Arguments for the Immateriality of the Mind

Edward Feser (Pasadena City College): "Arguments for the Immateriality of the Mind"
This talk was delivered at the second conference of the Society of Catholic Scientists at the Catholic University of America, June 8-10, 2018.

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

I lived 20 years of my life just going through the motions, until one day I woke up and thought why did I wake up today. Now I’m forever fascinated about life consciousness and existence.

[@aaronchandler2380]

Life was Given to us You should have stayed in bed...

[@gor764]

Feser really needs to make a weekly podcast

[@Kyle-hn1vl]

YAS!

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Especially now that Sean Carroll has a podcast.

[@adriansoria4899]

He actually does a lot of podcasts for Catholic Answers! You can listen to it at www.catholic.com/audio

[@fujiapple9675]

Dr. Feser blogs: edwardfeser.blogspot.com

[@michaelflores9220]

Monkeys can use logic to learn to break sticks off trees and pick ants out of anthills from them. That sounds like logical reasoning about physics. Do monkeys have souls?

[@whoami8434]

Feser is a gift. I’m really grateful he isn’t like Hart who just spins in his own arrogance without letting people in on the fun. Not that I don’t like a good circumlocution, I’d just like him to not ever use words like circumlocution.

[@mcmoneyleswag]

I wholehartedly agree with your circumlocution on Harts circumlocutions.

[@carsonwall2400]

I like Feser, but DBH is simply his superior in almost every way (at least as a thinker). Also, his rigid Thomism can get quite tiresome.

[@scottbuchanan9426]

@Actus Purus Just giving back to the new atheist know-nothings, who try and conceal their ignorance with arrogance and bluster.

[@awesomeisasawesomedoesyo182]

If Catholic University of America, we’re still Catholic this guy would be there.

[@JohnSmith-vd6fc]

...or Notre Dame or Georgetown or ...

[@Deuterium2H]

Thank you for uploading and sharing this excellent lecture by Dr. Edward Feser.

[@michaelflores9220]

What is the short version of this video? A summary to understand his argument without spending an hour listening to it. I"m too doubtful to have the energy/drive to just sit down and listen to it all.

[@RidvanSmith]

@@michaelflores9220 You might just have to "white knuckle" through it

[@igorfranzoniokuyama8738]

I wish we could have access to the text Feser provided to the audience, because his talk is quite fast paced for my brain...

[@duqueadriano0081]

that much is evident thanks to your use of the word "brain" rather than "mind"

[@edwardrueda9424]

You can slow down the playback speed….I do that for Feser and Isiah Berlin

[@alanjb142]

Excellent speech

[@whoami8434]

I like the idea that, for a human to be a complete being, they must have both mind/soul AND body, and if they do not have one of the two they are therefore not entirely human. And while the soul CAN exist independently of the body and the body independent of the mind, neither are complete without the other. I’m not exactly sure on all the details yet, but this is not at all the “ghost in the machine” kind of independence I was lead to believe it was. It’s so much more interesting.

[@mcmoneyleswag]

How many times have you watched this? Your comments are a month apart...

[@whoami8434]

@@mcmoneyleswag I often revisit these types of lectures because there’s always something I missed. I also take notes on them. Why? Because they’re fascinating.

[@mcmoneyleswag]

Who Am I? What other lectures do you watch?

[@whoami8434]

@@mcmoneyleswag Well, anything with David Bentley Hart, Feser, and pretty much anyone from the Thomistic Institute (they have a KZbin channel). They often have interesting speakers talk on interesting topics. Also, Bishop Barron. Apart from these guys, I guess I just follow the rabbit hole of KZbin’s recommendations until I find some other obscure, interesting speaker.

[@mcmoneyleswag]

Who Am I? Same. The almighty algorithm gifted me this lecture and many others (nice cello playing btw).

[@andrewprahst2529]

Would you believe me if I said I've heard of the obscure 1970's Japanese pop band called "triangle"?

[@greggloveland9405]

He has a picture of the completed manuscript of his new book on his blog site: “Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature”! More details to follow.

[@haasklaw764]

Wow! 30:17. My immaterial mind blown! Amazing.

[@moesypittounikos]

Psychedelics and dreams point to this.

