What do you mean with the composite when soul has no location?
Well, what is the use of soul if body can experience? What soul add to body?The human person has location, as identified by its body. The person has experiences.
You mean hylomorphic dualism? That is a incoherent theory because it attempts to causally relate non-local soul to local body.Ahh…
that sounds like a nice research project! Google “body/soul composite”, and enjoy!
I didn’t say that you said. So I repeat the question: What is the use of soul if body can experience?I didn’t say “the body experiences”; I said “the person experiences”. Big difference.
We know by fact that what makes man human is his genes. So again what soul add to body?
Given the choice between agreeing with your unattributed assertion of “incoherence” or agreeing with Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ support of hylomorphic dualism… I think I’ll stick with Aquinas and Aristotle.You mean hylomorphic dualism? That is a incoherent theory because it attempts to causally relate non-local soul to local body.
If I don’t accept your premise – that “the body experiences” – then how in the world can I respond to your question?I didn’t say that you said. So I repeat the question: What is the use of soul if body can experience?
No. Genes make a being ‘homo sapiens’. What makes a homo sapiens a ‘human’ is the soul – more specifically, the body/soul composite.
Again… ‘humanity’.
People do mistake. That was Aristotle who thought that the brain is a cooling mechanism for the blood.Given the choice between agreeing with your unattributed assertion of “incoherence” or agreeing with Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ support of hylomorphic dualism… I think I’ll stick with Aquinas and Aristotle.
That is you who need to defend your belief and argue in favor of coherence of hylomorphic dualism.
You cannot causally relate a non-local soul to local body. Just try to draw or model it. Causality requires locality.Lets do one thing at any give time.Keep in mind: to a theist, there’s a causal relationship between a non-physical God and physical creation. If you’re disagreeing with that notion, then you’re gonna have a hard time convincing a Christian of the veracity of your argument.
I think you need to first defend the coherence of hylomorphic dualism.If I don’t accept your premise – that “the body experiences” – then how in the world can I respond to your question?
The part I changed to orange font is only true at the macroscopic level of reality, but it does not hold true at the quantum level. I’ll quote from an article in the Scientific American magazine that’s called, Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity. It compares your view (the principle of locality or ‘local realism’) with quantum ‘non-locality’…That is you who need to defend your belief and argue in favor of coherence of hylomorphic dualism.
One of the sections on quantum ‘nonlocality’ from the same article (pg. 5)…
If you googled “nonlocality” you will find plenty of other articles. There are also some scientists who use quantum mechanics to explain various phenomena involving consciousness - like Dr. Dean Radin in his book, The Conscious Universe. There are some who view consciousness as being an being nonlocal, as well. None of these views are mainstream, of course.
Yes. People do make mistakes.
Again: anyone who believes in a non-physical God who creates the physical universe implicitly assents to this. Or… are you saying you do not believe in God?That is you who need to defend your belief and argue in favor of coherence of hylomorphic dualism.
God (spiritual, not ‘local’ to anything physical) → universe (physical, ‘local’ to self).
I am aware of quantum entanglement. What I call non-local is different from what physicists use. Non-locality in area of physics means that two quantum entities can interact with each other from long distance provided that they are entangled. Soul is not a physical entity therefore it does not belong to physical realm. This means that soul does not have any location, what I call non-local.
Thank you for reference.
What is the use of brain?Yes. People do make mistakes.
That Aristotle had an incomplete understanding of human physiology does not imply that his philosophy was flawed.
I don’t know what God is so lets put it aside. Back to our discussion. How do you causally relate soul to body?
Causality requires locality. You didn’t consider this in your model or drawing.God (spiritual, not ‘local’ to anything physical) → universe (physical, ‘local’ to self).
You’re welcome.
For some people, little to nothing.
Nice try.
OK… so, you really want to discuss the mind-body problem, then?
You’re the one who keeps asserting that “causality requires locality”… and without attribution, at that! Unless you can prove your assertion, then we aren’t required to include it as part of the model.
We know that information get into our body through the sensory system. The information then enter into our brain and is processed there. Where does this information goes afterward in order to be experienced?
We can discuss it later.
So you believe that hylomorphic dualism cannot address the phenomena that you mentioned. Is that correct?
That is a well accepted fact between physicist. All cause and effect are local in nature.You’re the one who keeps asserting that “causality requires locality”… and without attribution, at that! Unless you can prove your assertion, then we aren’t required to include it as part of the model.
Close. Data is passed to the brain; the brain processes this data. It is “information” only when interpreted by the mind.
I’m not saying it “goes” anywhere.
That’s a shame; you’d find your answer in that discussion.
