Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    Sa. And the same is true of heart, lungs, liver, intestinal tract, skin and just about any other organ you could care to name.
    Yes! Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
      The brain is only an organ of the body. Some simple use of language shows how problematic the materialist view of man is.
      1. Peter has an eye (any organ). The eye (any organ) is an organ of Peter's body.
      2. Peter has a hand (any organ). The hand (any organ) is an organ of Peter's body.
      3. Peter has a brain (any organ). The brain (any organ) is an organ of Peter's body.


      The materialist affirms 1 and 2 and thereby affirms that Peter is the subject of the eye and hand. But the materialist must deny Peter is the subject in 3 and say Peter's brain is not only an organ of the body, but the source of Peters consciousness and personality. Peter, the person, or Peter the subject, is Peter's brain only in 3. Yet if the materialist is consistent with the affirmation of 1 and 2, the materialist should see the inconsistency in affirming Peter as the first subject of attribution of any organ (1 and 2), except the one organ of the brain, in 3 above.

      If Peter's eye is owned by Peter, then Peter's brain is owned by Peter. Thereforre Peter is not identified with any organ, including the brain. Peter, the person is a being other than any body part, or of the body. The being of Peter as the being of the person that is Peter, is that which is incommunicable in the substance of Peter.

      A simple use of language shows the materialist understanding of man is false. The person, or the 'who' which owns the nature, (or the 'what') of man, is not any organic part of man, but a being that is prior to all attributes as the first subject. For to affirm Peter has . . . is to affirm Peter is not what he has, but is other than what he has, as a being which predicates all attributes to that being which is the first subject of predication. JM
      No!

      Peter's brain IS Peter. No brain, no Peter.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        The Roman Catholic Church teaches that evolution takes place but that it is not responsible for the soul but rather, as Pius XII said in his Encyclical Humani Generis back in 1950, that basically the soul was injected into human beings by God, and did not arise from natural processes -- "that souls are immediately created by God" and don't come from "pre-existent and living matter."
        My comments on the soul were concerned with souls of plants and animals, and not that of the spiritual souls of men. I would also dispute that the Catholic church formally teaches evolution has occurred as found in the sacred deposit. There is no statement by any Pope or Council that says evolution has been revealed by God. So such statements are only the opinions of memebrs of the Church which do not bind the faithful.

        JM

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Roy View Post
          So you have no evidence, just assertions and made-up definitions.
          Roy ignores the evidence presented.

          JM

          Comment


          • Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            Still waiting for any evidence of a soul or that hylomorphism exists.
            Still waiting for any response from all the previous information given, which seems to have been ignored.

            JM

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
              Still waiting for any response from all the previous information given, which seems to have been ignored.

              JM
              Incoherent babbling doesn't qualify as evidence or information.

              Have you learned yet that plants do indeed have senses?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                No!

                Peter's brain IS Peter. No brain, no Peter.
                So Peter's brain is the peron of Peter.

                JM -If the brain is the first subject of attribution...

                Roy -No-one said it was.
                And now Peter's brain is not the person of Peter.

                The materialist confusion continues . . .

                JM

                Comment


                • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                  Incoherent babbling doesn't qualify as evidence or information.

                  Have you learned yet that plants do indeed have senses?
                  Plants have irritability as a physico-chemical reaction to touch or light and heat, and do not have senses.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    Plants have irritability as a physico-chemical reaction to touch or light and heat, and do not have senses.
                    Why did I know you'd be too lazy/cowardly/both to read the scientific study with evidence presented?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                      Alternatively, you can make up your own arbitrary definitions for 'material', 'matter' and 'mass' and demonstrate yet again that you're just spouting nonsense.
                      Aristotle defined matter as that which is indeterminate (can be).
                      No he didn't. He defined matter as the physical material or substrate that an object is composed of:

                      "By the matter I mean, for instance, the bronze, by the shape the pattern of its form, and by the compound of these the statue, the concrete whole. ... But that there is a brazen sphere, this we make. For we make it out of brass and the sphere; we bring the form into this particular matter, and the result is a brazen sphere."

                      The indeterminateness of matter is that it has the potential to be shaped into many different things by being given different forms, as per the definition you cited: "By matter I mean that which in itself is neither a particular thing nor of a certain quantity nor assigned to any other of the categories by which being is determined." But it does not mean that it isn't physical substance, it is not appreciably different from matter as defined by science in this respect, and it does not mean that matter as defined by Aristotle does not have mass.

