Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Rocks Have Minds - Atheism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Everything is made of particles.

Humans are made up entirely of particles.

Humans have minds.

Minds, therefore, are made up of particles.

Our particles are the same sorts of things as the particles found in a rocks.

Therefore, rocks have minds.

That is my argument, hopefully, I do not want to see atheists here agreeing that rocks do actually have minds. This argument, then, proves that there is a metaphysical "realm" (if you like) in which our "minds" are within. In other words, they do not exist in the physical universe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I understand what you are trying to say, though rocks do not have minds, they are inanimate objects. matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass,hence matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume, Humans are composed of cells likewise cells are composed of atoms. and an atom is Composed of protons, electrons and neutrons, a rock is composed of minerals in specific combinations, minerals are solid matter composed of elements in specific combinations and arrangements, and matter is anything which has mass and occupies space, its not easy to grasp, theres a specific field in science called particle physics which goes in depth, subatomic particles and the like, did you know that even protons and neutrons are defined as composite particles, made up of quarks which is fundamental particle that does not to have a substructure?!

particles give me headaches, they are like a dream inside a dream, and scientists keep discovering new elements every now and then, Hadron Colliders is one method of discovering subatomic particles.

wasalam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I understand what you are trying to say, though rocks do not have minds, they are inanimate objects. matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass,hence matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume, Humans are composed of cells likewise cells are composed of atoms. and an atom is Composed of protons, electrons and neutrons, a rock is composed of minerals in specific combinations, minerals are solid matter composed of elements in specific combinations and arrangements, and matter is anything which has mass and occupies space, its not easy to grasp, theres a specific field in science called particle physics which goes in depth, subatomic particles and the like, did you know that even protons and neutrons are defined as composite particles, made up of quarks which is fundamental particle that does not to have a substructure?!

particles give me headaches, they are like a dream inside a dream, and scientists keep discovering new elements every now and then, Hadron Colliders is one method of discovering subatomic particles.

wasalam.

Well that is a more in depth definition of what I called "particles".

Thanks for that, I am still interested in seeing replies for this argument

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Everything is made of particles.

Humans are made up entirely of particles.

Humans have minds.

Minds, therefore, are made up of particles.

Our particles are the same sorts of things as the particles found in a rocks.

Therefore, rocks have minds.

All dogs love food,

John loves food

Therefore John is a dog.

That is my argument, hopefully, I do not want to see atheists here agreeing that rocks do actually have minds.

This argument, then, proves that there is a metaphysical "realm" (if you like) in which our "minds" are within. In other words, they do not exist in the physical universe.

From Wikipedia:

Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes.

Consciousness is a manifestation or function of brains

One doesn't expect a slug to have consciousness. It doesn't have enough forebrain.

And consciousness, being a manifestation of certain brains, cannot be conceived as an entity in itself and separated from a brain.

Does that answer your question?

Wslm.

*

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
All dogs love food,

John loves food

Therefore John is a dog.

Can you explain the similarities?

From Wikipedia:

Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will, and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes.

Consciousness is a manifestation or function of brains

One doesn't expect a slug to have consciousness. It doesn't have enough forebrain.

And consciousness, being a manifestation of certain brains, cannot be conceived as an entity in itself and separated from a brain.

Does that answer your question?

Im afraid it does not, its a terrible attempt.

If I am knocked unconscious, that means I have no mind?

This still has nothing to do with what I was saying. I wasnt asking you to define mind. You believe that the entire existence of a human is through particles ONLY. This, then, suggests that our minds are created upon particles. If that is the case, then we can use elements of a rock to create something like us, something that has a mind.

the azaab of the grave, does that not prove that earth has a mind?

Firstly, I dont see how your argument follows.

And secondly, what does this have to do with what I wrote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Everything is made of particles.

Humans are made up entirely of particles.

Humans have minds.

Minds, therefore, are made up of particles.

Our particles are the same sorts of things as the particles found in a rocks.

Therefore, rocks have minds.

That is my argument, hopefully, I do not want to see atheists here agreeing that rocks do actually have minds. This argument, then, proves that there is a metaphysical "realm" (if you like) in which our "minds" are within. In other words, they do not exist in the physical universe.

Just because everything is made up of particles it doesn't mean that everything is the same...

your argument is completely illogical :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Can you explain the similarities?

