Could any being without extension and form exist?

[STT]

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

But Angels think. Don’t they?

 

[IWantGod]

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?

If you mean that you cannot imagine something that is not physical then this is hardly good enough reason to discount the possibility of something having no extension or form.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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?

I wouldn’t say that solipsism is a philosophy. On the contrary, it is a complete and shameful disorientation of certain minds. When Descartes applied his method to metaphysical matters his intention was never to establish the basis for solipsism, as if he regarded it as a valuable “doctrine”, but to build a rational structure of thought where everything he said was clear and distinct.

If to define the “I” a context is necessary, then the non-I is not superfluous. Then, you are putting the solipsistic position in trouble. Therefore, as I said before, I don’t see how the immateriality of the soul/consciousness necessarily implies solipsism.

 

[ericc]

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?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that immaterial beings can not exist? Millions of anecdoctal witnesses claim to have seen or experience ghosts over cultures, countries, time. Others have visions of God, angels, Mother Mary etc So why do you think you are right and they are wrong.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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

Which shape (your simplistic notion of form) can have something which is continuously changing? I would need to stop it in my mind to attribute a determined shape to it.

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.

I am not saying that. Everybody who knows the basics of thermodynamics has it clear that the properties of the surroundings of a given system (your “external parameters”) can change without necessarily affecting the state of the system. It is not the “external parameters” which define the state of a system, but its own properties.

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

I did not say that. I wonder if your search for the truth leaves you time to study thermodynamics. It could be useful to you; but I have to say that you would need to study some thick books.

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.

If some of the “mental states” are unconscious then you know absolutely nothing about them. Besides, as I have suggested above, if the brain is changing continuously (and it is), which “state” can you attribute to it? I have to repeat myself: you seem to be saying something, but actually are saying nothing.

 

[EnosJadon]

I wouldn’t say that solipsism is a philosophy. On the contrary, it is a complete and shameful disorientation of certain minds.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it really doesn’t do much to further the discussion.

When Descartes applied his method to metaphysical matters his intention was never to establish the basis for solipsism, as if he regarded it as a valuable “doctrine”, but to build a rational structure of thought where everything he said was clear and distinct.

And you would be mistaken to believe that solipsism begins and ends with Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum”. There is more that can be deduced through reason, than merely I think therefore I am. There’s both the acknowledgment that I am, and the accompanying context for what I am.

If to define the “I” a context is necessary, then the non-I is not superfluous.

But if consciousness can exist absent a physical source, then the existence of an independent, physical non-I does indeed become suprfluous, because the mind is perfectly capable, in and of itself, of sustaining the I, with all of its accompanying context. An external physical source isn’t necessary.

Then, you are putting the solipsistic position in trouble. Therefore, as I said before, I don’t see how the immateriality of the soul/consciousness necessarily implies solipsism.

It doesn’t necessarily imply solipsism, but it does support the idea that an independent, objective reality isn’t necessary. If you’re going to argue that consciousness can exist absent a physical source, then the physical source becomes unnecessary, because consciousness perceives the existence of reality in exactly the same manner, regardless of whether that reality is internally or externally originated. In which case, the external source becomes superfluous, because it isn’t necessary.

If one follows Descartes’ lead and reduces one’s understanding of reality to only that which is necessary to exist, a physical reality isn’t necessary, if consciousness can exist absent a physical source.

 

[MPat]

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

Let’s see what that leads to.

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.

So, you do not have a full proof that there are just two such types, and the weaker argument that you offer is this:

1. I can’t think of anything that does not fit the two given categories.
2. Therefore, it is probable that all that exists in some way fits in those two categories.

So, let’s look for examples that do not fit in either category that well. And it is not hard to do. For example, “Catholic Answers”. It is not a physical object, a “being”. But it also doesn’t seem to be an abstract object. And yet, it obviously exists. Thus it looks like organisations end up being a third type of “something”.

And if you have missed one such example, perhaps you have missed even more groups of “something”? (And yes, I have thought of even more such examples.) And in that case, why can’t one of such groups you have missed be “spiritual beings”?

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.

Um, wasn’t your position that you cannot imagine something like that? I get such an impression from this exchange:

catholic1seeks;14329458:

(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.

Or did I misunderstand it? Is your position that angels can be imagined or that they cannot be?

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.

So, what sort of “extension” are we talking about? Is one or two or aleph-zero about one meter long? One millimeter long? One kilometer long? Do they have extensions in two dimensions (area)? Or in three dimensions (volume)?

For if they really have extensions, those extensions can be measured or, at least, estimated.

