Could any being without extension and form exist?

[GEddie]

You can even remove some parts of the brain and still be “you”. So a being (you) can exist without form, at least to a certain extent.

The second part does not follow from the first.

True, some damage to the brain may still allow the sufferer to remain “themself”, just as someone can lose a limb and still be “themself.”

But it doesn’t follow that form is dispensable; sever the head from the neck, and being ends.

ICXC NIKA

 

[STT]

STT,

Others are making good points especially in regards to philosophy. I am an amateur in philosophy and only know some basics here and there. But here are some of my thoughts relating to your question that may help:

I am reading their opinion and we are discussing.

(1) It is hard to imagine realities such as God or spirit or angels, or “being without extension and form,” as you say.

It is not hard, it is impossible.

But that does not mean they are unreasonble.

Why not? Something which cannot be conceived is unreasonable.

In fact, it would seem at least one reality – the supreme reality – would have to be without *material *form (your definition), or else it could not be the ultimate reality.

Why? I cannot follow you here. The ultimate reality should have a form since it is eventually comprehensible.

If this being indeed had form, then it would require explanation as to why it has this form and not that form, for example.

I cannot follow you here.

(2) We imagine using our experiences and senses, which inform our understanding of the world around us. This makes it hard to “understand” in the sense of visualizing those realities that exist beyond everyday experience. One idea I am sure you would agree with is the idea that some reality (even if you say the Universe) must have never failed to exist – whether you say this means infinite time, or eternity without time. Either way, this is VERY hard for humans to imagine and understand. How could something have “always” existed? Nevertheless, we know this has to be. For, after all, nothing at the moment would or could exist if at one point there was, in fact, nothing.

Well, it is merely not about our ability to imagine something. We for example cannot imagine a form in four dimensions. But we know that we cannot have any form in zero dimension and that is my problem. You need dimension to have form otherwise you have noting.

(3) Another point: Don’t forget the materialistic bias. The complication you bring up revolves around the idea that intellectual processes are ultimately physical or biological.

That is true. Why we should need more when we can explain the subject matter well?

I will not be able to argue for the spirituality of the soul or mind at length here. But I recommend Robert Spitzer, S.J., books. They are easy to read and understand. One point, which may not be extremely helpful for you but was nevertheless interesting to, was his summary of research studies on near death experiences whereby persons who are clinically dead (brain dead, etc.) later are revived and report things such as heavenly visitations, consciousness survival. Even blind people report SEEING for the first time during this brief state of clinical death.

Spirituality in oppose to materiality could have a root in our misunderstanding of what matter is. We don’t know yet that what matter really is so we constantly add component, such as soul, to it to make it understandable but at the end we only put our ignorance inside black boxes.

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t understand. Consciousness is a state. We say conscious state and unconscious state.

Consciousness, as understood in psychology and philosophy of mind, has multiple meanings. In my post, think of consciousness as the organ of the mind that understands the essences of things, understands concepts.

You of course can define form as you wish. I am interested in the form as shape.

In that case, it is pretty clear with our own experiences that not all we know has physical shape. For example, we know concepts such as justice and peace and right, as well as mathematical entities, or abstractions such as mass, energy, etc., yet none of these things really have physical form.

I am afraid I don’t have tome to read three books to understand what you have in your mind. It would be nice of you if you could please elaborate.

Aristotle explains things on a level I am incapable of, and so, out of respect and humility, I won’t elaborate. Sorry.

If you are interested in really understanding natural philosophy and the nature of the mind though, there is no place better to start than Aristotle, especially if you want to understand it from a Catholic perspective.

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

It is hard toimaginerealities such as God or spirit or angels, or "being without extension and form

Excellent insight, but I’m going to take this in a different way than I think you intended: I think STT might be mistaking imagination with intellect, precepts with concepts, particulars with universals: he thinks that concepts are a type of precept, that to conceive something is just perceiving or imagining it. In this case, it makes sense that he thinks matter and physical shape is necessary for mind.

What do you think, STT?

Christi pax.

 

[STT]

Consciousness, as understood in psychology and philosophy of mind, has multiple meanings. In my post, think of consciousness as the organ of the mind that understands the essences of things, understands concepts.

I see. I thought that is intellect.