Im afraid it does not, its a terrible attempt.

If I am knocked unconscious, that means I have no mind?

This still has nothing to do with what I was saying. I wasnt asking you to define mind. You believe that the entire existence of a human is through particles ONLY. This, then, suggests that our minds are created upon particles. If that is the case, then we can use elements of a rock to create something like us, something that has a mind.

Firstly, I dont see how your argument follows.

And secondly, what does this have to do with what I wrote?

dont know, doesn't the earth as in the soils which also is made up as particles which actaully play the role in punishing of the grave, is the earth as in soils not waiting for you? surely this means it does have a mind? earth isn't just stones but the soils.

Edited by new-shia-naqvi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Just because everything is made up of particles it doesn't mean that everything is the same...

your argument is completely illogical :o

Lets assume technology, in the later years improves, enough so that I am able to construct a human being solely by using coal. Will this new human have a mind? Since a mind is nothing but particles in accordance to most atheists, then surely a mind can pop into existence with just the use of particles. That would then mean that a coal has a mind, since it cannot be the case that only CERTAIN particles carry the ability to create a mind, since we are all from the same substance.

However if we had said that the mind existed in itself at some other spatial location, something indivisible and separate to the physical world, we would avoid this problem. The problem, then, would be accepting such a metaphysical realm, which most atheists cannot seem to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

There are (a small minority of) atheists who argue along similar lines for the existence of 'mind' in everything, including such things as rocks. What forces them to come to this bizarre conclusion (bizarre for atheists) is that the denial of the existence of the soul leaves them with the difficult alternative that consciousness magically pops into existence when 'dead' atoms are arranged in a certain way. How can something like subjective emotion and intentionality come from lifeless matter? So, their reasoning goes, all matter must contain some mind. This is known as panpsychism. Apart from being bizarre for an atheist, panpsychism has some philosophical problems associated with it, like how individual 'minds' in each particle, each with their own subjectivity, could somehow 'mix' to make one unified mind in the brain. Atheist panpsychism shows the extent some got to to deny the soul.

The Journal of Consciousness Studies had an issue dedicated to this a few years ago. The lead article arguing for mind in everything was Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism

Edited by .InshAllah.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

There are (a small minority of) atheists who argue along similar lines for the existence of 'mind' in everything, including such things as rocks. What forces them to come to this bizarre conclusion (bizarre for atheists) is that the denial of the existence of the soul leaves them with the difficult alternative that consciousness magically pops into existence when 'dead' atoms are arranged in a certain way. How can something like subjective emotion and intentionality come from lifeless matter? So, their reasoning goes, all matter must contain some mind. This is known as panpsychism. Apart from being bizarre for an atheist, panpsychism has some philosophical problems associated with it, like how individual 'minds' in each particle, each with their own subjectivity, could somehow 'mix' to make one unified mind in the brain. Atheist panpsychism shows the extent some got to to deny the soul.

The Journal of Consciousness Studies had an issue dedicated to this a few years ago. The lead article arguing for mind in everything was Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism

thanks for that

I think this is an underrated argument

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Minds, therefore, are made up of particles.

Our particles are the same sorts of things as the particles found in a rocks.

Therefore, rocks have minds.

After you made a statement about rocks having minds then you need to have a way to validate your statement (proof of concept). Otherwise, you have a completely meaningless statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

After you made a statement about rocks having minds then you need to have a way to validate your statement (proof of concept). Otherwise, you have a completely meaningless statement.

The proof lies within the first premise. That is, if you accept that the universe is solely just particles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Now, wait a minute! :mad: Before we try to find a metaphysical answer on why rocks seems to be having minds of their own, first lets establish that we are asserting/implying something that is logically truth (regardless of how silly it may sounds).

Incognito, I looked closely at all the assertions that you are making, and I do not understand the logic here. Can you walk me through your assertions/statement?

If everything is made up of particles, human/rocks are made up of particles (no problem here).

Human have minds made up of particles(this is okay).

Rocks have minds made up of particles (this is not okay)

The flaw in the above logic seems to be that you are asserting something about rocks (having minds) when you have not established the relationship between human and rock.

See, here below (in order to establish a fact between human and rocks. In the Universe (of particles), you have human and rocks.

