How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

[Byblos]

Okay so let's keep going with this. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a clear delineation between the material/physical and the non-material/non-physical which now you call "mental". My next question is then how do you see the two, for lack of a better term, "communicating" with each other.

I see the mental (non-physical/non-material) as a product of the person (physical/material)

Ken

But what does that mean Kenny, that's the question you need to answer, how is it possible that material/physical things can interact with non-physical/non-material things.

[Kenny]

Okay so let's keep going with this. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a clear delineation between the material/physical and the non-material/non-physical which now you call "mental". My next question is then how do you see the two, for lack of a better term, "communicating" with each other.

I see the mental (non-physical/non-material) as a product of the person (physical/material)

Ken

But what does that mean Kenny, that's the question you need to answer, how is it possible that material/physical things can interact with non-physical/non-material things.

They don't interact; the non-physical mind is a part of the physical body. The mind and the physical brain is pretty much the same thing. When we refer to the organ with nerve cells and blood vessels, we refer to the brain. When we refer to what the brain does; thinking, understanding, his thought process; we call it the mind. A person does not have interactions with his brain or his mind, they are just a part of who a person is.

Ken

[Byblos]

They don't interact; the non-physical mind is a part of the physical body. The mind and the physical brain is pretty much the same thing. When we refer to the organ with nerve cells and blood vessels, we refer to the brain. When we refer to what the brain does; thinking, understanding, his thought process; we call it the mind. A person does not have interactions with his brain or his mind, they are just a part of who a person is.

And here I thought we had made some progress at least into dualism. It seems we're back to square 1.

How could something "mental" or non-material (the mind) be part of something physical/material (the brain)?

[abelcainsbrother]

Are the individual male primates who do this morally wrong? Why or why not?

It isn’t a human moral issue. Human morality only applies to humans. Humans will often intervene in nature because we don’t like what nature is doing though.

Ken

If you think like this,did you overlook this?Genesis 1:26-28

[Kurieuo]

Okay so let's keep going with this. Please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be making a clear delineation between the material/physical and the non-material/non-physical which now you call "mental". My next question is then how do you see the two, for lack of a better term, "communicating" with each other.

I see the mental (non-physical/non-material) as a product of the person (physical/material)

Ken

But what does that mean Kenny, that's the question you need to answer, how is it possible that material/physical things can interact with non-physical/non-material things.

They don't interact; the non-physical mind is a part of the physical body. The mind and the physical brain is pretty much the same thing. When we refer to the organ with nerve cells and blood vessels, we refer to the brain. When we refer to what the brain does; thinking, understanding, his thought process; we call it the mind. A person does not have interactions with his brain or his mind, they are just a part of who a person is.

Ken

This would actually cause a contradiction with your previous thoughts.
If intelligence and the like is reduced purely physical thing like the brain, and such evolved,
then intelligence and the life cannot supersede the natural material world.

It is a hard issue, and one that has been thought on a great deal in philosophy.
I think with Naturalism you're either left with dropping mental properties as real,
or you have to expand Naturalism to encompass more than the material world.

PS. I've sent you a PM.

[Kenny]

They don't interact; the non-physical mind is a part of the physical body. The mind and the physical brain is pretty much the same thing. When we refer to the organ with nerve cells and blood vessels, we refer to the brain. When we refer to what the brain does; thinking, understanding, his thought process; we call it the mind. A person does not have interactions with his brain or his mind, they are just a part of who a person is.

And here I thought we had made some progress at least into dualism. It seems we're back to square 1.

How could something "mental" or non-material (the mind) be part of something physical/material (the brain)?

I didn’t say that. I said the mind and the brain are the same, and they are a part of a person.

The brain is an organ of the human body. It is physical/material. When somebody speaks of this organ in reference to it’s mental capacity; thinking, understanding, perceptions, etc. they use there term “mind” when describing these actions.
When someone speaks of this organ in reference to it’s physical aspects: the cerebrum, nerve cells, the possibility of damage etc. they use the term “brain”.

The Cerebrum, nerve cells, these are physical/material. Thinking, understanding, perceptions, etc. these are not.

Ken

[Kenny]

Are the individual male primates who do this morally wrong? Why or why not?

It isn’t a human moral issue. Human morality only applies to humans. Humans will often intervene in nature because we don’t like what nature is doing though.

Ken

If you think like this,did you overlook this?Genesis 1:26-28

No I did not. Why did you ask?

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Are the individual male primates who do this morally wrong? Why or why not?

It isn’t a human moral issue. Human morality only applies to humans. Humans will often intervene in nature because we don’t like what nature is doing though.

Ken

If you think like this,did you overlook this?Genesis 1:26-28

No I did not. Why did you ask?

Ken

Because we were created to do it and we do.

[Kenny]

This would actually cause a contradiction with your previous thoughts.

You’re right! Previously I said “the body is physical, and the mind is something else”
Now I am saying the mind is a part of the human body.
As I admitted earlier; these are difficult questions and I am doing the best I can. If you will bear with me, I suspect a mistake or two will be made while I figure all this out in a way that makes sense to me.

Now that I’ve thought about it, I don’t think the mind has an actual existence; I believe it is just a term people use when describing specific functions of the brain; thinking, believing, ideas, etc.

If intelligence and the like is reduced purely physical thing like the brain, and such evolved,
then intelligence and the life cannot supersede the natural material world.

What does it mean if intelligence DID supersede the natural material world? What do you suppose intelligence would expand into? The spiritual world?

Ken

[Kurieuo]

I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.

And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.

[Kenny]

I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.

I'm not familiar with the concept of "naturalism", but I am sure they have a simple explanation for those things.

And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.

Why would you say that? I am sure all humans would see something wrong with humanity being wiped out!

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.

I'm not familiar with the concept of "naturalism", but I am sure they have a simple explanation for those things.

And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.

Why would you say that? I am sure all humans would see something wrong with humanity being wiped out!

Ken

Why does it seem you put so much faith in what scientists say yet don't check out what they say? It seems you just trust them and trust their knowledge without really knowing yourself.If you have really read about conspiracy theories and reject them then you could look into science.Don't just go on a hunch,find out for yourself.

[Kenny]

I think many who don't believe in God, often narrowly define naturalism as that which is material.
Do this, and you'll never have an explanation for consciousness which is evidently non-material.
Consciousness and all that goes with it including intelligence, mind, and like.

I'm not familiar with the concept of "naturalism", but I am sure they have a simple explanation for those things.

And if you do decide that "hang on, you'd like to ascribe such things to physical" (although it is hard to understand how it is so),
then you're left with the harshness of nature. There is nothing wrong with wiping our a species.
There is nothing wrong if all humanity were to be destroyed, or us fulfilling nature's purposes assigned to use as supreme beings.
Nature will just start over as it always has -- it doesn't care either way what goes extinct.

Why would you say that? I am sure all humans would see something wrong with humanity being wiped out!

Ken

Why does it seem you put so much faith in what scientists say yet don't check out what they say? It seems you just trust them and trust their knowledge without really knowing yourself.If you have really read about conspiracy theories and reject them then you could look into science.Don't just go on a hunch,find out for yourself.

What on Earth are you talking about??? And what does this have to do with the subject at hand? You come out of left field with these accusations... are you sure you are on the right page? talking to the right person???

Ken

[Kurieuo]

Take your response back to my questions Kenny.
(i've put updates to your response on question 1)

Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Kenny: [actually "Yes, human morality does, intelligence, mind, etc"]
Kenny: [actually "No, that stuff is in brain"]

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans

Again, there seems to be an inconsistency that you need to work through
-- unless we transcend nature, then how can we be accountable for any moral wrong?

It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend nature (since nature can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend nature any more than say a lion).

I hope that you get to sort your thoughts out Kenny.

All the best!

[Kenny]

Take your response back to my questions Kenny.
(i've put updates to your response on question 1)

Kurieuo: Are humans above the natural order? In other words, can/do we transcend nature...?
Kenny: No. I don't believe anything goes beyond nature.
Kenny: [actually "Yes, human morality does, intelligence, mind, etc"]
Kenny: [actually "No, that stuff is in brain"]

Kurieuo: Is it wrong for us to deplete the Earth of its natural resources and send species extinct?
Kenny: Of course context must be taken into consideration; but on it's most basic level, I would say such action is wrong and foolish.

Kurieuo: Would it be a bad thing if all of humanity were wiped out?
Kenny: Yes

Kurieuo: By bad, do you mean morally bad/unacceptable?
Kenny: Okay. My personal feelings are it would be morally bad/unacceptable to wipe all humans off the face of the Earth.

Kurieuo: Is it morally wrong for a lion to eat its prey, even if it causes a species to go extinct? And can nature be accountable for any moral wrong?
Kenny:: No. Morality only applies to humans

Again, there seems to be an inconsistency that you need to work through
-- unless we transcend nature, then how can we be accountable for any moral wrong?

It seems to me that you either have let go of your first response that we don't transcend nature (since nature can't be accountable for moral wrong),
or let go of your last response that morality applies to humans (since we don't transcend nature any more than say a lion).

I hope that you get to sort your thoughts out Kenny.

All the best!

Please explain what it means to transcend nature. If you can explain what that means and perhaps provide a hypethetical of this happening, I can explain it in a way that it makes sense to you.

Ken