Intellect and thought

[Wesrock]

Are you familiar with formal causality in scholastic thought? The differences between realism, nominalism, and conceptualise? The animal mind cannot grasp universals or forms.

Imagination, mental images, taking the memory of two trees and making a composite of them in a mental image, that a brain can do all on its own. This is not the same as understanding what a chiliagon is as a universal form behind all chiliagons (existing or not). Of understanding what a polygon is as a universal concept and then being able to move from that to other universal concepts that you have no experience with. Same with triangularity. Same with love, knowledge, goodness. Not as feelings and facts and such, those are within the brain. I mean as a universal concept to be held and pondered in the mind.

Causality is real. And Thomas Aquinas responded to Hume’s imagination argument against causation hundreds of years before Hume was born. Hume and Kant won’t really help in this area.

 

[STT]

Are you familiar with formal causality in scholastic thought?

I am not familiar with Scholastic thought.

The differences between realism, nominalism, and conceptualise?

I am familiar with realism, nominalism and conceptualise.

The animal mind cannot grasp universals or forms.

I don’t think if it is possible to provide any argument or find any scientific evidence that shows that animal cannot have abstract thought or cannot understand universals. In fact there is an argument in favor of them. We are close relative and our brains are very similar so it might be very difficult for animal to grasp universals but it is not impossible.

Imagination, mental images, taking the memory of two trees and making a composite of them in a mental image, that a brain can do all on its own. This is not the same as understanding what a chiliagon is as a universal form behind all chiliagons (existing or not). Of understanding what a polygon is as a universal concept and then being able to move from that to other universal concepts that you have no experience with. Same with triangularity. Same with love, knowledge, goodness. Not as feelings and facts and such, those are within the brain. I mean as a universal concept to be held and pondered in the mind.

Causality is real. And Thomas Aquinas responded to Hume’s imagination argument against causation hundreds of years before Hume was born. Hume and Kant won’t really help in this area.

Hume and Kant are really very important in this area. At least they help me to make the argument which shows that the power of imagination is necessary for any being to perform any task.

 

[TheAtheist]

I am not familiar with Scholastic thought.

This might help you gain a good introductory grasp of things. The author does a good job of contrasting Scholastic philosophies positions against modern philosophical positions.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31JGKoCtkHL.SX347_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

I don’t think if it is possible to provide any argument or find any scientific evidence that shows that animal cannot have abstract thought or cannot understand universals. In fact there is an argument in favor of them. We are close relative and our brains are very similar so it might be very difficult for animal to grasp universals but it is not impossible.

Animal psychology and neuroscience isn’t really my field of expertise. But this question regarding the status of animals as thinking or non-thinking entities is actually a pretty old chestnut.

Descrates for instance thought that animals were mere automatons.

To frame this in light of contemporary debates about the nature of the mind, might i suggest Thomas Nagel’s rather interesting article:

What’s it Like to be a Bat?"

organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

Its a landmark work that highlights the issues and problems regarding qualia, but it does make a case that we cannot really access the internal life - mental or otherwise - of a bat.

Daniel Dennett came out against this notion, believing that it is possible to access aspects of a bat’s consciousness through 3rd Party Observation.

So like all good philosophers, they and their surrogates have been going at this for quite sometime.

Intellect in a formal, scholastic sense has a more technical meaning. In the more popular use of the word, a person’s intellect has to do with intelligence, and yes, the brain has a lot to do with intelligence. What the Thomistic generally means is the part capable of grasping universals, forms, abstracting with and from those, etc… with what makes rational thinking possible.

It might be helpful Wes, just to use the terminology nous instead of intelligence. The ancient Greeks had several words for things like “mind,” but nous is the technical term reserved specifically for the aspect you wish to address.

 

[STT]

This might help you gain a good introductory grasp of things. The author does a good job of contrasting Scholastic philosophies positions against modern philosophical positions.

images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/31JGKoCtkHL.SX347_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

Thank you.

Animal psychology and neuroscience isn’t really my field of expertise. But this question regarding the status of animals as thinking or non-thinking entities is actually a pretty old chestnut.

I have a simple argument for that. Any activity to my opinion requires abstraction since the activity is aimed to an end/goal which is abstract entity.

Descrates for instance thought that animals were mere automatons.

I disagree with him. Would you mind to cite his argument for this so we can discuss it?