[@PessimisticIdealism]

P1) An Object’s features are either Subject-relative or Subject-independent. P2) An Object’s Subject-independent features have their conceptual content grounded in the Object’s Subject-relative features. C1) Therefore, an Object’s features are either Subject-relative or have their conceptual content grounded in the Object’s Subject-relative features. P3) The only way to explain the emergence of a Subject from an Object would be to explain the emergence of a Subject from an Object in terms of the Object’s Subject-independent features. C2) Therefore, the only way to explain the emergence of a Subject from an Object would be to explain the emergence of a Subject from an Object in terms of features that have their conceptual content grounded in the Object’s Subject-relative features. P4) To explain the emergence of a Subject from an Object in terms of features that have their conceptual content grounded in the Object’s Subject-relative features. is viciously circular. C3) Therefore, the only way to explain the emergence of a Subject from an Object is viciously circular. P5) If an explanation is viciously circular, then it is fallacious. C4) Therefore, the only way to explain the emergence of a Subject from an Object is fallacious.

[@grmalinda6251]

@@HoneybunMegapack man explains God who created man?

[@louiswilliamson5937]

Is there a transcript or some reading on this? I am hard of hearing but interested in this stuff.

[@davide724]

Turn on closed captions in the options. It's auto generated in english, so it's not necessarily going to be perfect, but it's mostly accurate.

[@groonix3856]

Edward Feser’s book “Philosophy of the Mind”

[@mathew4181]

The Grand Biocenteic design by Robert Lanza

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

his reference to Noam Chomsky about apes being taught to jump is picked up by Dr. Erich Jarvis with his Continuum of Vocal Learning model. So essentially there is a big difference between auditory learning and speaking. A dog or an ape can learn by listening and can understand but there has been only rare instances of convergent evolution tied to the motor neurons synchronized with the auditory neurons for actual vocal learning. So for example song birds and humans both independently evolved this same ability of vocal learning and in both cases it's closely tied to our body movements (hopping for birds and dancing/walking for humans).

[@James-od5eq]

I don't understand why immateriality itself implies non-temporalness and changelessness. Immaterial mind only needs to exclude spatiality or extension (although there were some philosophers who attributed even some special, non-physical kind of extension to immaterial minds (ex. Henry More, Samuel Clarke, etc.)). Immortality, which many philosophers think is immaterial mind's necessary feature, itself is a temporal concept. Only infinite and perfect Mind such as God (if God can be called a Mind) might be said to be beyond time and change. So I don't think there can be any special problem about a finite, immaterial mind's learning new things, or going under change.

[@michaelflores9220]

What is the cliff notes version of this video?

[@RidvanSmith]

Well he does have a book on this topic called "Philosophy of Mind: A Beginner's Guide Book by Edward Feser" I would recommend going through it in the full since cliff notes often times miss detail that may help with understanding the topic.

[@marilynmelzian7370]

Great lecture. One question: why do scientists object to teleology?

[@Torbu6286]

Because there's no teleology in nature, only quasi-teleology.

[@philochristos]

Feser always makes me feel stupid.

[@Kyle-hn1vl]

Surely you are a little less stupid for having listened to this lecture, eh?

[@ironymatt]

Good thing that reality isn't determined by our feelings 😁. Fact: there's nothing stupid about listening.

[@brucetaylor3571]

You are not alone, dude.

[@triviatum7236]

Because his arguments really don’t make any sense. It is not you, it’s him.

[@lololauren55]

@@triviatum7236 Really? His logic is spotless, and to deny any of it is self-refuting incoherence. But you could try. After all, this is one but many arguments that are decisive refutations of materialism, that matter is all there is.

[@LaurenceBrown-rx7hx]

If you can’t wrap your head around adder circuits why not use m&m’s like we did in preschool

[@whoami8434]

Drink every time he looks away from the podium

[@RidvanSmith]

good speaker

[@rogersacco4624]

Noone is going to be resurrected to live to infinity .

[@LaureanoLuna]

At about 9:40, he seems to be confusing two different questions: on the one hand, the fact that matter does not possess secondary qualities; on the other, the (alleged) fact that matter (more precisley: brains) cannot feel or perceive such secondary qualities. In principle, the former could be the case without the latter being the case.

[@MrDzoni955]

I know this is 1 year old but anyway. The point is this: IF matter doesn't possess secondary qualities, brain doesn't possess them either because brain is material. But our minds do possess these qualities, leading us to dualism.

[@Daniel-cz9gt]

@@MrDzoni955 The statement "X has color” can be interpreted in two different ways: X possesses the subjective experience of color. X has the property of evoking the subjective experience of color in an observer. When we say "apples have color," we typically mean it in the second sense. Apples have the property of evoking the subjective experience of color in our minds when we observe them. However, the apples themselves do not possess the subjective experience of color. So, when it is said that "color and smell do not exist in matter," it should be phrased more precisely as: "The subjective experiences of color and smell evoked by observing matter do not exist inherently within the matter being observed." But that does not mean that it doesn't exit in any matter at all.

