Soul

[Tex]

You made posts to which I responded. Would you like a gold star for that? You have not yet proved anything. Show me the organ. Show me proof that one must have that organ in order to understand numbers. Don't waste my time with your assumption-laced logic arguments. Don't waste my time with whining. And don't tell me what to do. You're not my real dad.

You switch the argument AGAIN! Now I have to SHOW the organ to you! Pick a claim!

First and foremost, I've been claiming that this is a non-physical organ is non-physical since the first post. It will not appear like a liver in front of your eyeballs. I cannot point. It does not have spacial dimensions. You can't demand that. I don't yell, "I must see evolution! I don't believe it unless I can watch it! Plus, all my dogs were born with 2 eyes!" because it sounds ridiculous. You are crying for what is literally impossible (evolution takes more time than we have, else it would be possible).

As for the proof, that's already been done. I even cited it! First you said quantity was material. Then you said it wasn't material, but only a concept. Now you have made 2 demands for proof, one I completed before you asked and the other impossible. Also, you continue the accusations of assumption, but never say where. If I have assumed something, I could probably go back and prove it.

What is a coherent metaphysics?

Aquinas has one. Some of his science is wrong. The small parts that deal with that have been corrected. If his premises were true, he would have been right.

[Cato]

Aristotle did well, and then Aquinas wrapped it up.

Are you suggesting that the idea of metaphysics ended with Aquinas (he wrapped it up)?

[Tex]

Nah, I just think that is a coherent metaphysics. His understanding of physics was actually off (less than Aristotle), so those have been corrected (faulty premise, but at his time everyone thought it was true). Also, not all the questions have been answered, such as mind-body and the relationship between the Good, Truth, Beauty, Being, and Order are not fully established.

By coherent, I mean near no if not any contradictions.

Actually, another coherent philosophy is solipsism.

[Ryantology]

You switch the argument AGAIN! Now I have to SHOW the organ to you! Pick a claim!

That's not a switch. Everything else is just background noise. Let us see demonstrable proof that souls exist.

First and foremost, I've been claiming that this is a non-physical organ is non-physical since the first post. It will not appear like a liver in front of your eyeballs. I cannot point. It does not have spacial dimensions.

And yet you seem to not only know that it exists, but you claim to know its properties and that it interacts with the brain. You say you know a lot about something you can't show me.

As for the proof, that's already been done. I even cited it! First you said quantity was material. Then you said it wasn't material, but only a concept. Now you have made 2 demands for proof, one I completed before you asked and the other impossible. Also, you continue the accusations of assumption, but never say where. If I have assumed something, I could probably go back and prove it.

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that non-physical organs are a thing, the assumption that souls exist, the assumption that the brain is incapable of dealing with immaterial concepts, and the assumption that metaphysics is a real thing. There is nothing but assumptions. There is nothing solid or demonstrably true about anything you say.

Aquinas has one. Some of his science is wrong. The small parts that deal with that have been corrected. If his premises were true, he would have been right.

Not to sound objectionable, but that doesn't tell me what coherent metaphysics is, or why it is worth bringing up in this exchange. I know I can just look it up, and I intend to do so, but I see in my future an interpretation from you which is nothing like what I will glean from my efforts, so if you could explain what you mean by it, it would help.

[Tex]

That's not a switch. Everything else is just background noise. Let us see demonstrable proof that souls exist.

I guess it's not a switch because you say so. Nevermind.

And yet you seem to not only know that it exists, but you claim to know its properties and that it interacts with the brain. You say you know a lot about something you can't show me.

"Show" because, like I said in the first post, it's not physical. You are now completely restricting yourself to what can be shown, and it is because you restrict yourself that I cannot show you. You cannot be shown gravity, you can only be shown its effects. An effect of the soul is knowledge of quantity.

As for the proof, that's already been done. I even cited it! First you said quantity was material. Then you said it wasn't material, but only a concept. Now you have made 2 demands for proof, one I completed before you asked and the other impossible. Also, you continue the accusations of assumption, but never say where. If I have assumed something, I could probably go back and prove it.

