Animated consciousness/soul and free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bahman

Guest
  1. Free will is the ability to make conscious decision
  2. Consciousness is a thing with the ability to experience and affect metal states
  3. Consciousness is then primary since it is simple and it is not composed of other things because of the above definition
  4. A primary thing cannot be created since it cannot be formed by a design
  5. Hence, we cannot have animated soul
 
Bahman said:
  1. Free will is the ability to make conscious decision
  2. Consciousness is a thing with the ability to experience and affect metal states
  3. Consciousness is then primary since it is simple and it is not composed of other things because of the above definition
  4. A primary thing cannot be created since it cannot be formed by a design
  5. Hence, we cannot have animated soul
Click to expand...
Please prove the 2 and 3 are true. I believe they are false. False premises lead to unreliable conclusions.
 
Bahman said:
  1. Free will is the ability to make conscious decision
  2. Consciousness is a thing with the ability to experience and affect metal states
  3. Consciousness is then primary since it is simple and it is not composed of other things because of the above definition
  4. A primary thing cannot be created since it cannot be formed by a design
  5. Hence, we cannot have animated soul
Click to expand...
2, 3, 4, 5 are all false. You cannot just make statments like these without proving them.
Consciousness is not " a thing, " it is the property of a thing, the soul.

Since consciousness is not " a thing, " but a property of the soul. It is the soul which is simple.

The soul was created by God, after the idea of the soul he has in his mind. Therefor it was created by design, according to the pattern he has in his mind.

The soul is living and animated because it gives life to living creatrues and life is the principle of animation in living creatures.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
2, 3, 4, 5 are all false. You cannot just make statments like these without proving them.
Consciousness is not " a thing, " it is the property of a thing, the soul.

Since consciousness is not " a thing, " but a property of the soul. It is the soul which is simple.

The soul was created by God, after the idea of the soul he has in his mind. Therefor it was created by design, according to the pattern he has in his mind.

The soul is living and animated because it gives life to living creatrues and life is the principle of animation in living creatures.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
What is the definition of soul? What is the essence of you?
 
Bahman said:
What is the definition of soul? What is the essence of you?
Click to expand...
The soul is the principle in human nature which gives life to the body, animates it, which directs all its functions, which possess intellect, will, and gives rise to self consciousness/self - awarness. Through the soul we live, move, think, assimulate nourishment, grow, reproduce, will, know ourselves.

The " essence " of me, in philosophical terms, is my human nature, the composite of body and soul which is called man. The soul itself is not my " essence. " It is what philosophers, following the Thomistic tradition, call the substantial form of man.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
The soul is the principle in human nature which gives life to the body, animates it, which directs all its functions, which possess intellect, will, and gives rise to self consciousness/self - awarness. Through the soul we live, move, think, assimulate nourishment, grow, reproduce, will, know ourselves.
Click to expand...
You don’t need soul to have self-awareness. Consciousness with the ability to experience and act could easily deduce the very basic element of reality which is very important to any being using a simple reflection of the act. The intellect itself is the utility of consciousness because its outcomes is subject of experience. Hence we don’t need your fancy soul because it is not simple since my definition is simpler than you.
Linusthe2nd said:
The " essence " of me, in philosophical terms, is my human nature, the composite of body and soul which is called man. The soul itself is not my " essence. " It is what philosophers, following the Thomistic tradition, call the substantial form of man.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Hence soul is subject to corruption.
 
Why would the soul be subject to corruption? It’s not just essences that are immaterial. The soul, strictly speaking, is not our essence, but it is still immaterial because our intellect can isolate and abstract immaterial essences from all material accidents in a thing, in the act of knowing.
 
Triflelfirt said:
Why would the soul be subject to corruption? It’s not just essences that are immaterial. The soul, strictly speaking, is not our essence, but it is still immaterial because our intellect can isolate and abstract immaterial essences from all material accidents in a thing, in the act of knowing.
Click to expand...
Soul is subject to corruption because it is the form of human.
 