In that case, it is pretty clear with our own experiences that not all we know has physical shape. For example, we know concepts such as justice and peace and right, as well as mathematical entities, or abstractions such as mass, energy, etc., yet none of these things really have physical form.

Concepts of course have forms when they are experienced otherwise we could not distinguish them from each other. Think of vision for example. Your vision obviously has extension and can accommodate forms. The same applies to hearing but it is less obvious. Thought is similar to hearing. In general, everything that we experience has a form otherwise experience was not possible at all.

Aristotle explains things on a level I am incapable of, and so, out of respect and humility, I won’t elaborate. Sorry.

No problem. That is however kind of strange to me. Do you understand him?

If you are interested in really understanding natural philosophy and the nature of the mind though, there is no place better to start than Aristotle, especially if you want to understand it from a Catholic perspective.

Christi pax.

Thanks.

 

[STT]

Excellent insight, but I’m going to take this in a different way than I think you intended: I think STT might be mistaking imagination with intellect, precepts with concepts, particulars with universals:

I understand the differences. I don’t understand why you think otherwise.

he thinks that concepts are a type of precept, that to conceive something is just perceiving or imagining it. In this case, it makes sense that he thinks matter and physical shape is necessary for mind.

What do you think, STT?

Christi pax.

I understand that universals are mind independent but they are not beings. They however have shapes when they are experienced or perceived.

 

[Lucretius]

I see. I thought that is intellect.

That’s another word for it, yes, and the one I prefer.

But in the broader sense, consciousness just is awareness of one’s external environment and internal body. This is the same sort of awareness we share with animals.

Awareness of our our own awareness is where the unique human kind of consciousness shows itself. We just don’t see skin and bones, we see biology, and we just don’t see an apple falling, but we see physics. Brute animal minds are aware of things outside of it, but human minds are also aware of their own mind and what is in it. This is where intellect comes in, why we have an inner life complex and lofty enough to be classified as persons, and is what we usually mean by consciousness when early modern philosophers talk about it (the res cogitans or “thinking thing”).

Then there is unconscious, which is something that happens completely outside of any consciousness, and then there is subconscious, which is something that originates outside consciousness, but “invades” consciousness. For example, the subconscious desire for food, hunger, largely enters into our consciousness from somewhere else, while, say, the desire to become a piano player is largely constructed in the consciousness itself.

So, in other words, there is a lot of different meanings and fine shades of the concept.

Concepts of course have forms when they are experienced otherwise we could not distinguish them from each other. Think of vision for example. Your vision obviously has extension and can accommodate forms. The same applies to hearing but it is less obvious. Thought is similar to hearing. In general, everything that we experience has a form otherwise experience was not possible at all.

I agree, but now we are moving from the most common understandings of form and towards the more abstract understanding of it.

No problem. That is however kind of strange to me. Do you understand him?

I often do, yes. Obviously, I get help from master philosophers and Aristotleans. I just find that Aristotle’s own writings on the subject consider the subject more thoroughly than I could do period, especially in a blog post.

I understand the differences. I don’t understand why you think otherwise.

Good! You just seem to see form as the mere pattern of certain stuff, which is of course a kind of form, and our first experiences with forms, but goes far beyond that.

I understand that universals are mind independent but they are not beings. They however have shapes when they are experienced or perceived

I agree. What you have to understand though is that angel psychology is different from our own: angels don’t abstract from sense experience, as we do, but sort of directly “intuit” things and their forms, as they don’t have bodies. Does that make sense?

And you’re welcome

Christi pax.

 

[STT]

That’s another word for it, yes, and the one I prefer.

But in the broader sense, consciousness just is awareness of one’s external environment and internal body. This is the same sort of awareness we share with animals.

Awareness of our our own awareness is where the unique human kind of consciousness shows itself. We just don’t see skin and bones, we see biology, and we just don’t see an apple falling, but we see physics. Brute animal minds are aware of things outside of it, but human minds are also aware of their own mind and what is in it. This is where intellect comes in, why we have an inner life complex and lofty enough to be classified as persons, and is what we usually mean by consciousness when early modern philosophers talk about it (the res cogitans or “thinking thing”).

Then there is unconscious, which is something that happens completely outside of any consciousness, and then there is subconscious, which is something that originates outside consciousness, but “invades” consciousness. For example, the subconscious desire for food, hunger, largely enters into our consciousness from somewhere else, while, say, the desire to become a piano player is largely constructed in the consciousness itself.