Human have minds made up of particles

Rocks are human

Rocks have minds made up of particles

Here you can imply that rocks have mind. This is the relationship that you need to establish before you assert something about human and rocks. in your first post, I did not see a relationship between human and rocks.

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
The flaw in the above logic seems to be that you are asserting something about rocks (having minds) when you have not established the relationship between human and rock.

I am not trying to argue rocks have minds, I am simply arguing that a physicalist, someone who believes that the world is ENTIRELY made up of physical things (particles) will be forced to accept such absurd terms such as a rock having a mind.

They say that the universe is nothing but particles, emotions are nothing but nerves and impulses regulated by the brain tissues.

A rock, is essentially, made up of exactly the same material as a human. (keep in mind we are looking at it from a physicalist's point of view, that everything is physical) Saying that will force us to accept that a rock is potentially a human being. That is to say that if technology allows, we can create a perfect human being, who see's, thinks and feels solely by using particles found in a rock.

The question then arises as to how the nature of the mind can be suited in something which is purely physical. If the mind is nothing but groups of particles, then surely a rock must also have a mind, since it is exactly the same thing we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam bro,

rather than everything being made of particles how about the ARRANGEMENT OF PARTICLES, ELECTRONS, ATOMS, CHEMICALS, AMINO ACIDS, PROTEINS , in a given sequence, pattern arrangement...

essentially everything in the universe originates from hydrogen and helium.

Atheist's more so those who propagate a evolutionary view suggest an order of complexity wich determines our uniqueness.

you may ask how difficult does this order have to be.

reply) untill the concerned 'x' can replicate.

therefore after a level of complexity the replicator is no longer a mere mineral.

mathematically speaking i would be really interested to see (theoretically speaking), a range of algotherims can be written that are not based on random sampling,

or infinitely precise / calculative in order to allow this piece of technology to exercise mind ( a choice to allow an unprecedented action by the machine)

P.s where free will is absent can 'mind' be displayed??

Everything is made of particles.

Humans are made up entirely of particles.

Humans have minds.

Minds, therefore, are made up of particles.

Our particles are the same sorts of things as the particles found in a rocks.

Therefore, rocks have minds.

That is my argument, hopefully, I do not want to see atheists here agreeing that rocks do actually have minds. This argument, then, proves that there is a metaphysical "realm" (if you like) in which our "minds" are within. In other words, they do not exist in the physical universe.

Edited by fedai
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am not trying to argue rocks have minds, I am simply arguing that a physicalist, someone who believes that the world is ENTIRELY made up of physical things (particles) will be forced to accept such absurd terms such as a rock having a mind.

They say that the universe is nothing but particles, emotions are nothing but nerves and impulses regulated by the brain tissues.

A rock, is essentially, made up of exactly the same material as a human. (keep in mind we are looking at it from a physicalist's point of view, that everything is physical) Saying that will force us to accept that a rock is potentially a human being. That is to say that if technology allows, we can create a perfect human being, who see's, thinks and feels solely by using particles found in a rock.

The question then arises as to how the nature of the mind can be suited in something which is purely physical. If the mind is nothing but groups of particles, then surely a rock must also have a mind, since it is exactly the same thing we are.

I googled the term physicalist and found that this is something related to philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism). Why am I not surprised… :dry:

I don’t really know philosophy that well (was never really good at it anyway), but I can try to explain why it is absurd to think that rocks have minds.

When someone makes statements (any statements), for whatever reason, you need to be able to classify that statement either being rational or irrational. A rational statement usually comes from rational thinking (logic). Irrational statement comes from logical fallacy.

In my last post, I tried to explain to you why the conclusion about rocks having minds was incorrect. You can use mathematical logic and try to see it for yourself.

The problem is with Association_fallacy

An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I googled the term physicalist and found that this is something related to philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism). Why am I not surprised… :dry:

I don’t really know philosophy that well (was never really good at it anyway), but I can try to explain why it is absurd to think that rocks have minds.

When someone makes statements (any statements), for whatever reason, you need to be able to classify that statement either being rational or irrational. A rational statement usually comes from rational thinking (logic). Irrational statement comes from logical fallacy.

In my last post, I tried to explain to you why the conclusion about rocks having minds was incorrect. You can use mathematical logic and try to see it for yourself.

The problem is with Association_fallacy

The term is not just a philosophical thing, even scientists now argue about this and its probably the pinnacle point of discussion which allows one to accept metaphysics (literally) or not.

