Animated consciousness/soul and free will

[blase6]

Your disagreement is not just with this poster, but with the Holy Catholic Church as well.

I think that the “form of the body” is a poor description of the soul. Especially since most people are not familiar with Aquinas’ definition of “form”. In addition, the soul has to be more than just a “substance”. This reduces the soul to a kind of “idea” about a person’s identity.

 

[davidv]

I think that the “form of the body” is a poor description of the soul. Especially since most people are not familiar with Aquinas’ definition of “form”. In addition, the soul has to be more than just a “substance”. This reduces the soul to a kind of “idea” about a person’s identity.

What is a better description? Why does it aid in the understanding of how God made us?

 

[blase6]

What is a better description? Why does it aid in the understanding of how God made us?

A soul is a spiritual object that cannot be understood because it is simpler than human reason?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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

Hi Bahman!,

How many mental states can have the “simple thing” that you are designating with the word “consciousness”? If they are more than one, then I would say it is not a “simple thing”.

Are those mental states different from the thing “consciousness”? What do you mean when you say that consciousness can experience mental states? Is something added to it? Is it transformed? How could a simple thing receive something else and remain simple? And, how could a simple thing be transformed? Is there any other option?

Is there past, present and future for “consciousness”? If so, how can it -in its simplicity- distinguish between each other? If not, how do you say that it can experience mental states?

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[GEddie]

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.

I didn’t equate life or soul with movement. If that were the equation, then a rock would acquire a soul when it came off a mountain, and lose it when it came to rest.

Movement is an output of the animal soul (which may not be spiritual) in a suitable body, just as mind is the output of a human soul in an able body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

A soul is a spiritual object that cannot be understood because it is simpler than human reason?

I wouldn’t put it that way, as the soul generates the capacity for human reason.

I am not a Thomist or philosopher and have difficulties with God or the soul as “simple”.

How can a God who is “simple” order an extremely complex universe?

How would a “simple” human soul engage into an enormously complex body?

ICXC NIKA.

 

[blase6]

I didn’t equate life or soul with movement. If that were the equation, then a rock would acquire a soul when it came off a mountain, and lose it when it came to rest.

Movement is an output of the animal soul (which may not be spiritual) in a suitable body, just as mind is the output of a human soul in an able body.

ICXC NIKA

And from this comes the immense confusion of how theologians use the word “soul” to express multiple meanings.

 

[GEddie]

And from this comes the immense confusion of how theologians use the word “soul” to express multiple meanings.

That’s what happens when philosophers run the show.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I wouldn’t put it that way, as the soul generates the capacity for human reason.

I am not a Thomist or philosopher and have difficulties with God or the soul as “simple”.

How can a God who is “simple” order an extremely complex universe?

How would a “simple” human soul engage into an enormously complex body?

ICXC NIKA.

God is absolutely simple and all his attributes are equal with one another and identified with his essence so that there is no distinction between them and his essence. ( De Fide, from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. )

The human soul is the form of the human body and is created immediately by God out of nothing. ( De Fide, from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. )

Angels are spiritual beings. ( De fide, from Fundamentas of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a standing resource for theologians around and are based on the teachings of the various Councils, Synods and Papal declarations throughout history.

Linus2 nd

 

[Bahman]

Hi Juan Florencio,

These are really hard questions and important questions. Some never came to my mind others I thought about them.

Hi Bahman!,

How many mental states can have the “simple thing” that you are designating with the word “consciousness”? If they are more than one, then I would say it is not a “simple thing”.

You question is not clear to me. I think that we could be conscious of many things at a time if that is your question. Whether the process is parallel or serial is subject to question. I think it is neither, we can be consciousness of many things not to the best quality, otherwise we can only focus on one subject.

Are those mental states different from the thing “consciousness”?

Yes. Mental state are manifested as experiences in consciousness.

What do you mean when you say that consciousness can experience mental states?

Could you please elaborate?

Is something added to it?

What I call awareness happens in consciousness which is granted by experience. This however doesn’t change consciousness but gives rise to awareness.

Is it transformed?

No, it is not transformed. Content of mental state however has the potentiality to turn into experience to a very different level. It is duty of awareness to change the focus of consciousness.

How could a simple thing receive something else and remain simple?

It is simple.

And, how could a simple thing be transformed?

Consciousness does not transform.

Is there any other option?

What do you mean?

Is there past, present and future for “consciousness”?

Consciousness only allows experience. We however could be aware of past, now and future. I however don’t know how memory is constructed and how we could realize the difference between memory and something that happens now.

If so, how can it -in its simplicity- distinguish between each other?

I don’t know. Please read previous comment. I simply don’t understand how we know that we knew.