[@silasabrahamsen7926]

55:08 What da dog doin?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

The woman at the beginning seems both bright (Feser's book on Aquinas is heavy stuff) and adorable!

[@davidcarsonkidd]

That's Karin Öberg, Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University and leader of the Öberg Astrochemistry Group at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Her research focuses on the impact of chemistry on planet formation, including the compositions of nascent planets. "Bright" is an understatement. ;-)

[@UnratedAwesomeness]

Are you in love?

[@carlosalegria4776]

Bruh you simpin'

[@michaelflores9220]

Can he read a dog's mind to know it isn't conceptualizing a predator?

[@suntzu7727]

Can you read a dog's mind to know it isn't solving equations?

[@joaomarcos2089]

.

[@tiagovasc]

30:00

[@JohnSmith-vd6fc]

The '2' you write on your piece of paper and the '2' I write on my piece of paper are two distinct things. The concept of '2' that you have in your mind and the concept of '2' I have in my mind are the exact same thing. How materialists get around this incongruity is incongruous to me.

[@superdog797]

1. Your conception of "2" may share similarities to my conception of "2" but that does not imply they are the exact same thing. When you think of "2" things float in and out of your mind - pairs of objects, the Arabic numeral image, math, etc. - these concepts are what you experience "2" as. The transient imagery and associations in my mind are not the same as yours, even if they are similar. 2. The thing written on paper is not the thing in the mind. However, there is no evidence that your brain and body state is different from the "thing in your mind". Could be - there's just no evidence for that. I'm not even sure how you could provide evidence for that unless you could show that there is no neural correlate to a conscious thought, which has never been done (the opposite is the case, of course; there are always neural correlates to conscious states whenever we have looked). 3. Moreover, perhaps more importantly, nobody can even provide a coherent definition of what it is for "something to exist in the mind" - all we can say is that "it's something we all experience personally". Well and good, but the inability to define this concept in clear and specific terms means we can't study it. Hence, claims about the "mind being immaterial" are actually vacuous because they contain no content because they invoke incoherent definitions. This is why materialism - or at least empirical science - is superior to other views - it uses fewer, if any, ill-defined concepts.

[@JohnSmith-vd6fc]

@@superdog797 If my concept of 2 and your concept of 2 are different then you can gather empirical evidence but you can't deduce universal conclusions from them.

[@superdog797]

​@@JohnSmith-vd6fc Like I said they share similarities and differences. Remember you and I were talking about the conception of 2 we each hold, not the thing 2 itself. We can share the same definition of 2 because we can agree or disagree that any given set of words represents what we agree to call 2; we can agree that any pair of objects we observe is two; we can agree that when a clock goes through hand movements that 2 movements have passed. We can never know, however, what the other person's conception of 2 exactly is, however, because the only way to exactly understand what another person conceives is to be that person with their bioneurology - that's 1st person knowledge and only attainable to the being itself. You and I are humans so we share extreme similarity and we have similar environment and governed by the same physics and thus when we invoke the concept of 2 or are triggered to think about 2 our conceptions are very similar, but you and I also share differences and hence our experience of 2 is slightly different. What you seemed to be suggesting was that there is some concept of 2 that is independent of minds and yet minds have access to that concept. That doesn't make sense because the word concept refers to an idea that exists already in the mind. If you are saying that there is some universal "concept" of 2 that is independent of minds and we then dial into that concept I don't know what you mean - we need (you need) a coherent definition. Our tendency is to think of the idea of math and numbers as absolute but like I said before if you reflect you find that when you invoke the idea of "2" you are experiencing a certain set of endlessly flowing states of mind; for all intents and purposes these constitute the "definition of 2" because there are no other referents from which we can define the concept. Materialism handles this definition well because all the examples and sensory inputs are well within its definitional and explanatory scope, and there's no paradox or problem with the idea of you and I converging on what constitutes 2. In our everyday experience the vast majority of our states of mind do not stop to reflect on the symbols and sensations that pass through our stream of consciousness because this would be horribly inefficient and evolution selected for brains that would tend to function a certain way with certain tendencies of thought. This is why we think quickly, fluidly and "in absolutes"; it allows us to focus on tasks and get them done. Definitional problems are among the core problems for non-material or non-empirical worldviews, and I've noticed a tendency for their supporters to just ignore this issue while simultaneously pushing those views. They don't seem to acknowledge they are falling into incoherence and simply do not want to accept what are the self-apparent limitations of human knowledge. So, in an immaterial world, how would you define "2" such that we can make coherent statements about it and yet have it remain immaterial? You have to define this first in immaterial terms if you're going to say it's a problem for materialists.