No. But I believe that it’s an issue that’s still a topic of discussion in the field of ‘philosophy of the mind.’ It’s not that I think hylomorphic dualism is deficient; it’s that I think that – since you call it incoherent and offer nothing for proof of your assertion – you aren’t open to discussion.
Physicists don’t deal in the ‘mind’. You’re asking a question about the mind.
Not really. You can process information by a computer as well so there is no need for mind intervention to interpret the information. Mind comes to play only when it has to experience.
So what happen for the processed information by brain?
No really. I have an argument against that we cannot be consciousness. Lets define consciousness as essence of any being with the ability to experience and act. Any consciousness has the capacity to experience everything, it is omnipresent, that is what you expect from a non-local being. It is what I call the soul or God. We however have limited experience therefore we cannot be consciousness.
I am open to discussion and I strongly believe that there is deficiency in hylomorphic dualism. The problem is that we are not consciousness and our soul cannot causally be related to body since soul is non-local thing and body is a local thing therefore we cannot have soul.
There is a non-material reality, consciousness, but we are not non-material being.
We have three facts here: (1) Cause and effect among material things is local (2) We are conscious being (don’t mix it with consciousness) (3) our experience is local. And as you can see everything is consistent. You just need to accept that matter is conscious substance or consciousness can emerge from it. I am in favor of the first one because I have an argument in favor of it. There are people who think oppositely.If you cannot provide any attribution for your assertions, and will not admit the limitations of what you’ve offered, then there’s really no discussion to be had here.
Physicists talk about matter, what we are made of.Physicists don’t deal in the ‘mind’. You’re asking a question about the mind.
No… computers process data. “Information” is only something that a mind understands.
The way I (and computer scientists) define the terms, you’re using “information” incorrectly.
Again, the brain processes data. The person interprets it as information. The data, as such, remains ‘in’ the brain.
I would define ‘essence’ in a more Thomistic way; perhaps you’re talking about a characteristic rather than an essence?
OK – so, the way you define ‘consciousness’, it seems to be a characteristic of God. How would you define what we normally would call ‘human consciousness’?
Humans have a “has-a” relationship with consciousness, not a “is-a” relationship.
Umm… you know what “circular logic” is, don’t you? This is a pretty good example of it.
Again… you’re just baldly asserting “it can’t be”, without any proof other than your assertion.
Soul is not material. Therefore, your definitions don’t apply to this case.
The way you’re using terms is confusing. I’m not seeing the distinction you’re trying to make (other than seeing that you’re trying to distinguish between ‘conscious’ and ‘consciousness’).
Not when you posit a connection between soul and body.
Not really.
This needs to be explained in greater detail. Are you saying that all matter possesses consciousness? That’s… interesting.
Like I said: if you’re a materialist, then this is a trivial assertion. If you’re not a materialist, then this is a woefully inadequate assertion.
I define essence as the intrinsic nature of something.
No, I define consciousness as God.
Only awareness.
I cannot understand you here.
It is not really circular. All I am saying is that soul and body cannot be causally related to each other.Umm… you know what “circular logic” is, don’t you? This is a pretty good example of it.
Again, causality requires locality. Just think of how you interact with your surrounding. You will see that every time that you want to cause something you need to locally interact with the subject matter. That is true always, whether you pick up your cup of coffee or make a conversation with me or etc.
It is consistent if you try a little.Soul is not material. Therefore, your definitions don’t apply to this case.
The way you’re using terms is confusing. I’m not seeing the distinction you’re trying to make (other than seeing that you’re trying to distinguish between ‘conscious’ and ‘consciousness’).
Not when you posit a connection between soul and body.
Not really.
Yes, matter is conscious. What you want me to tell.
That I already made an argument in favor of it by you didn’t pay any attention to it. So I repeat it again: We have three facts here: (1) Cause and effect among material things is local (2) We are conscious being (don’t mix it with consciousness) (3) Our experience is local. And as you can see everything is consistent. You just need to accept that matter is conscious substance or consciousness can emerge from it. I am in favor of the first one because I have an argument in favor of it. There are people who think oppositely.
Inasmuch as you’re talking about the answer to the question “what is it?”, we’re on the same page. I’m not certain we are, however…
You define ‘consciousness’ uniquely, then.
At some point, it would be interesting to discuss how you distinguish ‘awareness’ from ‘conciousness’, although we don’t need to do so here.
OK. I’ll try again, although I suspect we’ll need to defer talking about it further in this thread:
Right. And you can say it, all day long, at the top of your lungs, as much as you want. . However, substantiating it is a whole different thing…