Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Arguing for the Spirituality of the Human Intellect.

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    Knowledge is to have a union of knower and the object known.

    Refuting counter-example: once can know about fictional or abstract concepts where there is no actual object.
    Concepts are known from sense knowledge, then in the abstract, through intellective knowledge. All knowledge is objective, for all knowledge is either from the senses, which provide the object to the intellect, or from within the intellect that uses objects already given from the senses (such as fictional concepts). Even abstract concepts derived from a man who is thinking require an object, which is the nature of the concept known in the universal. The nature of knowledge is the knower becomes something other than the knower through the act of knowledge. The nature of a non knowner is the non knower always remains the non knower and never becomes another thing. Knowledge is fundamentally diverse from non knowledge. The prior becomes another objectively, the later remains the same.


    As no organ can self reflect in knowledge, no organ can know itself.

    You can repeat that as often as you like, but it won't make it true and it won't make it any more necessary to rebut.
    You are repeating an objection already answered.

    JM

  2. #12
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,747
    Amen (Given)
    492
    Amen (Received)
    1287
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
    You are repeating an objection already answered.
    That's because your answer merely repeated the original claims without impacting the objection.
    Mountain Man: A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    That's because your answer merely repeated the original claims without impacting the objection.
    As no organ can self reflect in knowledge, no organ can know itself per se as an organ, for the following reasons -

    1) An organ only attains sense knowledge, which always attains an object in the concrete with individuating notes such as colour, savour, sound, heat etc. The sense knowledge never attains to the nature of the thing sensed. Therefore an organ cannot know itself, for an organ to know itself is to know its own nature in the universal. Such knowledge is beyond the operation, and object of the organic senses.

    2) The senses are ordered to attainment of an object of a thing, whereby the thing is outside (or at least extrinsic) to the organ and knowledge of the thing is mediated to the organic sense through physical medium such as heat, sound, light etc. Therefore the organ can never attain to knowledge of itself per se, but only to the objects of the sense mediated through physical mediums. Such self knowledge of an organ, say a tongue turning back on itself to taste itself is only an knowledge of the organ as flavour. The sense of taste in no way knows the tongue as a tongue, but only as a flavour. Similarly hearing only knows sound, touch only knows heat and cold etc. No sense can know itself as per se a sense, but only accidentally as that which is sensed.

    The intellect however can know its own self as an intellect, as a power to know natures in the universal through self reflection, whereby the object of the intellect is the intellect itself known in the universal. Such an act is only possible with a power that proposes itself to itself as an object of knowledge in the universal. Such an act of self knowledge is both universal and without a physical medium, which is an act beyond that of a sense.

    JM

  4. #14
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,747
    Amen (Given)
    492
    Amen (Received)
    1287
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
    The intellect however can know its own self as an intellect, as a power to know natures in the universal through self reflection, whereby the object of the intellect is the intellect itself known in the universal. Such an act is only possible with a power that proposes itself to itself as an object of knowledge in the universal. Such an act of self knowledge is both universal and without a physical medium, ...
    You just asserted what you are trying to prove.

    You're also still claiming that a brain cannot know about brains, itself included, in the same way that it knows about trees etc. All that stuff about tongues only being able to taste but not move from the flavour of something to its identity is irrelevant, since the brain does the identification and the brain isn't a sense organ.
    Last edited by Roy; 06-29-2017 at 12:45 PM.
    Mountain Man: A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    You just asserted what you are trying to prove.

    You're also still claiming that a brain cannot know about brains, itself included, in the same way that it knows about trees etc. All that stuff about tongues only being able to taste but not move from the flavour of something to its identity is irrelevant, since the brain does the identification and the brain isn't a sense organ.
    The brain has the internal senses of common sense, estimative sense, memory and imagination. All these senses only know in the singular like the other organs of sense. The brain can only have some sense kowledge of itself if the brain acts like another external sense such as touch. Any sensation of the brain is only a knowledge of say pain, or heat or cold, just like the other senses. Such knowledge is not knowledge of the brain per se, but only knowledge of heat, or pain of the brain, which is only the brain's accidental knowledge of itself. The internal senses cannot cause the brain to attain any real self knowledge, for the same reasons that prevent self knowledge of the other senses.

    There is no physical medium for the intellect to know itself, for the intellect is a spirit as previously proven on the OP. Consequently the intellect becomes the thing known, hence there is no physical medium between the intellect and the object known.

    JM
    Last edited by JohnMartin; 06-29-2017 at 01:01 PM.

  6. #16
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,747
    Amen (Given)
    492
    Amen (Received)
    1287
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
    There is no physical medium for the intellect to know itself,
    Again asserting what you're trying to show.
    for the intellect is a spirit as previously proven on the OP.
    Assuming the conclusion you're trying to reach in order to reach that conclusion is a tad circular.
    Mountain Man: A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    Again asserting what you're trying to show.Assuming the conclusion you're trying to reach in order to reach that conclusion is a tad circular.
    You've made some false claims that ignore the proof given in the OP.

    JM

  8. #18
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,992
    Amen (Given)
    1277
    Amen (Received)
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
    You've made some false claims that ignore the proof given in the OP.

    JM
    There is no proof present in the OP. only assertions of belief.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •