This post is different from the typical article-form post I would write. It’s a piece of work I did several months ago to think through the the idea of the mind and its distinction from the physical world. After you read, feel free to post a comment: what would you add? what would you change? do you agree? if not, explain.
I believe strongly that our thought life occurs just as much in our immaterial or spiritual minds as in our physical brains. I therefore find it a worthy pursuit to refute the idea that the mind and its capacity for thought can be reduced to chemical and electrical impulses inside of the physical brain.
Premise 1: Truth is objective and abstract. As such, it cannot be contained in physical space or matter.
P2: Propositions contain truth-value. They are either true or false.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, propositions do not consist of physical space or matter.
P3: Thoughts consist of propositions and claims about reality.
C2: Therefore, thoughts do not consist of physical space or matter.
P4: The Mind primarily exercises the power of thinking.
P5: Thinking is the act of processing thoughts.
C3: Therefore, the Mind primarily processes thoughts.
P6: Material objects cannot process immaterial things.
C4: Therefore, the Mind cannot be material.
Possible Objections and my Responses:
Objection: There is no objective or absolute Truth.
Response: Is that statement objectively or absolutely true? If it is, then it’s self-refuting. If it’s not, then there is objective/absolute Truth.
O: We can only know what Science and Empirical Data tell us.
R: Did you discover that fact from Empirical Data? In fact, you cannot. No experimentation or observation or nature could possibly tell you that this is true. Therefore, it must be false.
Also, if there is such a thing as right or wrong (morality), could science tell us that?
- O: Science can tell us what will help the human species survive longer, which tells us how we should act.
- R: What makes you say that we should seek the preservation of the human species? According to your view, there is no way to know whether we should do anything. If your worldview is correct, we have no good reason to condemn murderers or racists for their actions.
In short, the fact and belief that Truth is objective and knowable is absolutely essential to all of our knowledge and claims about Reality. It is the basis of all belief. The fact that Truth is knowable does not ensure that all humans will know it. After all, we are finite beings with finite minds and bodies. If we struggle to reach the Truth, it is not because it is hidden or doesn’t exist. Our own limits are the reason we need God to help us find it.
Kyrie Eleison 
6 responses to “An Argument for the Immateriality of the Mind and its Thoughts”
This is really interesting Thomas! I think this has the potential to be a pretty good argument. I have some of my own counter-points:
1. P6 seems pretty question-begging: isn’t this just what you are trying to prove? If so, then how can it function as a premise in the argument?
2. This whole argument seems to presuppose a type of realism about abstract objects (such as propositions), namely that they do really exist but are grounded by the intellect. Now this is fine – I would agree with you about realism – but for a materialist this argument will have less bite because they tend to embrace nominalistic accounts of abstract objects, where abstract objects don’t really exist. So if you are to proceed in refining and defending this argument, I would encourage you to read up on realism about abstract objects.
Again, I really like the core of this argument and I hope my comments are helpful.
LikeLike
This is really cool Thomas! Here are some of my immediate thoughts:
1. P6 seems question-begging: isn’t this what you are trying to prove?
2. This argument seems to presuppose some type of realism about abstract objects (such as propositions), namely that these abstract objects do really exist and are grounded by the intellect. Now that’s fine – I would agree with you about the realism – but for a materialist, this argument will have little bite. They tend to embrace more nominalistic accounts of abstract objects, which say that they don’t really exist. So if you’re going to keep on refining this argument, I would do some reading on realism vs. nominalism.
This argument is very interesting though. Keep on working at it!
LikeLike
Hey Will! Sorry for not responding sooner, but I really appreciate the comment!
In your first point, when you say it’s question-begging, do you mean that it’s lacking support, and that it should have premises of its own? I suppose it is part of what I’m trying to prove, but it’s not meant to be the ultimate conclusion, so that’s where I’m a little confused by what you meant.
Thank you for bringing up the ideas of realism and nominalism. I had not heard those terms before, so I will look into doing some research on those when I get a chance.
Thanks!
LikeLike
if the mind is seperate aka a “soul”, then how does it interact with the brain? If it can interact with the brain, a electrochemical construct, we should be able to detect free floating “souls” with similar devices. Unsurprisingly, we can’t, after thousands of years of desperate searching by humans.
“Premise 1: Truth is objective and abstract. As such, it cannot be contained in physical space or matter.”
completely baseless and unsupportable premise. And still no evidence for your imaginary friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear clubschadenfreude, thank you for the comment! I always appreciate constructive criticism and healthy critiques.
I’m not exactly sure where to start because there seem to be many unproven presuppositions that inform your comment, but I’ll do my best. First of all, you seem to assume that if there are spiritual/mental “entities,” they must be detectable by “devices” in order to have any relationship with the physical body. I’m not sure where you get this idea from. I believe that the human mind intricately interacts with the human brain, as expressed through physical means like speech, facial expressions, voluntary muscle movements, etc. In fact, the very idea of free will (i.e., of being able to do things voluntarily) presupposes a mind. I would love to go into more detail on that if you’re interested/if I find time.
Next, I’m a bit confused what you’re referring to when you say “we can’t, after thousands of years of desperate searching by humans.” If you mean trying to “detect free floating ‘souls’,” I would love some historical evidence that supports that point. If you mean something else, please elaborate.
I’d love to know why you think this premise is “completely baseless and unsupportable.” Are you referring to the first part or the second part? Be aware that I may have phrased this poorly, and my understanding has likely grown since I wrote that several months ago. But if you’re denying that Truth is objective, I think you may have run into a logical inconsistency. To claim that Truth is not objective is a proposition with truth-value. This means it’s either true or false. All of Logic rests on this fact. It cannot be true “for me” and false “for you”; that simply wouldn’t make sense. Again, I’d love to go deeper into this if you’re interested, confused, or have objections.
Finally, I’m not a huge fan of your concluding sentence. If by “imaginary friend,” you’re referring to God, please note that my main argument made no mention of God. Yes, I did mention God in my conclusion, but that was not what the premises were trying to prove. I might add that it’s a bit disrespectful.
I’d like to leave you with a potentially thought-provoking quote by C.S. Lewis, who converted to Christianity after being a committed atheist for several years: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Consider what might be the “sun” in your own life: what illuminates your understanding of your existence? what is the lens through which you perceive the fabric of reality?
LikeLike
Unsurprisingly, Thomas, you offer the usual excuses on why the supposed “soul” you try to laim exists simultaneously can interact with matter but also can’t be detected by matter. You can’t have it both ways. You may as well just claim magic, since that will get you as far.
Then you try to claim free will, which is not supported by reality or your bible. Both jesus and paul say there is none, with this god having long ago chosen who it will allow to accept it and then damns the rest for no reason. Add to that the supposedly constant interference from your god, and your claims fail.
Humans have a great imitation of free will, but that is only because we aren’t consciously aware of all that has influenced us.
Curious how this supposed “soul” gets altered if the brain is damaged or ill. Chistians have been searching for souls for thousands of years, and surprise, haven’t found any. All you have are baseless claims, so there is your “historical evidence”. There have been various experiments, weighing the body before and after death to see if the soul had weight, the various claims of contacting people who are dead, all which are shown to be frauds.
Your baseless claims are demosntably baseless and unsupportable for the reasons I listed and no evidence. Baseless means unsupportable, and I was using repetition for emphasis. You have no truth, Thomas, just the same baseless claims that many religions trot out. I do believe there is objective truth, and that would haveevience for it. You notably have nothing.
I don’t care one whit if you don’t like me calling your god your imaginary friend. That is all you have. It’s always great when chrsitians want to claim “but but I didn’t literally mention god” when I know perfectly well that is what your nonsense is based on. Respect is earned, not demanded. And anyone who worships a god that commits/commands genocide, kills people for things they didn’t do, and who supports slavery certainly doesn’t earn my respect.
C.S. Lewis, one of my favorite failed apologists. Most, if not all, theists can and do make the same silly baseless claims. Every cult claims that “everything” is evidence for their god and not one can show their god to merely exist. You might want to reconsider using him, since Lewis had no problem advocating that christains hide the schisms and contradictions in Christianity (this is in the preface to “Mere Christianity”). Intentionally hiding information so people can’t make informed decision is lying. Curious how your god hates lies and liars.
My knowledge illuminates my life, knowledge of facts found by humans, no god needed.
LikeLike