[@JohnSmith-vd6fc]

@@superdog797 I am a Platonist with regard to numbers. You appear to be a nominalist. Nominalism is the beginning of the end to Western Civilization.

[@superdog797]

@@JohnSmith-vd6fc So you won't argue the substantive merits of the discussion, but instead will appeal to a claim about social cohesion, which isn't relevant to a process of analysis? You derailed the whole discussion and rendered your initial comment pointless. I suppose I'm interested in why you think Nominalism will "destroy" what you call "Western Civilization" but I was more interested in your initial claim about our conceptions of numbers being "the exact same thing", as I went on at some length trying to show why that simply isn't the case. You can say you are a Platonist with regard to numbers but that doesn't progress the conversation because you're just restating what you said earlier behind a label (which is sophistry). If you're not interested in defending your idea that's well and good, but then your whole initial comment (how do materialists deal with this supposed "issue" of conceptions of numbers being "the same"?) contains no merit. Anyone can just sit around and say "Well I believe what I believe and I don't understand how other people believe what they believe and I'm not interested in defending my belief but I think we will all be happier if we believe what I believe" and then go home, but that doesn't make for a discussion. I mean if you just want someone to hear you talk that's all well and good but I thought in philosophy we were trying to do analysis and exchange ideas, form arguments, apply theories, and solve puzzles. Sitting around and bloviating about your own beliefs is none of that - that's more akin to theology or preaching - which is fine in a church but in a philosophical channel is almost tantamount to trolling.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

Hey.There is no in a dictionary the term "quaddition" as opposed to "addition"-I smell it means a messy gathering of something or unordered set; an ordered set only defined in A.D.1920; consequently, all the past centuries have not understood their mathematical terms like "function" or "relation",etc. All (knowledge) is based on the assumption (not a sensible fact) the existence of ORDER!

[@danharte6645]

I'd love to see a talk between Ed and Jordan Peterson

[@seroteamavi9505]

Philosophically and Theologically JBP is useless

[@strigoi5890]

I like perterson but he’s getting WAAAAY too much credit philosophically.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

Jordan Peterson is the stupid person's idea of a smart person.

[@yoozernaiim]

Considering how much reach and influence he is having on millions of people in sharing important topics, I'd hardly think of Jordan Peterson as "useless" or "the stupid person's idea of a smart person". What pompous replies.

[@anthonymccarthy4164]

@@yoozernaiim In ten or fifteen years, I would bet that people are saying in even larger numbers than now "Jordan who?" He is an internet sensation, a flash in the shallow brain pans of angry white males, many of whom have never read anything he wrote or have ever read much of anything else. That Ed Feser, who I both agree with and disagree with about much, is everything by way of an intellectual that Peterson isn't, which probably explains the differential in popularity. You don't get a mass audience, even a temporary one, on the basis of thinking difficult thoughts. Jordan Peterson's fame is like that of a Hollywood movie, there's always the next one coming.

[@doctorstrangiato3218]

Evolved creatures display goal-directed behavior (primarily directed toward self-preservation and reproduction) that has been shaped by the non-teleological processes of evolution by natural selection as described by Darwin. The fact that creatures exhibit goal-directed behavior, does not mean that the fundamental building blocks of nature out of which those creatures emerged are themselves teleological.

[@AlamarianJ]

If the raw material of a creature does not contain the teleology and neither do the processes that create the creature, whence comes the teleology?

[@account2871]

Natural selection is goal oriented

[@eldenlean5221]

You cant state that something is primairly directed towards an end and that it sultanousley lacks teleology at a fundamental level. Thats a logical contradiction.

[@matswessling6600]

⁠@@eldenlean5221? of course you can. Its the converse that is a logical error; properties of an object is not necessary shared by all its parts.

[@eldenlean5221]

@@matswessling6600 thats irrelevant. I didnt mention fundamentality by accident. There is implicit teleology in evolution, and indeed in all emprical methods. And while there is an element of randomness in evolution, it is, at a fundental level, a mechanism designed to promulgate survival and reproduction. Thats its function. Function is by necesity is teleologic. Thats in a way what teleology is. And on the note of fundamentality and teleology, again, this extends not only to science, but rationalism itself. You cant on the one hand assume any given phenomena has an inteligible explanation, and on the other discard teleology. Its a contradiction, since the former works under the assumption that the latter exists.

