Soul

[The Grand Nudger]

lol...

Within the universe are Quantities.
Quantities are not material.
THEREFORE,
Within the universe are things not material. (immaterials)

Shaky - at the very best. Quantity is our understanding of something very much material, and as we understand it that understanding has everything to do with something that is very much material itself. Nevertheless, any descriptor is immaterial in this way, many other things are immaterial in this way as well, take the force of gravity, for example.

The brain does not understand immaterial things.

Of course it does, if this is all you require of immaterial things to be. I'm not having any trouble counting to three Tex.....

If an individual understands immaterials,
Then it doesn't come from the brain.

You're assuming your conclusion here buddy...

Animals understand quantity (an immaterial). And?

Understanding quantity doesn't come from the brain. There you go again...

Understanding still must come from somewhere. And?

In an animal's physical anatomy, there is not another substantial processor. Why does there need to be - try not to create a gaps just to fill them eh?

Understanding still must come from somewhere. And?

Since all physical organs have been ruled out, the only other option is if the person has a non-physical organ. They haven't been.

I call this non-physical organ "soul". I call it waffle, dryer lint, etc.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The unromanticized soul is taught by nearly no Christians anymore. It's a concept called 'soul sleep'."

Opps. Now I think we are starting to part company. You're a bodily resurrection believer. Hmmmm, we'll have to clear that one up. I'll take a closer look at your argument than the knee-jerk response you got from our atheist bothers. In the meantime, enjoy your Easter. He Arose!

[Whateverist]

The brain does not understand immaterial things.

If an individual understands immaterials,
Then it doesn't come from the brain.

You claim to understand immaterial things. You claim you do not understand them with your brain. How could you possibly know that? Can you feel when your brain kicks into gear? I can't. The process is seamless.

Now why should the brain not be able to process 'immaterial' things? All categories and concepts are immaterial. If these do not fall within the domain of the brain I'm afraid we may have no common understanding.

Why number of all things? Do you think the distinction between many and few is something less accessible to our senses than big and small? What a silly idea. Why not just say the brain, being grey matter can only deal with grey things?

[Minimalist]

I only wanted to bring everyone into a cult and make them drink kool-aid!

Typical of you fuckers. What's the other one? Oh yeah...chew on fucking jesus and drink his blood.

Bunch of sick fucks.

[Tex]

Within the universe are Quantities.
Quantities are not material.
THEREFORE,
Within the universe are things not material. (immaterials)

The brain does not understand immaterial things.

If an individual understands immaterials,
Then it doesn't come from the brain.

Animals understand quantity (an immaterial).
Understanding quantity doesn't come from the brain.
Understanding still must come from somewhere.
In an animal's physical anatomy, there is not another substantial processor.
Understanding still must come from somewhere.
Since all physical organs have been ruled out, the only other option is if the person has a non-physical organ.
I call this non-physical organ "soul".

Ouch! That's quite a bit. However, I think it all stems from the "Quantities are not material" line. The prime example of why quantities are not material is because they do not have any material qualities. You cannot isolate them. You cannot shoot them like electrons. They have no spacial dimensions. They have no physical traits whatsoever. From my knowledge, material things, as a whole, act materially. Quantity does not. More so, quantity lacks any material attribute that allows a human body to sense it. There is no reason we should know quantity. However, we do. This leads me to believe there is a non-bodily processor that can recognize the quantity.

Opps. Now I think we are starting to part company. You're a bodily resurrection believer. Hmmmm, we'll have to clear that one up. I'll take a closer look at your argument than the knee-jerk response you got from our atheist bothers. In the meantime, enjoy your Easter. He Arose!

Silly Swedenborgians and their Sabellianism and their non-bodily resurrections... Oh, and it's "He is Risen!" Get your liturgy right...

Just kidding =)

You claim to understand immaterial things. You claim you do not understand them with your brain. How could you possibly know that? Can you feel when your brain kicks into gear? I can't. The process is seamless.

The brain cannot process immaterial things.

Now why should the brain not be able to process 'immaterial' things? All categories and concepts are immaterial. If these do not fall within the domain of the brain I'm afraid we may have no common understanding.

This was my original thought on the argument. Just saying, "The brain can't process it" is baseless. What must be said first is that the brain can only process stimuli which is has received. This isn't too hard, a blind person will not process light, a deaf person will not process sound, etc. Next, if quantity is truly immaterial, it would not come through any of those senses. Therefore, unless there is some unknown sensing organ on the body, we require an immaterial organ.

All categories and concepts are immaterial, yes, but nearly all of them are ens rationes (only existing in the mind). Like the Germans are coming mentioned earlier, liters and gallons are groupings, but they are arbitrary and made up in order to measure. Language actually works the same way: arbitrary sounds with given meanings called "words" (although the process of learning a language is more metaphysically complex). The concepts that require some immaterial organ have to be existent beyond our mind and in reality. The current example is quantity, which truly exists outside of our heads. Others include quality (though only phenomenologically), principles/predicting the future, and relation. I'll get to those in other threads; I'd like to focus on quantity.