Bahman said:
You don’t need soul to have self-awareness. Consciousness with the ability to experience and act could easily deduce the very basic element of reality which is very important to any being using a simple reflection of the act. The intellect itself is the utility of consciousness because its outcomes is subject of experience. Hence we don’t need your fancy soul because it is not simple since my definition is simpler than you.
Click to expand...
You are repeating the same errors - because you are stubborn. Reflection reveales that there must be a cause of our consciousness, life, thought, will. That source philosophers have called the soul, man’s life principle. The knowledge of the human soul was known to the ancient Greeks, six thousand years ago, It is only the pagans throughout history who have failed to acknowledge its existence. And this is true today. Thy are wrong. And simply repeating their error will not make it true.

The intellect and will are properties of the soul as I have repeated. If you would read Thomas Aquinas like I asked you would see you are wrong. But of course you will not do that - because you have an ideological prejudice of some kind.
Hence soul is subject to corruption.
Click to expand...
The body is subject to corruption, not the soul.

Linus2nd
 
Your point 5 fails to follow because you never mention animation before.

ICXC NIKA
 
Linusthe2nd said:
You are repeating the same errors - because you are stubborn. Reflection reveales that there must be a cause of our consciousness, life, thought, will. That source philosophers have called the soul, man’s life principle. The knowledge of the human soul was known to the ancient Greeks, six thousand years ago, It is only the pagans throughout history who have failed to acknowledge its existence. And this is true today. Thy are wrong. And simply repeating their error will not make it true.

The intellect and will are properties of the soul as I have repeated. If you would read Thomas Aquinas like I asked you would see you are wrong. But of course you will not do that - because you have an ideological prejudice of some kind.

The body is subject to corruption, not the soul.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Can I ask about this The body is subject to corruption, not the soul.

We say that the soul animates the body, so wouldn’t it be the soul that can become corrupted, soul/spirit can be weak, therefore unable to animate the body in a proper order?

Thanks.
 
Bahman said:
Soul is subject to corruption because it is the form of human.
Click to expand...
???

Just because the soul is the form of the body, it doesn’t follow that the form is material. That is the case with brute animals, because they don’t have what we can call the “active intellect” which abstracts immaterial essences from material accidents. To give a brief sketch, our soul must be immaterial because it can abstract immaterial essences. We know for a fact that we can know the essence of a thing behind all of its accidents – we can contemplate the “universal idea” of a banana, underneath the yellow – or brown, or green or something else – color, the texture, the shape, and so on. We can abstract what a thing is isolated from its material accidents. Hence our intellect has a potency for the immaterial, and must be immaterial (and thus incorruptible) itself.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
You are repeating the same errors - because you are stubborn. Reflection reveales that there must be a cause of our consciousness, life, thought, will. That source philosophers have called the soul, man’s life principle. The knowledge of the human soul was known to the ancient Greeks, six thousand years ago, It is only the pagans throughout history who have failed to acknowledge its existence. And this is true today. Thy are wrong. And simply repeating their error will not make it true.

The intellect and will are properties of the soul as I have repeated. If you would read Thomas Aquinas like I asked you would see you are wrong. But of course you will not do that - because you have an ideological prejudice of some kind.

The body is subject to corruption, not the soul.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
I don’t really want to repeat myself. My definition of consciousness is simple and I don’t need anything else.
 
GEddie said:
Your point 5 fails to follow because you never mention animation before.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Animation is the ability to give the appearance of movement to something. And you are right. I was in rush.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
The soul is the principle in human nature which gives life to the body, animates it, which directs all its functions, which possess intellect, will, and gives rise to self consciousness/self - awarness. Through the soul we live, move, think, assimulate nourishment, grow, reproduce, will, know ourselves.