To frame this in light of contemporary debates about the nature of the mind, might i suggest Thomas Nagel’s rather interesting article:

What’s it Like to be a Bat?"

organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

Thank you.

Its a landmark work that highlights the issues and problems regarding qualia, but it does make a case that we cannot really access the internal life - mental or otherwise - of a bat.

Daniel Dennett came out against this notion, believing that it is possible to access aspects of a bat’s consciousness through 3rd Party Observation.

So like all good philosophers, they and their surrogates have been going at this for quite sometime.

I think that is possible to have access to inner life of a conscious being considering the fact that consciousness is the result of physical activity.

It might be helpful Wes, just to use the terminology nous instead of intelligence. The ancient Greeks had several words for things like “mind,” but nous is the technical term reserved specifically for the aspect you wish to address.

Thank you.

 

[John_Martin]

It is a part of Catholic teaching that intellect is a faculty of soul/mind. This means that we should be able to directly control/process our thoughts. We however know that thoughts pop into our soul/mind meaning that we have no control on them. So thoughts should be part of brain process otherwise we could control/process them directly using our intellect. So the question is how intellect could be a faculty of soul/mind? Another question is if intellect has no power as a faculty of soul/mind then what is the use of soul/mind?

This sentence shows you do not know what a soul is: “This means that we should be able to directly control/process our thoughts.”

We (you) have no perception or sense of our souls.
Thoughts do not pop into our soul/mind.
Thoughts pop into our conscious apprehension of whatever we are apprehending - but this is not random, - it only appears to conscious thought that it is random.
Our soul is willingly and willfully “popping thoughts” into our conscious apprehension.
Intellect (knowing what to pop into material reality in the brain) is the object willed by the intellective appetite (the will) and so, the will moves the sensitive appetite, moving the organs (brain, speech, etc) to have sudden movements of thought.

You will never in this world apprehend your own soul (or anyone else’s), never know your own intellect (or anyone else’s), never feel your own will (nor anyone else’s). You will only see their tracks in the snow (which is the fleeting moment of a thought that pops into your head and makes sense - each thought is fleeting, yet they are miraculously continuations of one another; what a marvelous intellect that moves our brains to follow a train of thought without effort, making full sense with each new word popping into the material reality of the movement of neurons firing to fit the intended meaning (intended by my soul, not intended by any material power within my body - my body, my brain, reacts to its animator’s animation)

 

[Richca]

Does the Church teach that intellect is a faculty of the soul?

Yes. "By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image” (CCC#1705). Confer also the Council of Constantinople IV (870), canon 11. The Council of Vienne (1312), the rational or intellective soul as the form of the body (also CCC#365). Lateran Council V (1513).

Since the intellect can be diminished by a severe trauma or disease which causes brain damage, I think that places the intellect as a faculty of the brain. Does it not?

 

[STT]

This sentence shows you do not know what a soul is: “This means that we should be able to directly control/process our thoughts.”

What we call intellect is the result of brain process for a strong reason: Thought process is unconscious process because it is related to insentient matter.

We (you) have no perception or sense of our souls.

That I agree.

Thoughts do not pop into our soul/mind.

They do. You need to introspect to realize that.

Thoughts pop into our conscious apprehension of whatever we are apprehending - but this is not random, - it only appears to conscious thought that it is random.

I didn’t say that thought pop into conscious mind randomly. We become conscious of thoughts when they are formed.

Our soul is willingly and willfully “popping thoughts” into our conscious apprehension.

Are we aware of souls’/ours activities?

Intellect (knowing what to pop into material reality in the brain) is the object willed by the intellective appetite (the will) and so, the will moves the sensitive appetite, moving the organs (brain, speech, etc) to have sudden movements of thought.

I think I covered this in the first comment.

You will never in this world apprehend your own soul (or anyone else’s), never know your own intellect (or anyone else’s), never feel your own will (nor anyone else’s).

That is true but we should be able to keep track of our thoughts if they are conscious entities.

 

[Vico]

It is a part of Catholic teaching that intellect is a faculty of soul/mind. This means that we should be able to directly control/process our thoughts. We however know that thoughts pop into our soul/mind meaning that we have no control on them. So thoughts should be part of brain process otherwise we could control/process them directly using our intellect. So the question is how intellect could be a faculty of soul/mind? Another question is if intellect has no power as a faculty of soul/mind then what is the use of soul/mind?