Or do you use the word “extension” in some other way?

We need both thinking and imagining.

So, you are saying that just thinking about aleph-zero without imagining it is not enough for “experience” of aleph-zero? And that it is such “experience” that confirms that is has form and extension?

In that case I’m not sure if anyone has ever “experienced” aleph-zero, imaginary unit or quaternion… And in that case it would seem that you deny that there is anything reasonable about those abstract objects…

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.

Wait… You were just saying that abstract objects (like numbers) have forms and extensions. Now you are saying that only something that is not “something without matter” (thus only material objects) can have form and extension. Thus, are you claiming that numbers (including imaginary unit, aleph-zero, quaternions) are material?

And it doesn’t look like you have an option to “borrow” material from the brain, for you have also claimed:

Consciousness is a state. It of course doesn’t have any form. Consciousness is not a being or thing.

Consciousness is a state which is the result of brain process so it doesn’t need any place.

As I mentioned before what you quoted is a mental state. I forgot to mention that a mental state does not have any form. It is simply a state in which we could experience it depending on our brain activity.

I’m afraid I do not see how you are going to make all your claims fit together…

 

[STT]

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.

How possibly could you have form without matter or anything similar to it?

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.

I cannot follow you here.

 

[STT]

Which shape (your simplistic notion of form) can have something which is continuously changing? I would need to stop it in my mind to attribute a determined shape to it.

Their shapes of course changes. Why do you want it fixed? The capacity to have a specific function arises from the fact that their shape changes.

I am not saying that. Everybody who knows the basics of thermodynamics has it clear that the properties of the surroundings of a given system (your “external parameters”) can change without necessarily affecting the state of the system. It is not the “external parameters” which define the state of a system, but its own properties.

Good.

I did not say that. I wonder if your search for the truth leaves you time to study thermodynamics. It could be useful to you; but I have to say that you would need to study some thick books.

I read a thick book about thermodynamic.

If some of the “mental states” are unconscious then you know absolutely nothing about them.

That is true. We can retrieve some of them, like memory.

Besides, as I have suggested above, if the brain is changing continuously (and it is), which “state” can you attribute to it?

You are correct in your observation. A thermodynamic state can be defined once system reaches to an equilibrium. Brain however is a dynamical system far from thermodynamic equilibrium when it process something. We should be careful to don’t mix the brain state, like conscious state, with thermodynamical state.

I have to repeat myself: you seem to be saying something, but actually are saying nothing.

I hope that I am clear now.

 

[STT]

Let’s see what that leads to.

So, you do not have a full proof that there are just two such types, and the weaker argument that you offer is this:

1. I can’t think of anything that does not fit the two given categories.
2. Therefore, it is probable that all that exists in some way fits in those two categories.

Well, I think that is simple to argue. There are two categories of objects: (1) The one which is objectively real (they have form independent of a thinker), such as human/beings and (2) The one which is not objectively real (they have form only in our experiences or when they become a part of knowledge), such as abstract object/things.

So, let’s look for examples that do not fit in either category that well. And it is not hard to do. For example, “Catholic Answers”. It is not a physical object, a “being”. But it also doesn’t seem to be an abstract object. And yet, it obviously exists. Thus it looks like organisations end up being a third type of “something”.

“Catholic Answers” is a abstract object given the above definition.

And if you have missed one such example, perhaps you have missed even more groups of “something”? (And yes, I have thought of even more such examples.) And in that case, why can’t one of such groups you have missed be “spiritual beings”?

Spiritual beings should have forms to my opinion so they belong to the first category. Why don’t we see them unless they want, vision for example? I don’t know. I am already thinking about this.

Um, wasn’t your position that you cannot imagine something like that? I get such an impression from this exchange:

Or did I misunderstand it? Is your position that angels can be imagined or that they cannot be?

I meant that spiritual beings, such as Angel, should have form otherwise they cannot exist as a being but a thing.

So, what sort of “extension” are we talking about? Is one or two or aleph-zero about one meter long? One millimeter long? One kilometer long? Do they have extensions in two dimensions (area)? Or in three dimensions (volume)?

For if they really have extensions, those extensions can be measured or, at least, estimated.

Or do you use the word “extension” in some other way?

We obviously can distinguish between abstract objects. This means that they have form. They also have extension such as “I am” or “content of a book”, the first is short and the second is very long.

So, you are saying that just thinking about aleph-zero without imagining it is not enough for “experience” of aleph-zero? And that it is such “experience” that confirms that is has form and extension?

