Intellect and thought

[John_Martin]

I don’t really have time to read that right now. I was wondering if you could kindly summarize his idea in plain English.

I have found that people who really want to know do take the time to learn from one who really knows - Vico took the half hour to read the link, and probably took the three years to read the whole Summa; he wants to know, so he takes the time.

In another thread you write that you don’t know much about mathematics, but you want to tell everyone what is mathematics.

Here you don’t know much about the soul (you deny the soul as the place of intellect and you place intellect in a modern physical construct called “unconscious”, a construct by people who have ignored the great minds of the past) but you don’t take the time to read the masters of de Anima, Aristotle, Avicenna, Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Pagans and Christians alike understand the Soul, but you don’t have time. Read the link and figure out what it means; ask Thomas, “What do you mean by this, Thomas?” and then read more.

 

[John_Martin]

Well, I don’t think that Thomas has any justification or proof for that. I don’t think if he could offer anything. This means that he was biased by his belief for proposing such a picture which is understandable for a theologian but not a philosopher.

As in my last post, both Pagan Philosophers (Aristotle and Avicenna, and others) have close to the same understanding of the Soul as do the theologians. You “don’t think so” because you do not take the time to know what they know.

 

[GEddie]

Once, I had to be anesthetized, and all my world temporarily disappeared together with myself.

A priori, this would seem to reinforce STT’s contention that consciousness is just a physical state.

ICXC NIKA

 

[antunesaa]

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?

I would say that your conclusion at the end (“So thoughts should be part of brain process otherwise we could control/process them directly using our intellect”) is too extreme. It’s not that we have full control; we have partial control. I think of the mind as a broader thing than what can merely be obtained, or described, by the brain. A metaphor might help.

Consider an equation describing a circle in the xy plane; say, x^2+y^2<=2. This is your physical brain. You can describe objects, or “thoughts”, that are contained in your brain, like “point (0,0)” or “ball x^2+y^2<=1”. If you believe that the intellect is confined to the brain then one really cannot say things much different from what you said. In this view of the world you’re probably right.

But suppose that the mind is broader than that. Suppose that its locus is really the xyz space and its equation is in fact x^2+y^2+z^2<=2. It’s just that when you’re in the physical world your extra dimension collapses to z=0. If your mind is broader than your brain, you have extra degrees of freedom. You can have thoughts like “point (0,0,1)” or “ball x^2+y^2+z^2<=1”, which are more general.

This broader view implies that whatever thoughts you have should be partly apprehended by an observer placed on the xy plane (say, a neuroscientist). Using our little metaphor, if your mind contains ball x^2+y^2+z^2<=1, then it must also contain ball x^2+y^2<=1 in the observable world. An observer would say “this mind contains ball x^2+y^2<=1” and she would be right; but she would miss the fact that the mind would also contain a more complicated thought, ball x^2+y^2+z^2<=1.

Likewise, statement “this mind contains ellipse 0.01*x^2+y^2<=1” is impossible if your mind were the ball described above: point (10,0) would be in the ellipse but not in the brain (the observable part of the mind). Your thoughts therefore induce certain observations in the real world, but an external observer cannot recover your full thoughts from the observations of the real world.

The question now is: what makes one think that our mind is broader than our brain? A neuroscientist cannot possibly document that because she is confined to the physical observations. Can we detect that broadness of the mind?

My answer would be yes. I will just mention briefly two reasons. One is human conscience and the other is human creativity or, if you prefer, human unpredictability.

Human conscience. This is a well-known problem of philosophy, neuroscience, physiology, etc. My point is that human consciousness seems to be beyond the grasp of scientific observation. Modern science documents correlates of thoughts (like brain waves, changes in brain scans, transmission of actions by the nervous system, etc.) but it has failed so far at providing a convincing account of the process of conscience formation and operation. It’s as if conscience is too complex to be explained. So far people have said: “ok, we have not arrived there yet but we will”. I would think we will never arrive there because science can only tackle physical correlates, not the whole object.

Human creativity. Despite known regularities in human behaviour (which could in fact be ascribed to physical limitations to the broader mind), the overwhelming empirical evidence is that human behaviour is unpredictable. All the physical correlates I mentioned above fail utterly to have any predictable power for human decisions at the individual level. Pick a random person on the street, scan her brain in whatever fashion you like, and in the end ask her to draw something in a white sheet of paper (or any other action for that matter). You can eventually do better than a random classifier, but can you be sure about what she will do? Now people will tell me: “ok, we have not arrived there yet but we will”. I have no evidence or suggestion that we ever will.

Another question is whether the mind really needs a physical brain to subsist. If the mind is broader than the brain, the extinction of the brain does not necessarily imply its own extinction; only its observable part will in fact be extinct. Maybe the 3D ball just migrates to a part of the xyz space away from the xy plane…

So, yes, I think the mind is broader than the brain in a mysterious but compelling way.

 

[STT]

I have found that people who really want to know do take the time to learn from one who really knows - Vico took the half hour to read the link, and probably took the three years to read the whole Summa; he wants to know, so he takes the time.

I don’t know how much it would take from me to read that text. It is very technical for me and I am not philosopher. I however read a lot about philosophy, especially philosophy of mind yet that text is difficult for me. That is why I ask Vico to kindly provide the proof for existence of soul/form as a incorruptible thing to me. We are here to discuss and no one is even expert in all field of philosophy so I think that my request is fair.