I can see why you would think its a red herring, fair enough. But I dont think it is. It is not the assumption that because humans have minds, rocks must also have minds but rather to say that if we are made up ENTIRELY the same thing then how can it be possible for a rock to NOT have this thing called a mind? The mind itself is a strange thing. The first argument asks if it actually IS physical or not (to which we would say no, it is metaphysical) but physicalists (who are atheists) would argue it is PURELY physical. Then if that is the case, they must also accept that a ROCK is potentially a living human, since there really isnt any difference between the two.

rather than everything being made of particles how about the ARRANGEMENT OF PARTICLES, ELECTRONS, ATOMS, CHEMICALS, AMINO ACIDS, PROTEINS , in a given sequence, pattern arrangement...

Nonetheless, it is all the same thing. The moment everything is split down, it becomes exactly the same thing.

Take the example of a brick. Bricks are used to build houses but they can also be used to build bridges. I wouldnt say that that bridge IS a house, but depending on how you structure and place it, bricks will always have the potential to be a house. Would you then say that rocks have the potential to be human beings? (if the technology allows us)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Take the example of a brick. Bricks are used to build houses but they can also be used to build bridges. I wouldnt say that that bridge IS a house, but depending on how you structure and place it, bricks will always have the potential to be a house. Would you then say that rocks have the potential to be human beings? (if the technology allows us)

Salam no because there is no rock AT PRESENT in the world that has i.e self replicating RNA. furthermore, biologically speaking rocks and humans don't have the same STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION. Genetically speaking we are all very very similar on a complicated biochemical level, none the less it is our DIFFERENCES that aid taxonomists to categorise us.

interesting enough there are ideas being circulated in the evolutionary community that suggest the origins of life came from silicon ( a metal, rock) although, these arguements are all hypothetical there are athiests who adhere to such notions.

I suppose this arguement of silicon based life (just google it) redeems that over a given amount of time (billions of years) with different environmental pressures, silicon can via numerous mutations (millions) and epigenetic pressures, can lead way to an organism with MIND (humans). So rocks do not have minds but allow minds to develop.

P.s these are not my views its what ive summerised from silicon based life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Salaam Aleikum,

Let's make this topic more interesting. There is a Quran verse where Allah (SWT) speak to the Earth and Earth responded back. 41:11 Shakir: Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.

Questions arise, does Earth have a mind? (or other than mind) And the ability of choosing? What makes the earth have the ability to reply back to Allah? is it trough soul that Object communicate with Allah (SWT)?

Edited by Zufa
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(wasalam)

Salaam Aleikum,

Let's make this topic more interesting. There is a Quran verse where Allah (SWT) speak to the Earth and Earth responded back. 41:11 Shakir: Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.

Questions arise, does Earth have a mind? (or other than mind) And the ability of choosing? What makes the earth have the ability to reply back to Allah? is it trough soul that Object communicate with Allah (SWT)?

I don't think we should have this discussion here right now. :)

My position is that if Muslims/Christians/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists came to you with a verse from their book claiming that rocks have minds, you just take their word for it. No point in arguing here. We need to respect the boundary between science and religion. Furthermore, Allah swt has not given us the knowledge of the unseen (ilm al-Ghaeeb) to start speculating about the nature of rocks.

We should limit our discussion on what we know about rocks (in material sense). As per the first post this is a philosophical discussion. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The term is not just a philosophical thing, even scientists now argue about this and its probably the pinnacle point of discussion which allows one to accept metaphysics (literally) or not.

Which scientists? Scientists (including geologists) for the most part are still working using established scientific approaches using facts/evidences (observable/using senses) and experimentations (that are reproducible). There are no scientists in the world that are pushing the ‘Rocks having Minds’ theory, as of now. If you know of any scientific work done in this regards then please state the reference here.

The term is not just a philosophical thing, even scientists now argue about this and its probably the pinnacle point of discussion which allows one to accept metaphysics (literally) or not.

I can see why you would think its a red herring, fair enough. But I dont think it is. It is not the assumption that because humans have minds, rocks must also have minds but rather to say that if we are made up ENTIRELY the same thing then how can it be possible for a rock to NOT have this thing called a mind? The mind itself is a strange thing. The first argument asks if it actually IS physical or not (to which we would say no, it is metaphysical) but physicalists (who are atheists) would argue it is PURELY physical. Then if that is the case, they must also accept that a ROCK is potentially a living human, since there really isnt any difference between the two.