So, in other words, there is a lot of different meanings and fine shades of the concept.

These we know and I agree with your definition. I however thing that the desire to become a piano player also arises from a subconsciousness activity. But this is off topic so lets please put it aside.

I agree, but now we are moving from the most common understandings of form and towards the more abstract understanding of it.

Where we are going?

I often do, yes. Obviously, I get help from master philosophers and Aristotleans. I just find that Aristotle’s own writings on the subject consider the subject more thoroughly than I could do period, especially in a blog post.

Cool.

Good! You just seem to see form as the mere pattern of certain stuff, which is of course a kind of form, and our first experiences with forms, but goes far beyond that.

How could we go beyond that?

I agree. What you have to understand though is that angel psychology is different from our own: angels don’t abstract from sense experience, as we do, but sort of directly “intuit” things and their forms, as they don’t have bodies. Does that make sense?

It doesn’t make any sense at all. I don’t understand how such a task, such as thinking and experiencing, is possible without any body. This, I argue it in post #4 so I repeat it here again:“We believe that Angels think. Thinking however is a process. This process deals with information. You need form to keep and process information. And you need extension in order to have form. This means that Angels cannot think because they have no form and extension. Therefore they are not a being.”

And you’re welcome

Christi pax.

Unfortunately, you didn’t direct me anywhere.

 

[MPat]

This problem is related to the fact that to my opinion a being without an extension and a form cannot exist. In another hand we believe in existence of spiritual beings such as soul, Angels, Demons and God that they don’t have any extension and form. So I can not reconcile my opinion with the idea of spirituality. What do you think?

Aren’t abstract objects a counterexample? For example, numbers? It doesn’t look reasonable to claim that numbers have “extension”. But if you’d claim that numbers “do not exist” (which seems to be the only other option your position leaves you), how would you deal with theorems about existence or non-existence (for example, nonexistence of largest prime)?

 

[STT]

Aren’t abstract objects a counterexample? For example, numbers? It doesn’t look reasonable to claim that numbers have “extension”. But if you’d claim that numbers “do not exist” (which seems to be the only other option your position leaves you), how would you deal with theorems about existence or non-existence (for example, nonexistence of largest prime)?

Abstract objects are not beings. I don’t think if they exist as a being. They are either the part of reality or underlying the reality. The reality is what we perceive yet the reality makes no sense without abstract objects. In simple word, abstract objects are content of our experiences and they have form once they are experienced. That is true because we can make distinction between different abstract objects, like 1 and 2.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio, Lucretius, Richca, seagal, et al., but if one allows that the soul/consciousness can exist without physical form, mustn’t one accept that solipsism may actually be true?

I don’t see how the non-spatiality of the soul/consciousness could have a necessary relation to solipsism, EnosJadon. If you can establish it, I would appreciate it. I think that before any hypothesis is made about the nature of soul/consciousness (if it is material, immaterial, a process, a substance, whatever…), there is a fundamental experience: the perception we have of the non-ego is radically different from the apperception we have of ourselves. And we do not have a perception nor an apperception of any other conscience, but only of courses of action that make us think on spontaneity and which resemble our own courses of action. This fundamental experience is taken by some individuals as the basis for a solipsistic stance; but, as you can see, nothing is said yet about the nature of the self.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I don’t know how that it is related to an answer to my question. It seems to me that every beings and things have forms so I don’t understand. Could you please elaborate?

A particular condition in which a being or thing is subjected to. You can think of liquid state, solid state, etc.

Mental state is the state which arises from brain activity.

If you just said that all the beings that we know have a shape (your notion of form) I would tend to agree with you at first. But then I would have some doubts which would arise, for example, from my experience of “unity”: does the sea have a shape? Does the air that constitutes the atmosphere have a shape? Also from my experience of motion or change in general: does a horse (or any other animal) have really a shape? It would seem that shape is not a reality, but just an appearance, and that I need to be there for that appearance to become.

Everybody who knows basic thermodynamics would reject your “definition” of state as too simplistic and useless: a liquid, or a solid, or a gas if you want, can have a great variety of states, not only one. Each one of those states is defined by a set of properties (like pressure, temperature, composition…). This applies to any material entity. Do you want to define the state of a thing at a given moment?: you must conceive it as a system, establish its boundaries and provide a set of properties that characterize it. And again, everybody who knows basic thermodynamics knows how arbitrary it is the action of conceiving something as a “system”.

