Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Here's a pretty good definition of nature, in the context of this discussion:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Do you think the human mind(not brain), human thought are part of nature? Or does the human mind transcend nature( the physical)?

In other words, is the human mind physical, or something else?

According to the definition you provided, it appears humans are not a part of nature. If that is so, then human thought does transcend nature. before I said it didn't because I was considering humans as a part of nature, and obviously our own thoughts aren't going to transcend ourselves.

Ken

If you consider humans as part of nature (and I don't necessarily disagree with that to an extent) then how do you explain the mind's ability to even transcend itself? How do you explain the concept of "aboutness"?

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Here's a pretty good definition of nature, in the context of this discussion:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Do you think the human mind(not brain), human thought are part of nature? Or does the human mind transcend nature( the physical)?

In other words, is the human mind physical, or something else?

According to the definition you provided, it appears humans are not a part of nature. If that is so, then human thought does transcend nature. before I said it didn't because I was considering humans as a part of nature, and obviously our own thoughts aren't going to transcend ourselves.

Ken

If you consider humans as part of nature (and I don't necessarily disagree with that to an extent) then how do you explain the mind's ability to even transcend itself? How do you explain the concept of "aboutness"?

I think you misunderstood me. I said; according to his definition, humans are NOT a part of nature. This would suggest humans; mind and all transcend nature.

Ken

RickD wrote:Ken,

Here's a pretty good definition of nature, in the context of this discussion:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Do you think the human mind(not brain), human thought are part of nature? Or does the human mind transcend nature( the physical)?

In other words, is the human mind physical, or something else?

No, many often equivocate on this definition without thinking it through.
It's not really a good definition of nature at all because it just assumes that humans aren't a part of nature, but it doesn't explain why.
My exchanges with Kenny here are about the why? -- whether humans do in fact transcend nature and what that means.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Here's a pretty good definition of nature, in the context of this discussion:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Do you think the human mind(not brain), human thought are part of nature? Or does the human mind transcend nature( the physical)?

In other words, is the human mind physical, or something else?

No, many often equivocate on this definition without thinking it through.
It's not really a good definition of nature at all because it just assumes that humans aren't a part of nature, but it doesn't explain why.
My exchanges with Kenny here are about the why? -- whether humans do in fact transcend nature and what that means.

Yes, I noticed that in the definition after I posted it. And realized it might cause more confusion. What I was trying to get Kenny to answer, was if the human mind is inside or outside of nature. Nature being all that's physical around us.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Here's a pretty good definition of nature, in the context of this discussion:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Do you think the human mind(not brain), human thought are part of nature? Or does the human mind transcend nature( the physical)?

In other words, is the human mind physical, or something else?

According to the definition you provided, it appears humans are not a part of nature. If that is so, then human thought does transcend nature. before I said it didn't because I was considering humans as a part of nature, and obviously our own thoughts aren't going to transcend ourselves.

Ken

Could it be that people often think too much of a monistic sense?
When there is actually a dualism of sorts that has always been.

I like what you previously wrote and believe it is was I associated with the most when I liked your post:

Kenny wrote:I suspect anything material or physical [is a product of nature], but not independent thought. Ideas, perceptions, opinions, and anything of the mind is probably the product of intelligence.

Therefore, we are part of nature as far as our physical bodies are concerned but transcend nature as far as our mental properties are concerned.
Evolution describes the physical bodies, but then these "thought" elements ("mental properties") are of something more?

Kurieuo wrote:No, many often equivocate on this definition without thinking it through.
It's not really a good definition of nature at all because it just assumes that humans aren't a part of nature, but it doesn't explain why.
My exchanges with Kenny here are about the why? -- whether humans do in fact transcend nature and what that means.

This, in my opinion, gets to the core of the value of religion. In the acceptance of eternal life in Christ, in the liberation from samara, in the union of Brahman/Atman. The theme is persistence beyond the natural rhythm of life and death.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Here's a pretty good definition of nature, in the context of this discussion:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Do you think the human mind(not brain), human thought are part of nature? Or does the human mind transcend nature( the physical)?

In other words, is the human mind physical, or something else?

According to the definition you provided, it appears humans are not a part of nature. If that is so, then human thought does transcend nature. before I said it didn't because I was considering humans as a part of nature, and obviously our own thoughts aren't going to transcend ourselves.