Nonetheless, it is all the same thing. The moment everything is split down, it becomes exactly the same thing.

Take the example of a brick. Bricks are used to build houses but they can also be used to build bridges. I wouldnt say that that bridge IS a house, but depending on how you structure and place it, bricks will always have the potential to be a house. Would you then say that rocks have the potential to be human beings? (if the technology allows us)

First of all, you need to accept the fact that this discussion is not scientific. Only when you are able to provide work from scientists to support your hypotheses (“rocks have minds) then we have a scientific fact.

I have also stated that we are not dealing with religious texts/views here. In your first post, it was clearly established that you are speaking about the material world.

What you presented in your first posts were a bunch of statements (based on thoughts). Did you understand when I explained that thoughts could either be rational or irrational?

It’s crucial to understand when thoughts are rational and when they are irrational. When thoughts are irrational, then whatever you say is incorrect and meaningless.

I did explain to you in post #16 why the idea of rocks having minds is an irrational concept.

In order for us to accept this idea, you need to either i) Show a scientific evidence or ii) Prove if logically (using formal logic)

Otherwise, what you have is an empty rhetoric.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

(wasalam)

I don't think we should have this discussion here right now. :)

My position is that if Muslims/Christians/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists came to you with a verse from their book claiming that rocks have minds, you just take their word for it. No point in arguing here. We need to respect the boundary between science and religion. Furthermore, Allah swt has not given us the knowledge of the unseen (ilm al-Ghaeeb) to start speculating about the nature of rocks.

We should limit our discussion on what we know about rocks (in material sense). As per the first post this is a philosophical discussion. :)

Salaam Aleikum,

Pardon me. I should make a new topic and ask the questions i mentioned in my post.

Edited by Zufa
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
First of all, you need to accept the fact that this discussion is not scientific. Only when you are able to provide work from scientists to support your hypotheses (“rocks have minds) then we have a scientific fact.

Accepted

What you presented in your first posts were a bunch of statements (based on thoughts). Did you understand when I explained that thoughts could either be rational or irrational?

It’s crucial to understand when thoughts are rational and when they are irrational. When thoughts are irrational, then whatever you say is incorrect and meaningless.

I did explain to you in post #16 why the idea of rocks having minds is an irrational concept.

The first premise was based on a solid scientific observation. That is the basis of my argument, and you cannot possibly begin to disprove that.

You have failed to show me how the conclusion does not follow from that premise, until you do so, you cannot say my argument is irrational.

In order for us to accept this idea, you need to either i) Show a scientific evidence or ii) Prove if logically (using formal logic)

I believe I have done so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Accepted

The first premise was based on a solid scientific observation. That is the basis of my argument, and you cannot possibly begin to disprove that.

You have failed to show me how the conclusion does not follow from that premise, until you do so, you cannot say my argument is irrational.

I believe I have done so.

You didn't and you haven't. See my post #16, I already showed you, there is a flaw in your logic.

In a Universe where everything is particles, where human and rocks are made up of entirely same particles, the mind is the sole property of human and you have not yet established a relationship between human and rocks. I even showed you that rocks can only have minds if rocks are human.

The second case where rocks can have a mind is if rocks are a sub-species of humans (this is how it would look in a set A is rock and B is human http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Venn_A_subset_B.svg).

But both of the cases are false: neither is rock a human or a sub-specie of human. That is the logical fallacy. Not to mention that it is completely false to think that rocks are human, sub-specie of human or have minds of their own.

There isn't a single scientific fact presented here. I didn't see any.

Anyway, if you are simply not interested, then it is fine by me. I don't really like meaningless philosophic discussion.

Have a good day. And thanks. This has been enjoyable. I hope you understand that I was trying to help you out and not win the discussion.

Salaam Aleikum,

Pardon me. I should make a new topic and ask the questions i mentioned in my post.

In the Quran and Hadeeths forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
In a Universe where everything is particles, where human and rocks are made up of entirely same particles, the mind is the sole property of human and you have not yet established a relationship between human and rocks. I even showed you that rocks can only have minds if rocks are human.

