brain plasticity, and the tendency for the brain to grow more neurons where neurons are used, and to rewire itself to associate different systems.

As for cogs in a system, Felix, I still think you’re missing the point. Science has enabled bad things. But people beat each other with sticks before guns were invented. Being evil doesn’t require science, and using science doesn’t entail doing evil. For every negative example you can throw up, there is an example of people using science to do great things for their fellow humans. People have been awful to each other for ever. Pre-history is rife with genocide and rape. Religion itself has been used to compell attrocities. I don’t know why you pin it on science. Nuclear power could be a great boon to humanity, with new technologies providing clean power with relatively little and short-lived bi-products. But people saw the potential in it to destroy, to create a new weapon from the new knowledge. It’s unfortunate, but–and I think I’ve said this to you before–to say that science is in some way evil is simply to say that science is power, and humans cannot be trusted with power. But that must fly in the face of your beliefs, because God gave people free-will, didn’t he? If he didn’t think that they could be trusted with the ability to kill, why were we given such power to begin with?
I don’t believe in God, but I still think that if there is a god, it clearly wants us to know, to learn, to explore. We are born curious and knowledge-absorbing. We are natural pattern-recognizers and problem-solvers. I agree that we need art and expression, and deep internal self-awareness, but I think that science can be used to further those aims, and that it doesn’t necessarily destroy those faculties.

58

Carleas, no, I am disagreeing with YOUR point as you are disagreeing with mine. You don’t yet own THE point although you seem to think you do. Let us set aside the more controversial matters of spirituality and technology for a moment and focus on the mind brain issue. I am not denying the insights into brain function given by recent advances in neuro-physiology and psycho- pharmacology. They reveal a lot about the physical brain concomitants of consciousness. But they don’t tell us what consciousness is.

Given that you would reduce mind to brain what do you do with your own lived experience? How does a structure or function in the brain explain why red looks red; green looks green? Why do pain and pleasure have their particular qualities in your mind? If your thoughts are nothing more than neural activity, why should anyone believe anything you say? Why is one theory false and another true? If your theory corresponds to your experience and understanding, what is it corresponding to? Neural activity?

Don’t you experience yourself as a thinking center of awareness with private, secret thoughts and feelings? When you think and decide don’t you know yourself as a conscious thinker and decider? Your experience of thinking doesn’t consist of chemical molecular interaction does it?
You seem to be denying your own self-awareness in service of materialistic monism.

59

. . . While that wasn’t the point I was talking about, you did miss this one:

So what do all your questions boil down to, given that I don’t reduce mind to brain?

And the point that I think you missed is that science is a tool, and I think that you missed it, as opposed to disagreeing with me, because you pointed out an instance where science enabled an evil act. But you didn’t really address the point that that’s not a problem with science, but with how humanity uses it. We might disagree on that point, but until you address it, we’ll never know.

60

If not materially than how? Does this represent a departure from strict materialism for you? If you don’t reduce mind to brain then are you a dualist? If Celpha believes only matter is real shouldn’t his thought be termed materiality not spirituality?

Materialism rejects reason and objective truth. It depicts thought as the irrational product of environment, genes and brain chemistry. The only reality is material. The only valid explanation reduces all to material. Instead of understanding humanity by its highest thoughts and achievements, materialism explains us in terms of our material composition. Environment dictates morals and brain chemistry determines behavior. Thus, personal responsibility is eliminated. Having relieved persons of authentic spirituality, morality, and personal reponsibility, the materialist elite becomes ever more sophisticated in the use of science as a tool to manipulate the masses.