Ken

If you consider humans as part of nature (and I don't necessarily disagree with that to an extent) then how do you explain the mind's ability to even transcend itself? How do you explain the concept of "aboutness"?

I think you misunderstood me. I said; according to his definition, humans are NOT a part of nature. This would suggest humans; mind and all transcend nature.

Ken

My question is based on the assumption that you think humans are part of nature (in which case the question still stands). If, on the other hand, my assumption is incorrect then you are certainly misunderstood on many levels.

Proinsias wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:No, many often equivocate on this definition without thinking it through.
It's not really a good definition of nature at all because it just assumes that humans aren't a part of nature, but it doesn't explain why.
My exchanges with Kenny here are about the why? -- whether humans do in fact transcend nature and what that means.

This, in my opinion, gets to the core of the value of religion. In the acceptance of eternal life in Christ, in the liberation from samara, in the union of Brahman/Atman. The theme is persistence beyond the natural rhythm of life and death.

Yes, I get what you're saying...

But really, religion only has value if true rather than some fantasy.
As Paul wrote (forgive the scripture as I know you're not Christian, but it seems relevant nonetheless):

• "For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:16-19)

If I'm wrong, then I'd prefer to know it.

This is one reason why I've approached the questions the other way around, assuming nature and then trying to account for these apparently transcendental qualities that we possess (consciousness, intelligence, morality and the like).

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Ken,

Here's a pretty good definition of nature, in the context of this discussion:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Do you think the human mind(not brain), human thought are part of nature? Or does the human mind transcend nature( the physical)?

In other words, is the human mind physical, or something else?

According to the definition you provided, it appears humans are not a part of nature. If that is so, then human thought does transcend nature. before I said it didn't because I was considering humans as a part of nature, and obviously our own thoughts aren't going to transcend ourselves.

Ken

Could it be that people often think too much of a monistic sense?
When there is actually a dualism of sorts that has always been.

I like what you previously wrote and believe it is was I associated with the most when I liked your post:

Kenny wrote:I suspect anything material or physical [is a product of nature], but not independent thought. Ideas, perceptions, opinions, and anything of the mind is probably the product of intelligence.

Therefore, we are part of nature as far as our physical bodies are concerned but transcend nature as far as our mental properties are concerned.
Evolution describes the physical bodies, but then these "thought" elements ("mental properties") are of something more?

Excellent point. I agree!

Ken

Who here would have thought you to be a reasonable man Kenny.

Byblos wrote:
My question is based on the assumption that you think humans are part of nature (in which case the question still stands). If, on the other hand, my assumption is incorrect then you are certainly misunderstood on many levels.

I am not familiar with the concept of “aboutness”. I never suggested the mind transcends itself, initially I said humans are a part of nature thus the mind doesn’t transcend nature because the mind is a part of humans which is a part of nature.

Upon given a new definition of Nature that does not include humans; I assumed the human thought can transcend nature because human thought is limitless.

These questions are new to me and I am still trying to figure them out myself. I have to ask what restrictions would be placed upon human thought if it did not transcend nature? In other words; what does transcending nature mean? Is it possible that human thoughts are a part of nature as well?



Ken

Kurieuo wrote:Who here would have thought you to be a reasonable man Kenny.

I have always been reasonable

k

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:
My question is based on the assumption that you think humans are part of nature (in which case the question still stands). If, on the other hand, my assumption is incorrect then you are certainly misunderstood on many levels.

I am not familiar with the concept of “aboutness”. I never suggested the mind transcends itself, initially I said humans are a part of nature thus the mind doesn’t transcend nature because the mind is a part of humans which is a part of nature.

Upon given a new definition of Nature that does not include humans; I assumed the human thought can transcend nature because human thought is limitless.

These questions are new to me and I am still trying to figure them out myself. I have to ask what restrictions would be placed upon human thought if it did not transcend nature? In other words; what does transcending nature mean? Is it possible that human thoughts are a part of nature as well?



Ken

Then I suggest you look it up and try to answer the question. On purely a materialistic level, how can atoms "think about" other atoms that are external to them.

Byblos wrote:Then I suggest you look it up and try to answer the question. On purely a materialistic level, how can atoms "think about" other atoms that are external to them.

The final causality entailed by intentionality and its theistic implications . . .

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:Then I suggest you look it up and try to answer the question. On purely a materialistic level, how can atoms "think about" other atoms that are external to them.

The final causality entailed by intentionality and its theistic implications . . .

Baby steps Jac, baby steps.