The intellect and will are in the soul. The idea presented by St. Thomas Aquinas is that the soul is presented with information from the material brain or, after death of the body, by God. This he calls phantasm. Now we do not have control over our environments and since some thoughts arise in the brain through sensation we do not have control over all thoughts. And we know that some persons have psychological disorder of automatic thoughts. It does not follow that we actually are able in each instance to control our thoughts.

 

[STT]

The intellect and will are in the soul. The idea presented by St. Thomas Aquinas is that the soul is presented with information from the material brain or, after death of the body, by God.

How soul could possibly get information provided by brain? You need a mediator for that since information in brain has form and soul has no form. I am afraid that you fall in the trap of infinite regress.

This he calls phantasm. Now we do not have control over our environments and since some thoughts arise in the brain through sensation we do not have control over all thoughts. And we know that some persons have psychological disorder of automatic thoughts. It does not follow that we actually are able in each instance to control our thoughts.

We have no control on a single thought. We cannot process thought consciously. You can see that via introspection.

 

[Vico]

How soul could possibly get information provided by brain? You need a mediator for that since information in brain has form and soul has no form. I am afraid that you fall in the trap of infinite regress.

We have no control on a single thought. We cannot process thought consciously. You can see that via introspection.

The information from the material brain is perceived by the immaterial soul by phantasm.

From St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I:

Question 85. The mode and order of understanding
Article 1. Whether our intellect understands corporeal and material things by abstraction from phantasms?

I answer that, As stated above (I:84:7), the object of knowledge is proportionate to the power of knowledge. Now there are three grades of the cognitive powers. For one cognitive power, namely, the sense, is the act of a corporeal organ. And therefore the object of every sensitive power is a form as existing in corporeal matter. And since such matter is the principle of individuality, therefore every power of the sensitive part can only have knowledge of the individual. There is another grade of cognitive power which is neither the act of a corporeal organ, nor in any way connected with corporeal matter; such is the angelic intellect, the object of whose cognitive power is therefore a form existing apart from matter: for though angels know material things, yet they do not know them save in something immaterial, namely, either in themselves or in God. But the human intellect holds a middle place: for it is not the act of an organ; yet it is a power of the soul which is the form the body, as is clear from what we have said above (I:76:1). And therefore it is proper to it to know a form existing individually in corporeal matter, but not as existing in this individual matter. But to know what is in individual matter, not as existing in such matter, is to abstract the form from individual matter which is represented by the phantasms. Therefore we must needs say that our intellect understands material things by abstracting from the phantasms; and through material things thus considered we acquire some knowledge of immaterial things, just as, on the contrary, angels know material things through the immaterial.

newadvent.org/summa/1085.htm#article1

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It is a part of Catholic teaching that intellect is a faculty of soul/mind. This means that we should be able to directly control/process our thoughts. We however know that thoughts pop into our soul/mind meaning that we have no control on them. So thoughts should be part of brain process otherwise we could control/process them directly using our intellect. So the question is how intellect could be a faculty of soul/mind? Another question is if intellect has no power as a faculty of soul/mind then what is the use of soul/mind?

When “you” were writing this text, was it “you” who was processing “your” thoughts or was it the exclusive result of a brain process? Did those thoughts simply pop into “your” soul/mind? Did all the responses that “you” have given along this thread simply pop into “your” mind/soul, without “you” having any control on them?

And, when a “thought” pops into “your” soul/mind, what happens there then? What does “your” “introspection” show “you”?

 

[STT]

When “you” were writing this text, was it “you” who was processing “your” thoughts or was it the exclusive result of a brain process? Did those thoughts simply pop into “your” soul/mind? Did all the responses that “you” have given along this thread simply pop into “your” mind/soul, without “you” having any control on them?

And, when a “thought” pops into “your” soul/mind, what happens there then? What does “your” “introspection” show “you”?

It is impossible that we consciously do two tasks with full focus at the same time. Any process at least needs three elements, Y=F(X), where X is (name removed by moderator)ut, F is function and Y is output. This means that we cannot perform any task consciously hence thought pops up into put conscious mind when they are complete.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It is impossible that we consciously do two tasks with full focus at the same time. Any process at least needs three elements, Y=F(X), where X is (name removed by moderator)ut, F is function and Y is output. This means that we cannot perform any task consciously hence thought pops up into put conscious mind when they are complete.

If you are unable to think consciously, then what kind of process can you perform (consciously)?

 

[STT]

If you are unable to think consciously, then what kind of process can you perform (consciously)?