If not, how do you say that it can experience mental states?

Awareness to me is by product of mental state and consciousness. Consciousness is like a hot stuff, changeless, once you add water (mental state) to it, the whole changes into hot stuff and vapor (awareness). That is how I see the problem.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

Best wishes and thank you for your questions. They made me think for a while and also provide some material for further thinking.

 

[GEddie]

God is absolutely simple and all his attributes are equal with one another and identified with his essence so that there is no distinction between them and his essence. ( De Fide, from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. )

The human soul is the form of the human body and is created immediately by God out of nothing. ( De Fide, from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. )

Angels are spiritual beings. ( De fide, from Fundamentas of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a standing resource for theologians around and are based on the teachings of the various Councils, Synods and Papal declarations throughout history.

Linus2 nd

Thank you for the references, amigo, but they really don’t answer my objections.

Normally, the more complex being commands the simpler. A cat moves around a ball of yarn; the cat is far more complex than a ball of yarn.

A human being operates a wheelbarrow; the human being is near infinitely more complex than the wheelbarrow.

A human being trains a cat (or tries to ); on the level of the conscious mind, the human being is more complex than the cat.

What we observe in the external world is that the more complex governs the more simple. Yet in relation to God and the cosmos, or our souls and bodies, we are told that the reverse applies.

Something doesn’t compute. IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thank you for the references, amigo, but they really don’t answer my objections.

Normally, the more complex being commands the simpler. A cat moves around a ball of yarn; the cat is far more complex than a ball of yarn.

A human being operates a wheelbarrow; the human being is near infinitely more complex than the wheelbarrow.

A human being trains a cat (or tries to ); on the level of the conscious mind, the human being is more complex than the cat.

What we observe in the external world is that the more complex governs the more simple. Yet in relation to God and the cosmos, or our souls and bodies, we are told that the reverse applies.

Something doesn’t compute. IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA.

When we say that God is simple we mean that he is not composed of parts. He is pure act, pure existence. His almighty power, His infinite knowledge, goodness, etc are just different ways of viewing his Pure Act of Existence. So the most superior and powerful of all creates and moves the universe.

You don’t have to be a philosopher or a scientist. All you have to do is read your Catechism and the Bible.

Linus2nd

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Hi Juan Florencio,

These are really hard questions and important questions. Some never came to my mind others I thought about them.

Dear Bahman:

All those questions were intended to promote your reflection about your third statement? It seems to play a fundamental role in your thought process, but at the same time it is the weakest of the five. I wonder which personal observations were the basis for you to propose such statement.

If conscience were simple, you would know it thoroughly (in other words, it would be entirely conscious of itself); but the fact that you don’t know what is the matter with it (not only you, but nobody), implies that it is not simple at all. My questions regard common experiences and have this general form: if our conscience were simple, how could we have this experience X?

We have never have had any experience about a simple thing. Simplicity is a negative notion. You have been playing with words. But even so, I think it should be clear that,

A simple thing cannot suffer any transformation (it does not have a “configuration”).
If it has mental states, then it must be identical to it’s mental states.
It could be only one mental state. If we pretend that it is more than one, then it would be a composite. If we pretend that it becomes different mental states, then it would be transformed, but that is not possible for a simple thing.
If it cannot suffer transformation, there cannot be past, present and future for it. It should be pure present.
It cannot perceive nor have experiences, because it would imply that it suffers transformations.
Etc…

But much better than playing games with words is to observe what happens to us, and try to comprehend our situation, don’t you think?

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

 

[Bahman]

Dear Bahman:

All those questions were intended to promote your reflection about your third statement? It seems to play a fundamental role in your thought process, but at the same time it is the weakest of the five. I wonder which personal observations were the basis for you to propose such statement.

Well. (3) gets its strength from (2).

Personal observation: A) simplicity of (2), B) Our experience could be very rich but at the end is simple experience, C) It is necessary since no changes is possible without it, D) following argument

1. Assume that consciousness is not simple
2. This means that consciousness is made of some parts
3. The act experience is unitary
4. This means that we cannot assign the experience to any of the parts since otherwise existence of other parts become unnecessary
5. In another hand the whole, sum of parts, gets its essence from parts since it does not have any separate essence
6. From (3) and (5) we can deduce that the whole cannot experience either since it doesn’t have any separate essence
7. (5) and (6) means that (2) is wrong
8. This means that (1) is wrong
9. Hence consciousness is simple and primary

If conscience were simple, you would know it thoroughly (in other words, it would be entirely conscious of itself); but the fact that you don’t know what is the matter with it (not only you, but nobody), implies that it is not simple at all. My questions regard common experiences and have this general form: if our conscience were simple, how could we have this experience X?

