Why we're immortal

[Sunflowers]

Other than giving you a lesson in Quantum Mechanics 101

I mean, I haven't really studied quantum mechanics. I didn't even think this was related to quantum mechanics, I thought quantum mechanics was a study of the consequences of the wave-particle-duality. That with photons just popped into my mind when I read that "indivisible things can't be destroyed", I am not even sure I properly explained it. But the fact that somebody who was a good student at high school, and can get into the university to study philosophy, doesn't even seem to know that physics tells us that photons can be turned from particle into energy and vice versa, well, that's just weird.

It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It has everything to do with whether something can become nothing. Which is can't, obviously. Hence my - or rather, Descartes' - argument goes through. Deal with it.

After all, wasn't it you who insisted that Descartes did not appeal to indivisibility as an argument for the soul?

No, I didn't. I said I doubt he used it as an argument for the immortality of the soul.

You said he didn't use it as an argument for the soul. He did. Famously. It is one of the three arguments for the soul commonly attributed to him.
And he thought the mind was immortal due to it being immaterial. In other words, he thought the immortality followed from the immateriality and that the immateriality was entailed by its indivisibility. If you don't believe me, read the Meditations (and try reading the whole thing too - read the objections and replies).

First of all, it's an argument from authority, and that's in itself fallacious.

No it isn't. I am not - and have not - argued that the mind is immaterial and immortal 'because Descartes said so'. I have said it is immaterial and immortal because it is indivisible and those qualities follow from that fact about it. Which is also what Descartes thought, as anyone who's actually read him knows.

I am presenting an argument and defending it in whatever way I see fit. But the argument I have presented is, in fact, one that Descartes made. So, again, this thread is not an exercise in Descartes scholarship (which is good news for you, as you clearly don't know your stuff). And I am not appealing to authority. I am appealing to some premises that appear to be self-evident truths of reason and showing that they entail that our minds are immaterial and immortal.

Here's the problem with you guys - you hear someone mention credentials or a big name and you automatically think 'er, dur, appeal to authority - fallacy! Fallacy! fallacy, fallacy' .

"Oh, dur, he's mentioned Descartes. Dur, so he must be saying that the mind is immaterial because Descartes said so. Yes, dur, that's definitely what he's saying, even if he isn't. Fallacy!! Fallacy!! Fallacy!!!!!! Mum - he's committed a fallacy. I've spotted a fallacy. Let me write it down in my fallacy book with a big jumbo crayon.

You don't actually think about what the person has said. You've just learnt a list of fallacies and you apply them to what someone has said just if they have mentioned some trigger word contained in a fallacy's description.

Words are abstract entities and it doesn't make sense to talk about half a word. Yes, written words are composed of letters, which are
res extensa and can be divided. Spoken words are composed of sounds, and they can also be divided. But when you say out loud "read" and when you write "read", it's still the same word. You can say words contain phonemes, but words aren't made only of phonemes any more than a mind is made only of memories. Many words can't be divided into smaller words, yet all the words are obviously mortal, and will disappear from a language sooner or later.
Descartes'es main argument for the existence of a soul was, as far as I know, the existence of qualia. That's also an argument with a questionable premise.

Well, you don't know much. He had several arguments, one of which is the argument I am presenting here - the argument from divisibility. There are umpteen arguments for the immateriality of the mind. I have 14 of them. This is just one.

As for this 'word' talk, well, I assume that what you are referring to is the propositional content - the meaning - as opposed to the means of transmission or representation (so, as opposed to sounds and symbols).

Okay - so what? Note, I do not deny that there are indivisible things. So how does pointing to some potentially indivisible things in any way challenge my argument?

Extended things - material substances - are divisible.

Minds are indivisible.

Therefore, minds are not material substances.

Minds are objects. the only way in which an object gets to be indivisible, is if it is simple.

So minds are simple.

And simple things are indestructible.

So minds are indestructible.

Now, if propositional contents - or some propositional contents -are indivisible, that does nothing whatsoever to challenge anything above.

It doesn't, for example, show that there are some material things that are indivisible, for propositional contents are not material objects.

And it doesn't show that indivisibility does not entail simplicity, for the only kinds of propositional contents about which we can plausibly say that they are indivisible are simple atoms of content.