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that non-physical organs are a thing, the assumption that souls exist, the assumption that the brain is incapable of dealing with immaterial concepts, and the assumption that metaphysics is a real thing. There is nothing but assumptions. There is nothing solid or demonstrably true about anything you say.

I explained all those. You go find them this time. I've already done this for you.

Not to sound objectionable, but that doesn't tell me what coherent metaphysics is, or why it is worth bringing up in this exchange. I know I can just look it up, and I intend to do so, but I see in my future an interpretation from you which is nothing like what I will glean from my efforts, so if you could explain what you mean by it, it would help.

Metaphysics is literally "greater than physics", but it is an order of philosophy specifically deals with the questions "how?" and "is it?". Modern science used to be called metaphysics because people wanted to know how trees absorb water or whatever. They have since separated science and metaphysics due to the growth of empiricism, which is that only material things exist.

[LostLocke]

Modern science used to be called metaphysics because people wanted to know how trees absorb water or whatever. They have since separated science and metaphysics due to the growth of empiricism, which is that only material things exist.

It's not that science and metaphysics are separating, it's more that the "need" for metaphysics is shrinking.

The more we learn the less need there is for metaphysical explanations for everything. Or for anything for that matter.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Don't show me logic arguments. Show me the non-physical organ.

You cannot respond to his argument, therefore let's just through reason out the door. Maybe while you're at it you can show me a quark.

Show me the organ.

You might come to regret that particular choice of words. ;-0

[Tex]

It's not that science and metaphysics are separating, it's more that the "need" for metaphysics is shrinking.

The more we learn the less need there is for metaphysical explanations for everything. Or for anything for that matter.

No no, that's not what I meant. The same things a scientist does now would have been done by a metaphysician back then. They don't have as good of technology, of course, but they're goal is to explain the boiling effect (water on the bottom is hotter) or something like that. They would make completely natural distinctions.

The term "scientist" didn't even appear until the 19th century, and was coined by a theologian. Science before then was called "natural philosophy", subsection in the larger category "metaphysics". Issac newton was a natural philosopher. His most famous book is called, "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". If we had the old terminology, natural philosophy would include things (but not limited to) like astronomy, etiology (evolution fits here), mechanics (physics here), quantities and chance (mathematics), the elements (chemistry) and nature itself (biology).

Today, even with the change of terminology, all scientists, regardless of the knowledge, still have metaphysical principles in the back of their mind. The first is the relationship of cause and effect. Magnesium will react with water every time. The break down of sugar in the healthy body produces energy every time. If causes don't lead the predictable effects, science shouldn't be able to answer anything (but causes do lead to predictable effects, so we're good).

The other big one (which doesn't apply to all) is a presupposition called "empiricism". This metaphysical principle states that the only things that exist are material. Most of you here practice this. However, the principle "only material things exist" cannot actually be tested under the scientific method. When tried, you're only using material senses (be it the tester or an artificial measure) and therefore can never account for anything immaterial.

[LostLocke]

The other big one (which doesn't apply to all) is a presupposition called "empiricism". This metaphysical principle states that the only things that exist are material. Most of you here practice this. However, the principle "only material things exist" cannot actually be tested under the scientific method. When tried, you're only using material senses (be it the tester or an artificial measure) and therefore can never account for anything immaterial.

That's true.
If immaterial things do even exist, we can't test them directly.

But the other thing is that if we are to ever perceive them they have to interact with our known material universe to do so.

Let's just say for example, there is a guy standing right next to you but he exists in a 4th dimension of space.
You would have no way of directly perceiving him since you can't see in that dimension or "direction", even though he's right there.
They only way to have an indirect perception of him is if in some way or another he interacts with material in our dimension, which then can be measured and quantified. (Of course the problem with that is how do you determine it was an immaterial person, and not some as of yet unknown material cause?)

And of course the flip side is that if he never interacts with material in our dimensions, his very existence becomes irrelevant, since him not interacting with our material or him not existing are essentially the same thing relative to us.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...if we are to ever perceive them they have to interact with our known material universe to do so.

Yes and no. Immaterial qualities can co-exist with material properties, i.e. property dualism. Actually, this discussion will not get very far without a clear definition of matter and material. It's changed much through the centuries.