Why number of all things? Do you think the distinction between many and few is something less accessible to our senses than big and small? What a silly idea.

Big and small are relative terms and don't exist in reality. Compared to my little city, the Earth is big. Compared to the sun, Earth is small. Many and few are actually also relative and only in our minds. Quantity is a part of reality.

[Ryantology]

Ouch! That's quite a bit. However, I think it all stems from the "Quantities are not material" line. The prime example of why quantities are not material is because they do not have any material qualities. You cannot isolate them. You cannot shoot them like electrons. They have no spacial dimensions. They have no physical traits whatsoever. From my knowledge, material things, as a whole, act materially. Quantity does not. More so, quantity lacks any material attribute that allows a human body to sense it. There is no reason we should know quantity. However, we do. This leads me to believe there is a non-bodily processor that can recognize the quantity.

The problem is that you assume that concepts which are innately tied to material objects can exist separately of material objects. The fact that the number itself is immaterial is, itself, immaterial. The immaterial number is nothing more than a helpful representation. It means nothing by itself, unless you can define what a fourteen is without referencing other numbers or anything material. I would love to see someone attempt to teach a child how to count simply by explaining the immaterial concept of numbers. So when you say

What must be said first is that the brain can only process stimuli which is has received.

How does everybody, ever, learn how to quantify? By counting objects. That is how you recognize that $$$ is a pattern to which we've given the designation '3' and $$$$$ is a pattern to which we've given the designation '5' and so on. Furthermore, unlike anything, ever, which is actually immaterial, quantities are not open to interpretation. The integer 3 is always the integer 3. You cannot interpret the integer 3 as being the integer 2 unless you modify the integer 3 in some way that it is no longer the integer 3, such as subtracting the integer 1 from it. This is an artifact of the innately material nature of numbers.
The same mistake is made of thoughts in general. Every human thought is based upon, or refers to, either something material, or a concept which either describes or is analogous to a material object. Thoughts (and all brain processes) are the result of electrical impulses in the brain. No immaterial concept, from thought to memory to imagination, has ever been shown to exist without a material brain conceiving it. None has ever shown to be exhibited by a creature without neural activity or some analog thereto. There is no need for a "non-bodily processor" and you have invoked it not because there is evidence of any such thing, but because your assertion can't work at all without it.

[Angrboda]

[Whateverist]

You claim to understand immaterial things. You claim you do not understand them with your brain. How could you possibly know that? Can you feel when your brain kicks into gear? I can't. The process is seamless.

The brain cannot process immaterial things.

Oh, I must have missed that. Now that you've repeated your bald assertion I see what you mean. NOT.

Now why should the brain not be able to process 'immaterial' things? All categories and concepts are immaterial. If these do not fall within the domain of the brain I'm afraid we may have no common understanding.

This was my original thought on the argument. Just saying, "The brain can't process it" is baseless. What must be said first is that the brain can only process stimuli which is has received.

(Not surprisingly) this contradicts your claim that the soul is an immaterial processor which handles thoughts which the brain in its materiality can't. What good does any of that soul processing do us if it is incapable of interfacing with our material bodies and brains? Or are you suggesting the soul is capable of producing material sparks to inform our thoughts? What a tortured construction this theory of yours is. Like a car crash, I somehow can't look away.

Quantity is a part of reality.

I will go you one better and claim only everything is part of reality. By saying that what really have I said? It is a tautology. Likewise, your "quantity is a part of reality" says more about how inclusive reality is than it does about quantity. Everything that is is real. Things that are not, like your nonphysical processor, are not real except in so far as they exist in your imagination. I'm afraid your nonphysical processor is a very private subjective object, existing no where else but your mind.

[Tex]

You've flipped arguments. You first told me it was that quantity exisited in the universe, but it was not immaterial. Now it's that quantity only exits in the mind (concept). However, lets assume that this why I'm wrong and ignore the flip flop.

If quantity exists apart from our minds, the reactions of atoms/compounds exist because of quantitative factors (namely the electromagnetic forces) making the situation as it is taught today.

However, if quantity is just a concept, the reactions (outside of my head) are not based on quantity. Instead, quantity is just how our brains make sense of the reactions. Therefore, there are no electromagnetic forces in the world because force is quantitative.

Both options are actually valid, but the latter destroys science and ends you with at least Humean styled skepticism.

[Severan]

A number is both perceived and real. If you think that it is just made up in our heads then you are making the assumption that one baseball is the same as two. That's incorrect and can be proved thusly with a simple bathroom scale.