The fact that our experience could be very reach doesn’t mean that consciousness is complex. Please read the previous comment.

We have never have had any experience about a simple thing. Simplicity is a negative notion. You have been playing with words. But even so, I think it should be clear that,

No, I was not playing with words. Quite contrary, simplicity is a unique notion. It defines very you “I” which is simple you yet able to make a reach experience. What does your “I” could mean if it was complex and made of other things. You are you, everyday you wake up, regardless of any rich experience you have, and you are still you even when you die and raise up.

A simple thing cannot suffer any transformation (it does not have a “configuration”).

You don’t suffer any transformation. You are who you are which is consciousness.

If it has mental states, then it must be identical to it’s mental states. It could be only one mental state. If we pretend that it is more than one, then it would be a composite. If we pretend that it becomes different mental states, then it would be transformed, but that is not possible for a simple thing.

You cannot be mental states. And consciousness is not mental state. In fact consciousness experiences and affects mental states.

If it cannot suffer transformation, there cannot be past, present and future for it. It should be pure present.

That is awareness which is related to past, now and future. You are the same person who were yesterday and will be the same person even after your death.

It cannot perceive nor have experiences, because it would imply that it suffers transformations.

Please read the first comment. Experience is unitary and requires simplicity to be perceived.

But much better than playing games with words is to observe what happens to us, and try to comprehend our situation, don’t you think?

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

Well, I am still standing and not playing with words.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Well. (3) gets its strength from (2).

Personal observation: A) simplicity of (2), B) Our experience could be very rich but at the end is simple experience, C) It is necessary since no changes is possible without it, D) following argument

1. Assume that consciousness is not simple
2. This means that consciousness is made of some parts
3. The act experience is unitary
4. This means that we cannot assign the experience to any of the parts since otherwise existence of other parts become unnecessary
5. In another hand the whole, sum of parts, gets its essence from parts since it does not have any separate essence
6. From (3) and (5) we can deduce that the whole cannot experience either since it doesn’t have any separate essence
7. (5) and (6) means that (2) is wrong
8. This means that (1) is wrong
9. Hence consciousness is simple and primary

The fact that our experience could be very reach doesn’t mean that consciousness is complex. Please read the previous comment.

No, I was not playing with words. Quite contrary, simplicity is a unique notion. It defines very you “I” which is simple you yet able to make a reach experience. What does your “I” could mean if it was complex and made of other things. You are you, everyday you wake up, regardless of any rich experience you have, and you are still you even when you die and raise up.

You don’t suffer any transformation. You are who you are which is consciousness.

You cannot be mental states. And consciousness is not mental state. In fact consciousness experiences and affects mental states.

That is awareness which is related to past, now and future. You are the same person who were yesterday and will be the same person even after your death.

Please read the first comment. Experience is unitary and requires simplicity to be perceived.

Well, I am still standing and not playing with words.

Good morning, Bahman!,

I am glad to know that you are still standing. It is all about a series of statements that you have presented. Even if I show the lack of basis for them or their inconsistency, you should remain standing.

In the new series of statements that you present now it is again the third the one that plays the main role. Isn’t it true that our experiences can be analyzed? Yes, they can be analyzed. So, they are made up of parts. The unity of an experience is the unity of a composite. Let me try with an example. A symphony is conceived by the musician as a unit. It can happen that it catches us when we hear it, and then it seems like a unity to us. If not, then we can develop the awareness of its unity when we become familiar to it. Still, the piece is made up of a number of parts. A similar thing can be said about a normal experience. The complexity of an experience comes from its object, which is normally complex. As I said before, we have never experienced a simple thing.

You can say: but the whole is not the sum of the parts. And I would agree. The whole is something new, but still it is made up of parts. It can be dissolved into them and disappear.

Talk to me about a specific experience that you have had. Show me its simplicity. I will show you its complexity.

Now, from the logical point of view, when you allow me to assume that consciousness is simple (first statement), I take it, and I say, “as experiences are modes of consciousness, experiences are included”. So you have to prove your third statement.

---

You say: “In fact consciousness experiences and affects mental states”. And “You don’t suffer any transformation”. But isn’t there a “before” and an “after” the experience? certainly! Therefore, there is a transformation of conscience.

---

You are identifying consciousness with the “I”, and you say that the “I” is always the same, even after death. But you don’t know what happens after death. This kind of assertions make your argument even weaker. Please, limit yourself to your experience.

Still, I want to repeat what I said in my previous message in a new form: If you were simple, you would know yourself thoroughly, but you don’t.

More dramatic than the lack of knowledge about ourselves is the common happening that an individual can deceive himself. If the “I” is simple, how can it deceive itself?