Brain activity? There are so many physicochemical processes going on in the system that we call “brain”, and not all of them are “mental states” (whatever this could mean, if it means something at all). So, please make a little more effort and try to define the expression “mental state”; otherwise you will be saying nothing, though apparently you will be saying something.

 

[STT]

If you just said that all the beings that we know have a shape (your notion of form) I would tend to agree with you at first. But then I would have some doubts which would arise, for example, from my experience of “unity”: does the sea have a shape? Does the air that constitutes the atmosphere have a shape? Also from my experience of motion or change in general: does a horse (or any other animal) have really a shape? It would seem that shape is not a reality, but just an appearance, and that I need to be there for that appearance to become.

Of course these examples you provided have forms. I cannot follow you well.

Everybody who knows basic thermodynamics would reject your “definition” of state as too simplistic and useless: a liquid, or a solid, or a gas if you want, can have a great variety of states, not only one. Each one of those states is defined by a set of properties (like pressure, temperature, composition…).

These parameters (bold part) are external parameters. You can change the state of a system by changing the external parameters. You are correct that a system could be in a mixed state such as gas and liquid at the same time provided that external parameters are fine tuned well.

This applies to any material entity. Do you want to define the state of a thing at a given moment?: you must conceive it as a system, establish its boundaries and provide a set of properties that characterize it. And again, everybody who knows basic thermodynamics knows how arbitrary it is the action of conceiving something as a “system”.

You are correct that one need a set of properties in order to define a mixed state depending on external parameters.

Brain activity? There are so many physicochemical processes going on in the system that we call “brain”, and not all of them are “mental states” (whatever this could mean, if it means something at all). So, please make a little more effort and try to define the expression “mental state”; otherwise you will be saying nothing, though apparently you will be saying something.

All processes inside the brain lead to mental states, some of them are conscious and the rest unconscious. In another word, any system is *minimally *in a specific state always.

 

[EnosJadon]

I don’t see how the non-spatiality of the soul/consciousness could have a necessary relation to solipsism, EnosJadon. If you can establish it, I would appreciate it.

First, as with all philosophical doctrines the subject of solipsism covers a broad spectrum of beliefs, from metaphysical to epistemological and beyond, but the basic tenet of solipsism is that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. The world and everything in it, including the solipsist themselves cannot be certain to have an objective existence apart from that provided by the mind. Most people find such a philosophy to be absurd. They maintain that the mind is the product of the physical world, and not the other way around. So the first objection to solipsism is generally a rejection of the idea that the mind can exist apart from a physical source.

Although philosophers and metaphysicists differ on exactly which faculties to ascribe to the soul, consciousness and reason are generally attributed to it. The soul in this specific case being the non-spatial/non-physical aspect of an individual which persists even after the physical aspect perishes .

Now if one maintains that a non-spatial/non-physical entity is capable of consciousness, then the solipsistic position that the physical world may be nothing more than the manifestation of a conscious mind, gains merit. If one accepts that consciousness can exist absent a physical source, then the physical source becomes superfluous, except perhaps as a means of giving context to the mind itself. After all, what is the concept of “I” without a context by which to define that “I”?

So it may be difficult to differentiate the “self” from the “spatial/physical” reality that defines the “self”. But this raises an even bigger question. If consciousness gives rise to reality, and yet is defined by that reality, which gives rise to which? Or is it necessary to hypothesize a third aspect of reality, one which underlies, and gives rise to the other two?

 

[Vico]

This problem is related to the fact that to my opinion a being without an extension and a form cannot exist. In another hand we believe in existence of spiritual beings such as soul, Angels, Demons and God that they don’t have any extension and form. So I can not reconcile my opinion with the idea of spirituality. What do you think?

Any form whatsoever is immaterial in one way, in that it is not a material principle. But in a second way, subistent forms – those that subsist without matter like angels or spiritual substances in general – are immaterial.

St. Thomas Aquinas argues that what belongs to the notion of a particular thing is only that it be a subsistent and not that it be a complete substance. A substance is something that is both subsistent and complete in a nature.

 

[MPat]

Abstract objects are not beings. I don’t think if they exist as a being.