The " essence " of me, in philosophical terms, is my human nature, the composite of body and soul which is called man. The soul itself is not my " essence. " It is what philosophers, following the Thomistic tradition, call the substantial form of man.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
I would definitely disagree with the notion that the soul is the “life of the body” or the “form of the body”. These are very bizarre explanations of the soul that border on materialism. The soul is a spiritual object we cannot fully understand.

I think this is why most theologians insist that animals and plants have a soul. I do not believe this is necessarily true. Animals and plants show very little evidence for what we refer to as spiritual qualities, they don’t seem to have much at all of intellect and memory. And there is no reason why a biological creature has to have a spiritual soul. Their bodies would continue functioning according to the laws of nature and chemical movement. They are basically machines.

I don’t know what is meant by “form of the body”, but it is probably not referring to shape. That would reduce the soul to materialism.

As far as I know, the soul is only necessary to explain non-physical experiences. The life of the body in and of itself does not need a soul to function. But of course, I can’t really test this.
 
blase6 said:
I would definitely disagree with the notion that the soul is the “life of the body” or the “form of the body”. These are very bizarre explanations of the soul that border on materialism. The soul is a spiritual object we cannot fully understand.

I think this is why most theologians insist that animals and plants have a soul. I do not believe this is necessarily true. Animals and plants show very little evidence for what we refer to as spiritual qualities, they don’t seem to have much at all of intellect and memory. And there is no reason why a biological creature has to have a spiritual soul. Their bodies would continue functioning according to the laws of nature and chemical movement. They are basically machines.

I don’t know what is meant by “form of the body”, but it is probably not referring to shape. That would reduce the soul to materialism.

As far as I know, the soul is only necessary to explain non-physical experiences. The life of the body in and of itself does not need a soul to function. But of course, I can’t really test this.
Click to expand...
The problem with expressions such as “form of the body” is that most moderns, even English-speaking philosopher wannabes, do not speak Aquinas.

“Form of the body” does NOT imply a kind of human moldline; but this is the meaning that would be gained in the modern orbit.

And soul does not necessarily imply a “spiritual” soul. Theologically, soul is life, and animals are said to possess a natural soul, but not a spiritual one (which would hold the mind, and the potential for life everlasting). There is no requirement that all living souls be spiritual.

Still, the body without the soul would not be alive. Scripturally, the soul is what is reinstated beyond death.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
The problem with expressions such as “form of the body” is that most moderns, even English-speaking philosopher wannabes, do not speak Aquinas.

“Form of the body” does NOT imply a kind of human moldline; but this is the meaning that would be gained in the modern orbit.

And soul does not necessarily imply a “spiritual” soul. Theologically, soul is life, and animals are said to possess a natural soul, but not a spiritual one (which would hold the mind, and the potential for life everlasting). There is no requirement that all living souls be spiritual.

Still, the body without the soul would not be alive. Scripturally, the soul is what is reinstated beyond death.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
If a soul is “life”, and life is movement, then all planets, machines, subatomic particles, etc. have souls. Just because some of the conceivable physical objects move sort of like us, we are more inclined to think they have souls.
 
blase6 said:
I would definitely disagree with the notion that the soul is the “life of the body” or the “form of the body”. These are very bizarre explanations of the soul that border on materialism. The soul is a spiritual object we cannot fully understand.

I think this is why most theologians insist that animals and plants have a soul. I do not believe this is necessarily true. Animals and plants show very little evidence for what we refer to as spiritual qualities, they don’t seem to have much at all of intellect and memory. And there is no reason why a biological creature has to have a spiritual soul. Their bodies would continue functioning according to the laws of nature and chemical movement. They are basically machines.

I don’t know what is meant by “form of the body”, but it is probably not referring to shape. That would reduce the soul to materialism.

As far as I know, the soul is only necessary to explain non-physical experiences. The life of the body in and of itself does not need a soul to function. But of course, I can’t really test this.
Click to expand...
Your disagreement is not just with this poster, but with the Holy Catholic Church as well.
40.png
CCC:
II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top