I am puzzled with conscious mind. I don’t know what is the use of it. I am of course sure that you cannot perform any process by conscious mind. I read a couple articles which both confirm that consciousness has very little to do with our lives if there is nothing. I unfortunately lost the links.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I am puzzled with conscious mind. I don’t know what is the use of it. I am of course sure that you cannot perform any process by conscious mind. I read a couple articles which both confirm that consciousness has very little to do with our lives if there is nothing. I unfortunately lost the links.

Are you consciously aware that you cannot perform any process consciously? Or you say that because you consciously read a couple of articles (consciously written by someone) and consciously believed that they were right? Now, without those articles, what do you consciously say about conscience?

 

[STT]

Are you consciously aware that you cannot perform any process consciously?

I have already discuss this: We cannot be conscious of two things at the same time. This means that we cannot process thoughts.

Moreover we simply experience thought and have no proof to show that thought is the result of conscious activity.

Or you say that because you consciously read a couple of articles (consciously written by someone) and consciously believed that they were right?

No, I found those articles after introspection and contemplation.

Now, without those articles, what do you consciously say about conscience?

Conscience is the ability to distinguish right from wrong based on our experience, what we have learn and what we are (our genes).

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I have already discuss this: We cannot be conscious of two things at the same time. This means that we cannot process thoughts.

“To say something” is not the same as “to discuss something”. So far, you just have said it, which is not much.

When you heat up liquid water (above 4 degrees Celsius), its density decreases, its viscosity decreases, its surface tension decreases, its capability to dissolve salts increases, its reactivity increases, etcetera… One (name removed by moderator)ut produces many outputs. There are also examples of many (name removed by moderator)uts producing many outputs or many (name removed by moderator)uts producing one output. “Functions” in nature? There is none.

Moreover we simply experience thought and have no proof to show that thought is the result of conscious activity.

Do you experience thought consciously or do you experience it unconsciously?

No, I found those articles after introspection and contemplation.

Therefore, you don’t need those articles to respond: Were your introspection and contemplation conscious or unconscious?

Conscience is the ability to distinguish right from wrong based on our experience, what we have learn and what we are (our genes).

Is that ability based on a conscious experience or on an unconscious experience?

Can there be wrong and right thoughts?

When you distinguish right from wrong, is that distinguishing act a thought process or something else?

 

[STT]

“To say something” is not the same as “to discuss something”. So far, you just have said it, which is not much.

When you heat up liquid water (above 4 degrees Celsius), its density decreases, its viscosity decreases, its surface tension decreases, its capability to dissolve salts increases, its reactivity increases, etcetera… One (name removed by moderator)ut produces many outputs. There are also examples of many (name removed by moderator)uts producing many outputs or many (name removed by moderator)uts producing one output. “Functions” in nature? There is none.

I already provide an argument against the fact that we cannot process thoughts consciously. Do you have any counter-argument against that?

Do you experience thought consciously or do you experience it unconsciously?

The act of experience is related to a conscious activity.

Therefore, you don’t need those articles to respond: Were your introspection and contemplation conscious or unconscious?

Introspection is a conscious activity whereas thinking is a unconscious activity.

Is that ability based on a conscious experience or on an unconscious experience?

We cannot have unconscious experience. One of the factor for this ability is experience.

Can there be wrong and right thoughts?

No. Thoughts cannot be right and wrong at the same time.

When you distinguish right from wrong, is that distinguishing act a thought process or something else?

The judgement is conscience and it is a unconscious activity.

 

[GEddie]

I have already discuss this: We cannot be conscious of two things at the same time.

What do you mean? You can see and smell at the same time, non? Both are conscious.

ICXC NIKA

 

[STT]

…But the human intellect holds a middle place: for it is not the act of an organ; yet it is a power of the soul which is the form the body, as is clear from what we have said above (I:76:1). And therefore it is proper to it to know a form existing individually in corporeal matter, but not as existing in this individual matter. But to know what is in individual matter, not as existing in such matter, is to abstract the form from individual matter which is represented by the phantasms. Therefore we must needs say that our intellect understands material things by abstracting from the phantasms; and through material things thus considered we acquire some knowledge of immaterial things, just as, on the contrary, angels know material things through the immaterial.

Of course the ability to think is related to form of matter. You cannot possibly think without form since thinking is nothing than processing information (information has form). But where is soul? Thomas however was right in his observation that the form is necessary for thinking.