Another problem with hylomorphic dualism

[Peter_Plato]

Any mental activity is related to a form hence there is a one to one map between mental activity and neural activity.

IFF every mental event corresponds to a neural one, which is virtually impossible to demonstrate given that mental events are reported by subjects who may or may not be fully conscious of every mental event.

Even if every mental event corresponds to a neural one, if the causal origin of the neural event is a mental event, then the dependency is two way, which means mental events are not reducible to neural ones. The neural, observable events may depend on their mental “triggers,” so
7) What is observable directly or indirectly in physical world is physical too
is only true if the observable arises causally from the physical and is reducible to it, which hasn’t been established merely by one to one correlation. It requires a one to one causal dependency of observable to a necessary and sufficient physical cause. If mental events create or bring about neural events, the causal order is reversed and your premise is false because the physical world is not sufficient to bring about all mental events.

 

[Bahman]

IFF every mental event corresponds to a neural one, which is virtually impossible to demonstrate given that mental events are reported by subjects who may or may not be fully conscious of every mental event.

Exactly because of this reason there is a one to one map between neural activity and mental activity. For a person with brain injury, consciousness cannot manifest itself as a neural activity since form cannot.

Even if every mental event corresponds to a neural one, if the causal origin of the neural event is a mental event, then the dependency is two way, which means mental events are not reducible to neural ones. The neural, observable events may depend on their mental “triggers,” so

That is exactly what is stated in (2) and (3).

1. What is observable directly or indirectly in physical world is physical too
   is only true if the observable arises causally from the physical and is reducible to it, which hasn’t been established merely by one to one correlation. It requires a one to one causal dependency of observable to a necessary and sufficient physical cause. If mental events create or bring about neural events, the causal order is reversed and your premise is false because the physical world is not sufficient to bring about all mental events.

That is not the correct definition of physical. Consider the case of quark. The are not directly detectable as other particles but one can deduce its existence through indirect measurement. What is measurable is simply physical since it has direct impact on physical world and measurement apparatus.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Exactly because of this reason there is a one to one map between neural activity and mental activity. For a person with brain injury, consciousness cannot manifest itself as a neural activity since form cannot.

That is exactly what is stated in (2) and (3).

That is not the correct definition of physical. Consider the case of quark. The are not directly detectable as other particles but one can deduce its existence through indirect measurement. What is measurable is simply physical since it has direct impact on physical world and measurement apparatus.

Interesting response.

It is as if you accepted every point then went on to simply ignore them all by asserting the opposite is true just 'cause.

Let me make this easy for you.

Just because every observable event on your computer is reducible to an observably electronic/electrical event does not mean that whatever function your computer completes or undertakes is reducible to an electrical component or that the user is superfluous and unnecessary or that the user is simply an extension of the electrical parts of the computer.

The brain could simply be the interface between the mental and the physical. Not that I think that such a view is true, but simply that you haven’t shown it to be false.

The duality of computer / user is not reduced to electrical parts merely because every computer / user interaction is observable as an electronic event. “Observable as” does not logically mean “reduced to.”

 

[balto]

1. Soul is form of body
2. Any mental activity has a form
3. From (1) and (2) we can deduce that any mental activity must have a manifestation in body
4. Intention is a mental activity
5. Intention has a manifestation in body, minimally as neural activity

I agree with all of that but you still haven’t shown that there is a one-to-one mapping between a mental event (general concept) and a neural event (particular matter configuration). I’d argue that the quality of the neural event being particular would make it always be the case that it underdetermines which universal concept it intends, so there cannot be a one-to-one mapping.
Peter Plato:

Just because every observable event on your computer is reducible to an observably electronic/electrical event does not mean that whatever function your computer completes or undertakes is reducible to an electrical component or that the user is superfluous and unnecessary or that the user is simply an extension of the electrical parts of the computer.

Bingo. Neural activity is necessary for human intellection but not sufficient for it.

 

[Bahman]

Interesting response.

It is as if you accepted every point then went on to simply ignore them all by asserting the opposite is true just 'cause.

Let me make this easy for you.

Just because every observable event on your computer is reducible to an observably electronic/electrical event does not mean that whatever function your computer completes or undertakes is reducible to an electrical component or that the user is superfluous and unnecessary or that the user is simply an extension of the electrical parts of the computer.

The brain could simply be the interface between the mental and the physical. Not that I think that such a view is true, but simply that you haven’t shown it to be false.

The duality of computer / user is not reduced to electrical parts merely because every computer / user interaction is observable as an electronic event. “Observable as” does not logically mean “reduced to.”

Soul cannot have separate form apart matter in hylomorphic dualism. This means that any concept must manifest itself as a form in matter. In simple word your picture is correct within a mixed hylomorphic and substance dualism framework…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Soul cannot have separate form apart matter in hylomorphic dualism. This means that any concept must manifest itself as a form in matter. In simple word your picture is correct within a mixed hylomorphic and substance dualism framework…

I think you are confusing hylemorphic “dualism” with some other perspective - perhaps materialism. It isn’t that forms MUST be manifest in matter as if matter is a kind of “real-making” substance. No, rather, matter is the mode in which material things are manifest. There is nothing that says any form “must manifest itself as a form in matter.”

To say a particular form is “material” is to say it has certain characteristics that define it as different from other types of forms. It is a kind or type of existent perhaps even along a range of “being” from non-existent to Fullness of Being (aka God.)

Forms are not embedded “in matter” as if matter is subsistent “stuff” that gets imprinted with a form - that is Cartesian dualism. In hylemorphism matter is non-existent on its own and forms are created “as material.” Forms do not require “matter” to exist. Reality and existence are not matter dependent. That is materialism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Forms explain the properties of bodies. So, of course, the action of the soul (i.e. the form of the body) would be perceivable in bodies. That just means that: when I decide to jump and am unimpeded, my body can be seen jumping (or my brain can be seen moving in certain ways). It does not mean that my decision to jump is a movement of atoms.