In that case I’m not sure if anyone has ever “experienced” aleph-zero, imaginary unit or quaternion… And in that case it would seem that you deny that there is anything reasonable about those abstract objects…

I think that the situation is clear by now considering the first comment. Please let me know if otherwise.

Wait… You were just saying that abstract objects (like numbers) have forms and extensions. Now you are saying that only something that is not “something without matter” (thus only material objects) can have form and extension. Thus, are you claiming that numbers (including imaginary unit, aleph-zero, quaternions) are material?

And it doesn’t look like you have an option to “borrow” material from the brain, for you have also claimed:

All, abstract object have a shape inside our brain when they are comprehended through experience.

I’m afraid I do not see how you are going to make all your claims fit together…

Well, I cannot see what is the problem. Please let me know.

 

[STT]

If you mean that you cannot imagine something that is not physical then this is hardly good enough reason to discount the possibility of something having no extension or form.

I think it is common sense that something which has no form and extension does not exist.

 

[STT]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that immaterial beings can not exist? Millions of anecdoctal witnesses claim to have seen or experience ghosts over cultures, countries, time. Others have visions of God, angels, Mother Mary etc So why do you think you are right and they are wrong.

The content of your vision should have some form. It is not vision if it is empty.

 

[Vico]

How possibly could you have form without matter or anything similar to it?

I cannot follow you here.

I think you are missing the definition of form and of subsistence.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Form: The nature or essence of a thing; the internal specific principle of the distinctive nature or activities of any created being. Also, after a change, the new feature(s) in whatever has been changed. Contrasted with matter in scholastic philosophy and theology.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Subsistence: something “subsists when it has being and operation through itself, not through union with another.”

 

[STT]

I think you are missing the definition of form and of subsistence.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Form: The nature or essence of a thing; the internal specific principle of the distinctive nature or activities of any created being. Also, after a change, the new feature(s) in whatever has been changed. Contrasted with matter in scholastic philosophy and theology.

Modern Catholic Dictionary, Subsistence: something “subsists when it has being and operation through itself, not through union with another.”

I am aware of these definitions. I however define form as shape.

 

[IWantGod]

I think it is common sense that something which has no form and extension does not exist.

Not really. Its common sense that the objects of our senses have form and extension if by that you mean physical. But it does not follow that there are not other kinds of being.

 

[Vico]

I am aware of these definitions. I however define form as shape.

Mechanical materialism?

 

[STT]

Mechanical materialism?

I think that you need stuff, form and extension for a being.

 

[Qoeleth]

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?

It depends upon what you mean by ‘exist’. If you take exist to mean “occupy physical space”, then, no, by definition a ‘thing’ without extension and from cannot exist. (We could say the same about duration, as a necessary adjunct to this type of ‘existence’).

But if one defines existence in another sense, then, yes, of course.

To illustrate- consider the question does “beauty” exist? According to the first definition- no, there a beautiful things, but I cannot pick up something and say, “This is beauty itself.” But, in another sense, yes, it does exist, since we can speak about it and identify its properties.

Does the problem you raise “exist”? In one sense, no- I cannot measure it, or weigh it, etc. But in another sense, yes.

So, the question really is purely a linguistic one- how one choses to employ the word ‘exist’.

 

[Vico]

I think that you need stuff, form and extension for a being.

Very sketchy, but resonant of Decarte.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

But if consciousness can exist absent a physical source, then the existence of an independent, physical non-I does indeed become suprfluous, because the mind is perfectly capable, in and of itself, of sustaining the I, with all of its accompanying context. An external physical source isn’t necessary.

It doesn’t necessarily imply solipsism, but it does support the idea that an independent, objective reality isn’t necessary. If you’re going to argue that consciousness can exist absent a physical source, then the physical source becomes unnecessary, because consciousness perceives the existence of reality in exactly the same manner, regardless of whether that reality is internally or externally originated. In which case, the external source becomes superfluous, because it isn’t necessary.

If something is not necessary it does not mean that it is superfluous.

The “non-I”, which you would call “objective reality”, remains exactly the same either you call it physical or non-physical. And in both cases its existence is not necessary. Now, I am calling it “the non-I”, because it is my experience that it affects me even against my will, and also because its nature is obscure to me; from which it is clear that I do not determine its existence.

If one follows Descartes’ lead and reduces one’s understanding of reality to only that which is necessary to exist, a physical reality isn’t necessary, if consciousness can exist absent a physical source.

As I said above, the “non-I”, either physical or non-physical, remains exactly the same, and is not necessary. But as Franz Brentano said, my conscience is always a conscience of something.