[@richi88]

I wonder what Steven Pinker might think of this

[@bennyredpilled5455]

Pinker is a dogmatic "thinker"

[@giovannidaza4574]

Pinker is not a philosopher, nor does he think like one. He is a psychologist known to millennials.

[@DeadEndFrog]

He doesn't seem to go into how one is supposed to 'prove' other peoples rationality. He wants his cake and eat it too. Everyone is actually 'quading'

[@DeadEndFrog]

@Robert Berger Ah you found a comment from 2 years ago, lets see. A blind will does not destory my point at all, you might not prefer it as an explenation, but its perfectlly fine to assume it until it is proven false, as this is a video about a dude attempting to prove the contrary without doing so. One should argue and prove ones own point before one shifts the burden of proof. You are free to post your comment on a video about someone attempting to prove that the will is blind, i suggest looking into Schopenhauer, but unlike Schopenhauer who atleast attempts to anwser the question, while Feser just skipped it. The diffrence between the religious and the atheist is often times their base assumptions, and none of them bother to argue for it, but merely assume it. And then they play the burden shifting game until the end of time. Boring

[@casiandsouza7031]

Don't mention animals that you never got to know. I have observed a puppy size up an obstruction and choose the downhill way around it.

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

consciousness is impermanent and rather unremarkable, being the product of the brain.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

And your reasons you provide....... none.

[@vol94]

@TheGuiltsOfUs If your statement is true, it is false. It's a self defeating statement, let me show you how. If the brain is just matter and particles, and only the interaction of particles and chemicals creates rational thoughts and experience, then the particles and chemicals that comprise the brain are not rational in and of themselves. If that is the case, then every thought your brain comes up with or every sentence you speak is ultimately meaningless and non rational, because non rational entities that are in flux cannot lead you to rational, logical conclusions any more than a dead driver can take you to a destination. Therefore, if the brain is all matter, then I have proven that there is no such thing as rationality or logic, and you cannot make the statement that the brain is material because statements require logic. If everything is material, you cannot make any meaningful statement or come to any logical conclusion. Hence your comment can be rejected and thrown in the trash bin. Don't make a self refuting statement or anyone who knows the first thing about philosophy will pick it apart.

[@noahclayborne5560]

Woman in beginning=fine

[@matswessling6600]

immateriality is much less different from materiality than theists wants to admit.

[@writereducator]

"Only mathematical explanations are real explanations" is not a mathematical explanation.

[@LaureanoLuna]

It is no explanation at all, it is just an assertion.

[@writereducator]

@@LaureanoLuna Right. And for it to be true, it would have to be provable mathematically, which is impossible.

[@darkice3267]

Maths is gay

[@JohnSmith-vd6fc]

@@darkice3267 Euclidean geometry involves straight lines. Non-Euclidean geometry doesn't, so that is gay.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

Why so many words? The problem is in the (mis)understanding the terms: "brain" and "mind". St.Aristotle's vocabulary resolves it perfectly: mind is the form of brain like soul of matter! What's then the Hell (of problem)? Here,and in literature the the (eternal)debates on the nature of formal science (logic, mathemattics) :Platonism, conventialism/formalism, and logicism. Hey folks: is the sign "1" (term "one") immaterial or non-material? What a silly problem! By a convention, you prescribe such sign ("1") to any "object"/being instead to talk about "this cat,stone, this black cat,dog, etc....,a little complication with application into QM,but nothing mysterious as claims a famous R.FEymann!!). Math is a just quantitative "property" of the world (if you like: material +immaterial). Well, the term "predicate calculus" in I suspect any Math Dictionary explains the problem: one has an (material) object, name or the sentence for this object,and the meta-sentence about the truth on this sentence! Hey! Is only this object (any,: like this I see a cat or dog, of Mary) real or material? I smell at the background of the main Argument,the idea of math as an ideal science existing on itself (i Plato's fancy Idea world-argumetn of Aristtole contra it); well, as mentioned, math is only s useful convention to speed up intellecutal operations and communication about outside world(one window and onde window and...-it is easier to express as 1+1+1...-by convention) .BE careful because there some terms one can only express verbally but not to assign any term and symbol: these are principle (of logic) as different from laws or for ex. existential quantifiers in logic which strictly speaking are extr-logical terms (after K.Ajdukiewicz) because just the term "exist or be/"is",'are") can not be formalized as any universal term-Aristotle, Semantics (only since 1933,A.Tarski!)