And presumably you'd agree that the idea of 'destroying' a propositional content makes no sense too.

So you have singularly failed to in any way challenge any premise of my argument.

I will get back to you about the problem of interaction and why it is shit later. Needless to say, everything you've said is wrong or confused.

[Sunflowers]

Anyway, I think there was someone else who was accused of 'corrupting the youth' by some self-satisfied ignorant idiots, but I can't remember who it was....

It would be cute if it wasn't so sad.

You are not on the level of Socrates. Please stop with this.

I know. I'm better, right? Socrates was an amateur. I'm a professional.

[Red]

Anyway, I think there was someone else who was accused of 'corrupting the youth' by some self-satisfied ignorant idiots, but I can't remember who it was....

It would be cute if it wasn't so sad.

You are not on the level of Socrates. Please stop with this.

I know. I'm better, right? Socrates was an amateur. I'm a professional.

OK, you're trolling. No question.

[Sunflowers]

It would be cute if it wasn't so sad.

You are not on the level of Socrates. Please stop with this.

I know. I'm better, right? Socrates was an amateur. I'm a professional.

OK, you're trolling. No question.

He was an amateur. I am a professional. How is that trolling? If I am trolling, so was Socrates (I'm just doing it more betterer).

Look, you have no arguments to offer, do you? Nothing to say in response to the argument I made - a famous argument, an argument that is surely worthy of debate if any is, given the astonishing nature of its conclusion.

But you've nothing to say about it.

[Red]

I know. I'm better, right? Socrates was an amateur. I'm a professional.

OK, you're trolling. No question.

He was an amateur. I am a professional. How is that trolling? If I am trolling, so was Socrates (I'm just doing it more betterer).

Look, you have no arguments to offer, do you? Nothing to say in response to the argument I made - a famous argument, an argument that is surely worthy of debate if any is, given the astonishing nature of its conclusion.

But you've nothing to say about it.

You don't even seem to be trying to hide it anymore. I can say for almost 100% certainty that you're trolling.

I actually don't think you were trolling from the start; I have the feeling that you were being genuine in your first few posts, then realized that your whole argument is wrong, then started to pretend to be stupid in order to save face.

[brimstoneSalad]

That with photons just popped into my mind when I read that "indivisible things can't be destroyed", I am not even sure I properly explained it.

It was a good explanation.
Look up how electron positron pairs spontaneously pop in and out of existence. E.g. that a vacuum isn't really empty, but full of fizzing particles.
I know he's canceled, but Kraus is at least one popularizer who has done quite a bit to underscore this point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8

The fact that Sunflowers didn't bother to respond to your point is verging on forum rule violation.

But the fact that somebody who was a good student at high school, and can get into the university to study philosophy, doesn't even seem to know that physics tells us that photons can be turned from particle into energy and vice versa, well, that's just weird.

Yes, it's very weird, and indicates somebody not just steeped in profound ignorance of basic physics, but so proud of his ignorance that he can't be bothered to learn any of it.

I don't think that my anarchism is comparable to what Sunflowers is saying.

Eh, to be fair, "murder should be legal" is about as ignorant of political science and the history of human government and civilization as Sunflowers is of physics.
The irony Jebus was pointing out is that the absurdity with which you rightly view Sunflowers' claims is the same absurdity that many of your claims have presented: and so too the degree of arrogance and unwillingness to listen to reason. Weren't you even on about ghosts or souls not too long ago?

I mean it's fine for you to explore those ideas here, but just try to keep in mind that when you do explore these concepts that go against the consensus of educated science minded people you're probably wrong, so the question would be easier to answer if you were more collaborative in the process of discovering your error in reasoning like "what am I missing" rather than adversarial about it.

The fact that you imply talking about metaphysics means limiting yourself to the knowledge that was available in the 17th century strongly suggests you aren't.

Did you read what I said about how philosophers are biased toward having different positions?
Look at people like Graham Priest and his defense of dialetheism.

It suggests he's not a good philosopher, and shouldn't be teaching students, but if you soldier through the course work and pay for your classes you can get the degree. You don't have to be smart or rational to do so, and if you meticulously avoid science and logic courses you can remain ignorant in the process too.