Now, coming back to the “permanent identity” of the “I”, I would say that we human beings are not particularly good to judge identities. I use to say that I have lived in the same house for many years. But if I compare its look with a photograph taken when it was new, it looks very different. Then, I would correct myself and state: “Well, it is the same house, but with many changes”. In this case, I can compare two things that are in front of me. But if I try to compare my current “I” with the “I” that I was several years ago, I have to rely on my memory, and human memory is a very poor tool for this purpose. Still, I can see that I have changed quite a lot over the years.

However, if you ask me if I could be judged for what I did in the past, I respond right away: “Yes, of course, here I am to respond!”. I have learnt from my good and bad experiences, and I have changed accordingly, but I am here to respond or to receive the merit for my past actions.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Bahman]

Good morning, Bahman!,

I am glad to know that you are still standing. It is all about a series of statements that you have presented. Even if I show the lack of basis for them or their inconsistency, you should remain standing.

Well, please direct me to my fallacy. I would be glad to know it and redirect my way of looking at things.

In the new series of statements that you present now it is again the third the one that plays the main role. Isn’t it true that our experiences can be analyzed? Yes, they can be analyzed.

You are mixing awareness with consciousness. Intellect (brain in human case) is utility of consciousness hence it can analyze things in presence of awareness which the latter happens in consciousness.

So, they are made up of parts.

Each part is manifested as a single experience in consciousness. That is duty of intellect to take care of complexity of parts using what we have learn. Intellect constantly deliver things to consciousness to allow experience hence we become aware of subject matter. It is duty of consciousness to judge/decide about what is delivered, the outcome is either memorized as something new or rejected, or turn into action depending on the situation.

The unity of an experience is the unity of a composite. Let me try with an example. A symphony is conceived by the musician as a unit. It can happen that it catches us when we hear it, and then it seems like a unity to us. If not, then we can develop the awareness of its unity when we become familiar to it. Still, the piece is made up of a number of parts. A similar thing can be said about a normal experience. The complexity of an experience comes from its object, which is normally complex. As I said before, we have never experienced a simple thing.

That is duty of intellect to take care of details. You, consciousness, can of course fine tune your intellect the way you wish. It is just matter of practice.

You can say: but the whole is not the sum of the parts. And I would agree. The whole is something new, but still it is made up of parts. It can be dissolved into them and disappear.

The whole is not sum of parts but we can focus on the parts if we wish. That is you who decide and that is intellect which deliver.

Talk to me about a specific experience that you have had. Show me its simplicity. I will show you its complexity.

I think things are clear by now.

Now, from the logical point of view, when you allow me to assume that consciousness is simple (first statement), I take it, and I say, “as experiences are modes of consciousness, experiences are included”. So you have to prove your third statement.

---

You say: “In fact consciousness experiences and affects mental states”. And “You don’t suffer any transformation”. But isn’t there a “before” and an “after” the experience? certainly! Therefore, there is a transformation of conscience.

---

What happen at the moment could be experienced by you (consciousness). This experience then only registered at your intellect. It is duty of intellect to inform you about whether X happened before Y or vice versa and this depends on how your intellect is affected and how good your memory is. At the end, you is very simple and always need the feed back or options from intellect.

You are identifying consciousness with the “I”, and you say that the “I” is always the same, even after death. But you don’t know what happens after death. This kind of assertions make your argument even weaker. Please, limit yourself to your experience.

Well, that is alright, I have very strange experience so lets agree with what we have as common experience. How do you realize that you are you when you wake up every morning?

Still, I want to repeat what I said in my previous message in a new form: If you were simple, you would know yourself thoroughly, but you don’t.

I am simple. My intellect is complex. My intellect however is nothing without consciousness, a dead body.

More dramatic than the lack of knowledge about ourselves is the common happening that an individual can deceive himself. If the “I” is simple, how can it deceive itself?

I think things are clear by now.

Now, coming back to the “permanent identity” of the “I”, I would say that we human beings are not particularly good to judge identities. I use to say that I have lived in the same house for many years. But if I compare its look with a photograph taken when it was new, it looks very different. Then, I would correct myself and state: “Well, it is the same house, but with many changes”. In this case, I can compare two things that are in front of me. But if I try to compare my current “I” with the “I” that I was several years ago, I have to rely on my memory, and human memory is a very poor tool for this purpose. Still, I can see that I have changed quite a lot over the years.

Human memory is a part of intellect.

However, if you ask me if I could be judged for what I did in the past, I respond right away: “Yes, of course, here I am to respond!”. I have learnt from my good and bad experiences, and I have changed accordingly, but I am here to respond or to receive the merit for my past actions.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

Hence that is your intellect which is subject to change not you.