[@JohnSmith-vd6fc]

Evidently even more words are necessary, at least to get this concept through Dennett's thick skull.

[@qqqmyes4509]

Your writing sucks

[@ComputingTheSoul]

"mind is the form of brain like soul of matter" Well yeah, but that would still leave the mind as immaterial.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

@@ComputingTheSoul Yes but remember the term "matter" in Aristotle and in popular use means sth different: "matter" in Aristotle's vocabulary does not exist by itself; only the "sum" of this "matter" (as a potential stuff) with "form" makes an individual concrete being like a stone, a human being,etc. If one calls this stone or human being as a "material being" it is logical BS because any such concrete being has an (immaterial) form; quite more complicated with microobjects that are described as "waves" or "particles" - a wave function could play the role of such form.

[@ComputingTheSoul]

@@krzysztofciuba271 I understand that in an Aristotelianism that's just Hylomorphism. However, we are speaking in terms of those things which are physical, so we're using more contemporary language to describe that.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

My impression is that Consciousness is fundamental,Mind is elemental; emerging with quantum events. In Eastern religion and philosophy, Universal Consciousness is God, whom they define as: Consciousness; Existence; and Bliss..Chinese philosophy has it that nothing happens without three. Therefore, Consciousness (fundamental); Mind (elemental; likely emerges with quantum events); matter or the physical; (elemental or physical: elements ( and forces at a grosser rate of vibration). If we understand vibration; starting with the Word and separating the waters from the waters as it was expressed in the Scriptures, then we understand that the reductionism of materialism is a totally wrong perspective. It is good that the Church is taking this on as now we are faced with the next atheistic horror; likely rivaling communism as eliminative materialism; its theses that nothing exists other than matter; the physical. With trans humanism also on the horizon it is important that the Church be a bulwark against these as it was against the dark occult between the dark age and the age of reason. Happy to see this that the Church is taking on and opposing what if it enters the mainstream could cause great harm and suffering. So let us be on our guard against Eliminative Materialism that wants to eliminate everything as real other than matter. As well as fighting back against Trans humanism which see the human (as biology only) ripe for experimentation and for being embedded with technology. Thank you Catholic Church for taking this on; you are on the job and doing what needs to be done in protecting humanity from the next potential horror that atheism presents humanity with as it strives to deify matter. Eliminative Materialism is the next untruth to be fought against and defeated.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

It would be also good if the Church brought in Consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy). I believe the East is correct in seeing it as God (both immanent and transcendent as Universal Consciousness; outside and within nature). As humans we share in Consciousness which is fundamental and has been named God. Also in higher ages the perception of human evolution was to a unique human prototype; fourteen versions in a universal cycle. It is disappointing that the Church appears to succumb to the error of human evolution from a different species and prototype. The Church should check out what was understood and known in higher ages: Human evolution to a uniquely human prototype; fourteen versions in a universal cycle; species specific to a unique human prototype.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

When God said let Us make man in our image that did not mean evolution from a lower species. It meant what is clear it means man as was seen and understood it before the dark age: Man as the microcosm of the macrocosm. In the image of God. Materialists who do not believe in God or who do not understand what consciousness is (the hard problem) will continue to be reductive and try to have matter (which they see and comprehend ) to be the nature of reality; it is their deity.

[@stevecoley8365]

X-Files Question. Why are the evangelical counting corpses using the bible as a springboard to perform somersaults to do the exact opposite of "love their neighbors" and "treat others like they want to be treated"? Answer. This is sick. Because these simple concepts are too far out there to grasp for vampires (greed).

[@tim1883]

Catholic scientist? Jumbo shrimp? Can't be both, not literally anyway. Unless a Jesuit, then you are neither.

