How mind which is immaterial and has no location could possibly have an outside?

[STT]

Then there’s no potential problem, right? If “virtual access” is the only thing you’re worried about, then you can admit that it exists already in the realm of digital information!

There is a problem if you believe that mind exists and there are an internal and an external realms. There is a problem even if you believe that mind does not exist and the only thing which exists is information: What separates internal from external from a person point of view?

 

[STT]

Very good. You are doing better now.

Thanks. So where we can go from here in your opinion?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Then there’s no potential problem, right? If “virtual access” is the only thing you’re worried about, then you can admit that it exists already in the realm of digital information!

There is a problem if you believe that mind exists and there are an internal and an external realms.

What’s the nature of the problem, then?

 

[STT]

What’s the nature of the problem, then?

Mind has no location and cannot have inside/outside.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

What’s the nature of the problem, then?

Mind has no location and cannot have inside/outside.

OK, so there you go. No problem. Your mind does not have physical location ‘inside’ your body. Issue resolved.

 

[STT]

OK, so there you go. No problem. Your mind does not have physical location ‘inside’ your body. Issue resolved.

That is no what I am saying.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

OK, so there you go. No problem. Your mind does not have physical location ‘inside’ your body. Issue resolved.

That is no what I am saying.

That’s exactly what you said: “mind cannot have inside”. End of problem.

 

[STT]

That’s exactly what you said: “mind cannot have inside”. End of problem.

Is your thought personal or internal to you?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

That’s exactly what you said: “mind cannot have inside”. End of problem.

Is your thought personal or internal to you?

Personal. Doesn’t proceed from my body, though.

 

[STT]

Personal. Doesn’t proceed from my body, though.

I didn’t say so. I asked whether your thoughts are personal or internal to you?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Personal. Doesn’t proceed from my body, though.

I didn’t say so. I asked whether your thoughts are personal or internal to you?

They are personal. ‘Internal’, on the other hand, implies location; I’m not going to make that assertion.

 

[STT]

They are personal. ‘Internal’, on the other hand, implies location; I’m not going to make that assertion.

So you agree that there are quality in you which is personal, like your thought, whereas others are impersonal, such as body.

 

[teresa63]

STT
Humans are the only beings created as a composite of both material/physical, mortal body and immaterial/spiritual, immortal soul. Only death can separate the human body from its spiritual soul. (Angels, otoh, are purely spiritual and immortal beings.)

When speaking of the human “mind” one is actually referring to the immortal spiritual soul (comprised of intellect and free will). And although scientific imaging may be able to detect which areas of the brain become involved during certain human activities (thought, emotion, memory, action, etc.) it is not known precisely how the body and soul are integrated; much less how the immortal human spiritual soul separates from the body at death and continues in existence. (This is the Catholic understanding.)

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

They are personal. ‘Internal’, on the other hand, implies location; I’m not going to make that assertion.

So you agree that there are quality in you which is personal, like your thought, whereas others are impersonal, such as body.

No. Why would my body be ‘impersonal’?

 

[HarryStotle]

JuanFlorencio:

This is where you stumble again and again. “Internal” and “external” are inadequate words to talk about this matters. Nevertheless, we do not have better words yet. However, isn’t it clear to you that with “internal” we want to mean something that is part of ourselves or an act of ours; and that with “external” we want to mean the opposite?

No, I can define internal and external: Internal=personal and external=impersonal. As an example, think of thought which exists in internal world whereas the body and object which exist in external world.

So are other persons internal or external to you? If they are external and impersonal, doesn’t that seem problematic to your theory because other persons are “personal” to themselves? If they are personal and, therefore, internal according to your distinction, then why are you not as aware of them and as “personal” with them as you are of yourself? They still seem “outside” of you even though they are “personal” to themselves. Ergo, “personal” cannot merely and always be internal to you.

 

[teresa63]

Gorgias:

What’s the nature of the problem, then?

Mind has no location and cannot have inside/outside.

Yes, because the “mind” is spiritual in nature. (As explained earlier.)
The brain, otoh, is part of the physical body.

 

[Gorgias]

STT:

Gorgias:

What’s the nature of the problem, then?

Mind has no location and cannot have inside/outside.

Yes, because the “mind” is spiritual in nature. (As explained earlier.)
The brain, otoh, is part of the physical body.

Right. But the problem that @STT perceives does not ensue from this reality.

 

[STT]

STT

Humans are the only beings created as a composite of both material/physical, mortal body and immaterial/spiritual, immortal soul. Only death can separate the human body from its spiritual soul. (Angels, otoh, are purely spiritual and immortal beings.)

When speaking of the human “mind” one is actually referring to the immortal spiritual soul (comprised of intellect and free will). And although scientific imaging may be able to detect which areas of the brain become involved during certain human activities (thought, emotion, memory, action, etc.) it is not known precisely how the body and soul are integrated; much less how the immortal human spiritual soul separates from the body at death and continues in existence. (This is the Catholic understanding.)

I understand Catholic teaching on mind/soul and body. My question is whether soul has an outside considering the fact that it is a spiritual entity. It cannot in one hand since we believe that there is no sense of locality in spiritual realm. But what we observe shows the opposite: Your thoughts (as it is thought in Catholic teaching) for example are internal (it happens in your soul) to you whereas your body is external to you.

 

[STT]

No. Why would my body be ‘impersonal’?

By impersonal/external I mean something that we share and experience with others. Other people also experience your body but not your soul. So there is a difference between soul and body. One is internal/personal and another one is external/impersonal. One belong to spiritual realm and another one to physical one. That is what I mean. Could we agree on this notation?

 

[STT]

So are other persons internal or external to you?

Each person has an internal world. He also has a body which is external to me. His internal world is neither internal nor external to me because I cannot neither experience it internally or externally.

If they are external and impersonal, doesn’t that seem problematic to your theory because other persons are “personal” to themselves?

No the problem persist. I can observe their body which is external to me. The problem is what is this external thingy if we experience things with our mind/soul which has no location.

If they are personal and, therefore, internal according to your distinction, then why are you not as aware of them and as “personal” with them as you are of yourself?

Their internal realms are not personal to me.

They still seem “outside” of you even though they are “personal” to themselves. Ergo, “personal” cannot merely and always be internal to you.

We have to recognize that we have different personal realms. I agree with what you stated that personal dose not merely is internal to me.