                      Aristotle does hint at a different kind of matter: "Whether there is, apart from the matter of such substances, another kind of matter, and one should look for some substance other than these, e.g. numbers or something of the sort, must be considered later" but since he not only doesn't use this but also defers whether it even exists, it doesn't help you.
                      False. Aritstotle's matter as potency is the cause of quantity and not the substantial form. The quantity of a body is an accident not determinative of the nature of the substance per se. The substantial form (sf), which is per se determinative of the substance does not cause quantity. For if sf does cause quantity then the sf of marble would always be the same sf, causing the same quantity of marble. But as marble occurs in many diverse quantities, there is another cause of marble quantity, as an accident of the substance of marble. That cause of quantity is matter. Hence the soul does not cause quantity and therefore the soul does not have mass.


                      The second definition you cite also refers to physical material/substrate, but in this case the substrate when reduced to its basest components, e.g. wall->bricks->clay->minerals->elements, which again does not differ much from the modern scientific definition, and again implies mass. It isn't that different from the first one, and certainly doesn't justify your claim that it is potency, especially since you've used 'potency' previously to refer to things that don't exist but could, rather than things that do exist but are malleable.
                      The first subject of each thing, from which as from something becomes, and not accidentally. (Phys I, c.9) This definition is in accord with potency where it states "from which as from something becomes" and not what you have said above.

                      Incidentally, the definition you've cited is garbled since it doesn't include the reference to the lowest substratum: "For my definition of matter is just this-the primary substratum of each thing, from which it comes to be without qualification, and which persists in the result" and includes the Thomistic idea of accident which Aristotle didn't use.
                      The lowest stratum is primary matter. For what is together the prime and what can be is the lowest stratum is primary matter. Aristotle is referring to primary matter where he says "the primary substratum of each thing . . . first principle in respect of form.

                      (For my definition of matter is just this — the primary substratum of each thing, from which it comes to be without qualification, and which persists in the result.) And if it ceases to be it will pass into that at the last, so it will have ceased to be before ceasing to be.

                      The accurate determination of the first principle in respect of form, whether it is one or many and what it is or what they are, is the province of the primary type of science; so these questions may stand over till then. But of the natural, i.e. perishable, forms we shall speak in the expositions which follow.
                      According to Aristotle (as used by Thomas Aquinas and Thomists), matter is potency (can be) and not the matter as defined by science.
                      According to Aristotle as not used by Thomists, matter is the primordial substance that has potency only in form, not in existence, and is effectively equivalent to the modern concept of chemical elements. It does imply mass, and it does refute your idea that souls may be material but not have mass.
                      Matter is not the primordial substance. Matter is the can be or does be. Prime matter is the first can be. Matter is not equivalent to the chemical elements and does not imply mass.

                      It also shows that you are as clueless on classical (meta)physics as you are on modern physics.
                      You are wrong as shown above.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        So Peter's brain is the peron of Peter. JM
                        Yes! The brain pattern IS the human being. When it goes you go and before it comes on, you are not here. This is why we switch off the life-support machines of brain-dead people and bury or cremate the remains.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                          Why did I know you'd be too lazy/cowardly/both to read the scientific study with evidence presented?
                          I don't need to read it when I already know a plant does not have senses. A publication in science does not establish the truth value of the poublications claims. According to Thomistic philosophy, plants do not have senses.

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                            I don't need to read it when I already know a plant does not have senses.
                            Well there ya go! JM doesn't need to read any scientific research because he knows everything already. None of that hi-falutin' edumacation stuff for a moonbat, no siree!
                            Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 06-27-2017, 10:24 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              Yes! The brain pattern IS the human being. When it goes you go and before it comes on, you are not here. This is why we switch off the life-support machines of brain-dead people and bury or cremate the remains.
                              The activity of the brain is only an indicator of the life of the body. The body and the brain are owned by Peter as the first subject and not the brain. The brain is only one of many organs of the body owned by the person. The person is that being which is incommunicable. The notion of the person is discussed on the - Some Thomistic Concepts Introduced and Discussed thread.

                              JM

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                                Well there ya go! JM doesn't have to read any scientific research because he knows everything already. None of that hi-falutin' edumacation stuff for a moonbat, no siree!
                                It may come as a shock to you, but some regard science as overrated speculation about the nature of reality, that often fails to deliver the goods. You may also be shocked to know there are better ways to know reality other than science, through correct philosophy and theology.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X