[@lucasBarjas]

my brother in christ, if it wasn't for the catholic church there would be no science

[@jarosawmichalak6335]

Note the error he makes around 9:00: if the color is not in the APPLE itself, then it is not in the material at all. If it is not in the material, then it is also not in the brain, therefore you are committed to dualism. But that does not follow - the color is the brain's reaction to the physical properties of the apple. It is not either in the apple itself nor in the brain itself, yet may supervene only on the physical. I am pointing this out, as this fallacy is then reproduced in the main argument itself. In the defence of premise 2, he gives the example of the triangle drawing. But the reasoning that if the drawing itself does not contain the concept itself (it is ambiguous), then NOTHING material cannot be unambiguous is fallacious: the drawing might not contain the concept BY ITSELF, but be an element forming the concept together with other material elements. For example, a 'concept' might be a relational property between the representation (or a series of representations) and the parts/processes of the brain. In that case premise 2 would be false. As for the refutation to the computation counterargument, it can itself be rejected based on the basis of an argument mentioned elsewhere in the lecture, namely the 'swamp man'. Suppose that by some chance (e.g. a lightning in the swamp) a set of atoms comes into configuration that is exactly like the one of a normally functioning calculator. By Feser's argument, not only it is impossible to tell whether the swamp calculator is doing addition or quaddition, but there is nothing in the calculator itself that would determine whether it does addition or quaddition. But that is obviously false - the swamp calculator would give the same result as human-designed calculator for the same inputs in every case and it is NOT possible for the swamp calculator (as long as it is materially identical to the designed calculator) to perform quaddition instead of addition. Thus the structure of the swamp calculator itself DOES determine that it does not do quadditions, so Feser must be wrong.

[@paulywauly6063]

YOU SAID : The drawing "MIGHT NOT" contain the concept BY ITSELF, but be an element forming the concept together with other material elements. For example, a 'concept' 'MIGHT BE" a relational property between the representation (or a series of representations) and the parts/processes of the brain. In that case premise 2 would be false. MY RESPONSE : But you haven't demonstrated that premise 2 is false . All you have done is describe what "MIGHT BE" true in order to make your claim stand . You cannot call Dr Fesers arguments fallacious with a provision of "MIGHT" That makes your own claims invalid At best you could question the premise and or the conclusion , but you you have no grounds to claim that they are fallacious YOU SAID : DR Feser implies the following ; then NOTHING material cannot be unambiguous MY RERSPONSE : This is a triple negative ....... NOTHING !!!!! CANNOT !!!!!!! UNAMBIGUOUS !!!!! I am not sure that Dr Feser implied this reasoning , so I am stating that this is a actually a strawman argument you present .

[@jarosawmichalak6335]

1. I have pointed out the fallacy in the support of the premise 2 and described a scenario which makes the premise false. This is enough to question it. 2. Of course, I meant that his premise states that 'Nothing material CAN be unambigous'. I think it is quite clear from the context, but thank you for pointing this out.

[@Tdisputations]

I think you missed the point of the argument. His point is that if you say that color does not exist in matter, then it follows that color does not exist in the brain since the brain is material.

[@jarosawmichalak6335]

But the physicalists do not claim that color does not exist in matter AT ALL, only that it does not exist as 'common sense understands it and [...] there is nothing in the apple itself that corresponds to that', as Feser describes it. Some physicalists believe that color (and other secondary qualities) is encoded in the brain by means which CAN be described in the mathematicized conception of the world, i.e. by brain synapse connections, excitations etc. So going from 'there is nothing in the apple' to 'there is nothing in the matter' is unjustified and does not describe (some) physicalists' views properly.

[@Tdisputations]

Jarosław Michalak Yes, but it is precisely the way that red looks that Edward Feser is interested in here not the wavelengths of light. If you want to describe matter in a purely mathematical way, then you are committed to dualism because redness is not mathematical. Asserting that neuronal connections are identical to redness is just nonsense.

[@chosenskeptic5319]

Special pleading 🥺 the dog didn’t bring the cat into reality, the cat 🐱 already exist.

[@sergeysmirnov5986]

Wow, the video is clearly refuted now. You go girl

[@chosenskeptic5319]

🤔 the mind is rooted in biological existence 🧠 . Biological thought 💭 aka will is subjective not transcendent from it’s contingent causation. The consciousness of thought is contingent on the chemical cognitive process of reasoning. It is poor philosophy and theology that assert (claim) thought 💭 is objective from matter.

[@hm12874]

You're just asserting that the mind is material through circular reasoning instead of addressing the arguments.

[@chosenskeptic5319]

Hayden Menezes 🤔 your funny.

[@cluelessdrifter9881]

@@hm12874 Do give an example of an argument that shows the mind is not a product of the material brain. No word salad, no mumbo jumbo, not a wall of text encompassing 50 psuedo-arguments, just an example of one argument you think that works.