Anyway, you're doing a good job in this discussion so I'm sure you're capable of handling it. Just let us know if you think Sunflowers isn't answering your questions or responding to your arguments in violation of forum rules.

[Sunflowers]

OK, you're trolling. No question.

He was an amateur. I am a professional. How is that trolling? If I am trolling, so was Socrates (I'm just doing it more betterer).

Look, you have no arguments to offer, do you? Nothing to say in response to the argument I made - a famous argument, an argument that is surely worthy of debate if any is, given the astonishing nature of its conclusion.

But you've nothing to say about it.

You don't even seem to be trying to hide it anymore. I can say for almost 100% certainty that you're trolling.

I actually don't think you were trolling from the start; I have the feeling that you were being genuine in your first few posts, then realized that your whole argument is wrong, then started to pretend to be stupid in order to save face.

Well thank you for telling me about your thought process. Fascinating, as ever.

[brimstoneSalad]

I have not appealed to authority.

Sounds like you were as you were bragging about how great you are. If you were just trash talking, though, that's fine.
Only an argument requires evidence.

You are, repeatedly, which is why you're so obsessed with whether I really am what I say I am.

To the contrary, I explained why an appeal to authority in philosophy isn't very meaningful.
For what it's worth I believe you're a professor, as I found a paper that has to do with the things you believe and it sounds like you. So, like 90% sure. I also don't care other than being dismayed that you're teaching this stuff to young people.

I have simply presented an argument and then, when told I don't know what I am talking about or told, condescendingly, false things about Descartes, I have then - then - appealed to my authority.

Then you did make an appeal to authority, and it wasn't just trash talk. You're the one who chose to do so, so yes you need to present evidence of that or take back the argument if you are unwilling to do so.

So, when someone addresses the argument - you know, like you're not - I respond with reasoned argument.

Teo is already arguing with you, and a couple other forum members.

[Sunflowers]

So, when someone addresses the argument - you know, like you're not - I respond with reasoned argument.

Teo is already arguing with you, and a couple other forum members.

I don't understand what you're contributing to this debate. I'm not appealing to authority - I have not said "this argument is sound because Descartes made it" or "this argument is sound because I have made it". I have said simply that our minds are immaterial and immortal because they're indivisible (which is a self-evident truth of reason) and any object that is indivisible is simple and thus incapable of destruction.

Again, that's not an appeal to authority. It's just evidence that our minds are immaterial and immortal. But about that argument, it seems, you have nothing to say.

It is others who are appealing to authority - or seem to be in the vicinity of doing so - by telling me (as if I didn't know) that most contemporary philosophers are not immaterialists about the mind, and also telling me that physicists seem to think that something can come out of nothing and something into nothing. How are those anything other than appeals to authority?

[Sunflowers]

The problem of interaction is shit and I'll show you it is shit the instant you try and describe it.

Sure.
Problem #1: Is the pituitary gland composed of res extensa or res cogitans? Descartes claimed that those two don't interact, so, either way, it can't be a way for soul and body to communicate.

That's false as a claim about Descartes, but anyway I didn't ask you about Descartes, I asked you about the problem of interaction -a problem that is supposed to arise for all immaterialists about the mind.

What's this devastating problem supposed to be?

Problem #2: Descartes claimed that animals other than humans are composed only of res extensa, rather than of both res extensa and res cogitans. If so, how come it is that many animals have a pituitary gland?

Again, this thread isn't about Descartes. I believe the mind is immaterial and immortal - something Descartes also believed - but that doesn't mean I subscribe to everything Descartes believed.

I have said nothing about how extensive I think souls are in the world, nothing about whether animals have them or not. Indeed, I think animals do have immaterial minds which is precisely why I don't think we should kill them for food. They're not mere tools, but subjects of lives - like us.

Descartes didn't think that. Well, there he and I part company.

Cartesian dualism is an incoherent hypothesis made by somebody who didn't have access to modern science,

And that's a point made by someone who knows very little about Descartes. If you think Descartes' case for the soul is a case from the gaps you're very badly mistaken. Nothing in modern science implies that there are some indivisible material things, or that something can become nothing, for those are both metaphysical claims that require rational, not empirical support. When a scientist makes a metaphysical assumption and then interprets some empirical data in light of it, that is not evidence in support of the metaphysical assumption.