Very good! So, now we have at least two types of “something” (“beings” and “abstract objects”) and at least two ways to exist (“exist as a being” and “exist as an abstract object”).

Something tells me that you use “being” as a synonym of “body” or “physical object”. In which case all that is pretty close to what we’d say. But what makes you sure that there cannot be a third type of “something” and a third way to exist?

Or, for that matter, what makes you think that spirits cannot be similar to abstract objects?

They are either the part of reality or underlying the reality. The reality is what we perceive yet the reality makes no sense without abstract objects. In simple word, abstract objects are content of our experiences and they have form once they are experienced. That is true because we can make distinction between different abstract objects, like 1 and 2.

That makes “form” sound very vague… At first it looked like you use “form” as a synonym of “shape”. But what is the “shape” of one or two? Or of aleph-zero? Or of imaginary unit? Or of a quaternion?

For that matter, how does one “experience” a quaternion? Is just thinking about it sufficient? Or is imagining it necessary?

In fact, it looks like you might still end up having a position very similar to Thomism, just using different names. Or even not that different - Thomists do say that a material substance consists of matter and form. An angel would be a form without matter.

 

[Wesrock]

Think of Angels for example. We believe that they think. Thinking however is a process. This process deals with information. You need form to keep information and process it. And you need extension in order to have form. This means that Angels cannot think because they have no form and extension. Therefore they are not a being.

Yes, I do. And you do. And we do.

But why must that therefore imply everything must?

Also, precisely because immaterial beings don’t have extension or material I’d say it’s wrong to think of them thinking in the manner we do. It’s wrong to think of them as immaterial rational animals, because they are not.Their manner of knowledge is not the same as ours. Our way of knowledge is limited by these material processes, not enhanced.

 

[GEddie]

Our way of knowledge is limited by these material processes, not enhanced.

I’d put it slightly differently. Your statement suggests that we’d be better off without the material processes, which is not the case.

We are limited because we begin our life as emptyheaded temporal beings, and require the process we call “thinking” to move beyond that state.

Beings who do not begin in time and because unbodily, have no head to be empty or otherwise, would not require “thought” as we know it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[STT]

Very good! So, now we have at least two types of “something” (“beings” and “abstract objects”) and at least two ways to exist (“exist as a being” and “exist as an abstract object”).

That we agree upon. But lets define entities in two categories of beings, such a human, and things abstract object.

Something tells me that you use “being” as a synonym of “body” or “physical object”. In which case all that is pretty close to what we’d say. But what makes you sure that there cannot be a third type of “something” and a third way to exist?

Like what? Can you give me an example? I think we could only have two categories as it is defined in the previous comment: things and beings.

Or, for that matter, what makes you think that spirits cannot be similar to abstract objects?

I have no problem with that. The problem is that the Angels could only exist abstractly, like myth. We can of course imagine them but that does not mean that they exists as a being independent of our imagination and experience.

That makes “form” sound very vague… At first it looked like you use “form” as a synonym of “shape”. But what is the “shape” of one or two? Or of aleph-zero? Or of imaginary unit? Or of a quaternion?

It is a little strange. Think of vision for example. Things in your vision obviously have forms and extensions. The same applies to hearing but it is less obvious. Thinking of abstract object is the same as hearing.

For that matter, how does one “experience” a quaternion? Is just thinking about it sufficient? Or is imagining it necessary?

We need both thinking and imagining.

In fact, it looks like you might still end up having a position very similar to Thomism, just using different names. Or even not that different - Thomists do say that a material substance consists of matter and form. An angel would be a form without matter.

Matter to me is the stuff that allows form to take place. Form however need extension as well. Something without matter cannot have form or extension hence it cannot exists.

 

[STT]

Yes, I do. And you do. And we do.

But why must that therefore imply everything must?

Therefore is the conclusion which means must if the previous premises are right. Do you have any objection to the premises?

Also, precisely because immaterial beings don’t have extension or material I’d say it’s wrong to think of them thinking in the manner we do. It’s wrong to think of them as immaterial rational animals, because they are not.Their manner of knowledge is not the same as ours. Our way of knowledge is limited by these material processes, not enhanced.

I am quite aware of this. In fact our knowledge in not limited in this case. We know well that something which has no extension cannot exist. Can you imagine it? I mean something which you can embed in zero dimension and exists.