[@sergeysmirnov5986]

@@cluelessdrifter9881 AWARE I confirmed case - I have an original paper if you need it. Pam Reynolds case. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pJ-3h4N5rLWdnqs&pbjreload=101

[@chosenskeptic5319]

@Kenneth Goetz 🤔 still trolling, Platonism failed theology of object having entry intrinsic identity is a dead concept

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

Again more word salad.

[@Darksaga28]

Sorry it's so hard for you to understand.

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

@@Darksaga28 "Sorry it's so hard for you to understand." Sorry you're an idiot.

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

Dark Saga Let me be a bit clearer. At 10:36 he talks about teleology and mentions the human eye. I call this word salad because he is grasping at an idea that really has been dismissed before. However, he uses his word salad skills to try to give it validity by renaming it. He also sort of just mentions it in passing. This is often done by people to try to bolster an argument with fallacious reasoning. In simply quickly mentioning an idea it makes it difficult for others to stop and judge whether it is valid or not. We have ZERO evidence that the eye is "directed toward the end of enabling an organism to see". This is a subtle rewording of "an eye is designed to allow organisms to see." This is what word salad is. Do you get it now? I have the sneaking suspicion that I just handed you your ass. Would you like me to continue?

[@Darksaga28]

Samiam 666 ok mr nobody. You’re just a kid with “666” in your name. That so 80’s, and childish. I know you don’t understand much about philosophy, and probably can’t understand science. I won’t waste my time, but seriously, change your childish name.

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

@King Mass "If u are coming from this framework, one holds that organic matter has a telos (a purpose/end/function) to be fulfilled, like an eye" It's not particularly intelligent to have a preconceived notion like this. Intelligent people recognize that. It is what many religions do in order to reach a predetermined conclusion. We've already seen that "eyes" come in all sorts of states. Some are simple light sensors, while others are much more capable. The idea that the "fulfil a purpose has been soundly dismissed. So that's really not a good starting point. "U however are merely posing ur own version of science onto his." Ah, this is incorrect. Science is a process by which we use facts and evidence to support a conclusion, not the other way around. There is no "version" of science. There is only science. "And as per usual one can disagree on the grounds on science usually and is encouraged." No. You can't. Everything else is pseudo science. There isn't any interpretation for the ideal of science. We might not always be perfect in our practice of science, but what science is supposed to be, is quite clear. Use evidence. "Aristotlean science" There is no such thing. "something like scientism (modern science) which is silly" So now you're making things up? Good for you. So you're going to try to use semantics as reasoning? That's just dumb. And this is also a logical fallacy, in which you thought "which is silly" was a good argument. You're not even following "Aristotlean science" by using logic. I think this is over soon. "it supposes that only things can be proved via the scientific method" This is also incorrect. Science (not modern science or scientism) proposes that having a system by which we use evidence and facts, we are more likely to find what is true about our world. Did you really think that having a preconceived notion (as you mentioned with the eye) is a good thing? Have you ever read a science book? Why would you say something so wrong? "the scientific method mistakenly does not suppose logic and math" And then you failed to explain what was mistaken about it. But you also somehow think that science doesn't employ math or logic. So you've never studied science? What do you think cosmologists use? "which is logically impossible" And yet real science finds this might be the case. So it's probably not a good idea to have preconceived notions, is it ; ) "This is a honest a respectful philosophical framework that goes back a 1000 years." What do you think "honest" means? What a useless word in this sentence. And to say it is "respectful" ISN'T proof that it is respectful. I don't think you see that you are trying to describe it as respectable, and magically it will be so. Since we know more about the world now, we recognize that the Aristotlean approach is limited and flawed. It is interesting as history, but we realize that this is a bad approach. To say something is old like this, is to commit the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Meanwhile, back in reality, we have found that the further back we go, the more flawed the thinking generally was. Or do you think we should believe all old religions simply because they are old? This is some good pseudo-science and pseudo-reasoning you just did.

[@aaronchandler2380]

Catholic scientists? Now there’s an oxymoron...

[@JohnSmith-vd6fc]

Go to Wikipedia and type in "List of lay Catholic Scientists". Then find out who is the real 'oxy'moron.

[@Darksaga28]

Lol, so you don't know who Georges Lemaître is. Pathetic

[@aaronchandler2380]

Dark Saga any Catholic paleontologists? Any Origin of life discoveries?

[@aaronchandler2380]

Dark Saga are there any Catholic paleontologists? Any origin of life discoveries? What about stem cell research any Catholic scientist making discoveries there?

[@Darksaga28]

Aaron Chandler there must be lots of them. What’s your point? There are lot of catholic cosmologists too.