The second case where rocks can have a mind is if rocks are a sub-species of humans (this is how it would look in a set A is rock and B is human http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Venn_A_subset_B.svg).

But both of the cases are false: neither is rock a human or a sub-specie of human. That is the logical fallacy. Not to mention that it is completely false to think that rocks are human, sub-specie of human or have minds of their own.

You have an assumption that only humans have minds. How can you back up this claim?

There isn't a single scientific fact presented here. I didn't see any.

Please read my initial post again. I said the FIRST premise is a scientific fact > Everything is made up of particles. That is a true premise which I have based my argument on. Like I said, it is up to YOU to show me a way in which my argument is not valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You have an assumption that only humans have minds. How can you back up this claim?

It is not an assumption. See your first post below

Everything is made of particles.

Humans are made up entirely of particles.

Humans have minds.

Minds, therefore, are made up of particles.

Our particles are the same sorts of things as the particles found in a rocks.

Therefore, rocks have minds.

That is my argument, hopefully, I do not want to see atheists here agreeing that rocks do actually have minds. This argument, then, proves that there is a metaphysical "realm" (if you like) in which our "minds" are within. In other words, they do not exist in the physical universe.

Please read my initial post again. I said the FIRST premise is a scientific fact > Everything is made up of particles. That is a true premise which I have based my argument on. Like I said, it is up to YOU to show me a way in which my argument is not valid.

All you had were statements. There were only two statements that could possible be scientific (human have minds and that everything is particle).

I showed you in post #16, but if you don't believe me then you have to show using formal logic why you think you are correct. You should read this wikipedia about logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Despite going through your post 16, and not seeing anything different from what you are saying now, I will go through it once again.

The flaw in the above logic seems to be that you are asserting something about rocks (having minds) when you have not established the relationship between human and rock.

See, here below (in order to establish a fact between human and rocks. In the Universe (of particles), you have human and rocks.

How have I not established this? PLEASE tell me.

I told you, the only relationship the two have, is that essentially, they are made up of the same thing. Where is the logical fallacy here?

As for your latest post, I have no idea what are you going on about. Why have you highlighted my third premise? You were not disputing humans have minds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Despite going through your post 16, and not seeing anything different from what you are saying now, I will go through it once again.

How have I not established this? PLEASE tell me.

I told you, the only relationship the two have, is that essentially, they are made up of the same thing. Where is the logical fallacy here?

I accept that Human and Rocks are made up of the same thing, but you haven't shown that mind is the property of rocks. That is the logical fallacy, you cant give a property of one entity to another without establishing the relationship first. This is a simple logic.

As for your latest post, I have no idea what are you going on about. Why have you highlighted my third premise? You were not disputing humans have minds.

You are being difficult now. Are you trying to say, you are not standing by your first post after I proved your logic is very weak?

I am not disputing that human have minds because you said it first. I was merely following the premises that were given to me.

Your thinking is very pre-Aristotelian. Who in the right mind would go back to the time of of ancient Greeks when people used to think mind and matters are separate entity. And that minds/ideas are just floating objects in the Universe. Get on with the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I accept that Human and Rocks are made up of the same thing, but you haven't shown that mind is the property of rocks. That is the logical fallacy, you cant give a property of one entity to another without establishing the relationship first. This is a simple logic.

I dont think you understand the point of this thread.

With this argument I was hoping to prove that the MIND is in fact more than simple particles arranged in a certain order, since if that was the case, then rocks TOO should contain some kind of "mind" to them. Since nothing is more than a particle, everything therefore must exist in our physical world, therefore the MIND must also be entirely physical. If that is the case, then it is fair to say that rocks potentially have minds. Theoretically speaking, a mind can be a human.

THAT is the relationship, I cant dumb it down any further than that.

You are being difficult now. Are you trying to say, you are not standing by your first post after I proved your logic is very weak?

I am not disputing that human have minds because you said it first. I was merely following the premises that were given to me.

Like I asked earlier, WHICH premise exactly causes the most problem for you? You keep going on about the relationship between the two when I have told you numerous times that the relationship between them ARE their entities.

Your thinking is very pre-Aristotelian. Who in the right mind would go back to the time of of ancient Greeks when people used to think mind and matters are separate entity. And that minds/ideas are just floating objects in the Universe. Get on with the time.

Are you not a Muslim? What does the concept of the soul mean to you?

You have no idea what you are saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...