In another thread you write that you don’t know much about mathematics, but you want to tell everyone what is mathematics.

I am no a mathematician either but I read a lot about mathematics long tome ago.

Here you don’t know much about the soul (you deny the soul as the place of intellect and you place intellect in a modern physical construct called “unconscious”, a construct by people who have ignored the great minds of the past) but you don’t take the time to read the masters of de Anima, Aristotle, Avicenna, Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Pagans and Christians alike understand the Soul, but you don’t have time. Read the link and figure out what it means; ask Thomas, “What do you mean by this, Thomas?” and then read more.

I don’t think that this is a good attitude. We are wasting our time. I have an argument. Do you have anything against it? You are familiar with Thomas argument. So provide it in plain English so we can discuss it. What is wrong with that?

 

[STT]

As in my last post, both Pagan Philosophers (Aristotle and Avicenna, and others) have close to the same understanding of the Soul as do the theologians. You “don’t think so” because you do not take the time to know what they know.

This we already discussed. You think that you have a proof for soul? Then provide it so we can discuss it.

 

[STT]

I would say that your conclusion at the end (“So thoughts should be part of brain process otherwise we could control/process them directly using our intellect”) is too extreme. It’s not that we have full control; we have partial control. I think of the mind as a broader thing than what can merely be obtained, or described, by the brain. A metaphor might help.

I have a simple argument for that. We can be conscious of one thing, thought for example, at any given time with full focus. This means that we cannot process thoughts consciously since that at least requires to be conscious of other things/thoughts as well which is logically impossible.

Consider an equation describing a circle in the xy plane; say, x^2+y^2<=2. This is your physical brain. You can describe objects, or “thoughts”, that are contained in your brain, like “point (0,0)” or “ball x^2+y^2<=1”. If you believe that the intellect is confined to the brain then one really cannot say things much different from what you said. In this view of the world you’re probably right…

…Likewise, statement “this mind contains ellipse 0.01*x^2+y^2<=1” is impossible if your mind were the ball described above: point (10,0) would be in the ellipse but not in the brain (the observable part of the mind). Your thoughts therefore induce certain observations in the real world, but an external observer cannot recover your full thoughts from the observations of the real world.

I am sorry but I don’t understand what do you mean with this metaphor.

The question now is: what makes one think that our mind is broader than our brain? A neuroscientist cannot possibly document that because she is confined to the physical observations. Can we detect that broadness of the mind?

These are exactly exteremly good questions: We in principle could find a track of soul if soul intervenes in our thought process or any activity. We however accepted the fact that soul is spiritual hence it could not be detected likewise it cannot affect anything. So we are dealing with an irony here: Soul in one had affect things and in another hand cannot be detected.

My answer would be yes. I will just mention briefly two reasons. One is human conscience and the other is human creativity or, if you prefer, human unpredictability.

We don’t have any evidence or proof that human is unpredictable. It could be or it could not be.

Human conscience. This is a well-known problem of philosophy, neuroscience, physiology, etc. My point is that human consciousness seems to be beyond the grasp of scientific observation. Modern science documents correlates of thoughts (like brain waves, changes in brain scans, transmission of actions by the nervous system, etc.) but it has failed so far at providing a convincing account of the process of conscience formation and operation. It’s as if conscience is too complex to be explained. So far people have said: “ok, we have not arrived there yet but we will”. I would think we will never arrive there because science can only tackle physical correlates, not the whole object.

I am convinced that scientist eventually understand how brain process leads to consciousness. It is obvious that we cannot have any consciousness without brain process so we have key element in our disposal.

Moreover, dualistic picture does not enlighten us anyhow. Do you know how consciousness is possible in your dualistic picture?

Human creativity. Despite known regularities in human behaviour (which could in fact be ascribed to physical limitations to the broader mind), the overwhelming empirical evidence is that human behaviour is unpredictable. All the physical correlates I mentioned above fail utterly to have any predictable power for human decisions at the individual level. Pick a random person on the street, scan her brain in whatever fashion you like, and in the end ask her to draw something in a white sheet of paper (or any other action for that matter). You can eventually do better than a random classifier, but can you be sure about what she will do? Now people will tell me: “ok, we have not arrived there yet but we will”. I have no evidence or suggestion that we ever will.

That is apparently what neuroscientists are doing these days, reading our minds. You can read more here.

Another question is whether the mind really needs a physical brain to subsist.

Thought is nothing more than processed information. Information requires shape hence you need substance and form to allow thought. I don’t understand mind in abstract sense, without need of substance and form.

If the mind is broader than the brain, the extinction of the brain does not necessarily imply its own extinction; only its observable part will in fact be extinct. Maybe the 3D ball just migrates to a part of the xyz space away from the xy plane…

So, yes, I think the mind is broader than the brain in a mysterious but compelling way.

You need to provide an argument or evidence to show that mind is broader than brain.

 

[Vico]

I don’t really have time to read that right now. I was wondering if you could kindly summarize his idea in plain English.

In the view of St. Thoams Aquinas:

• The human soul is the form of a human being substance.
• A human being has corporeal and incorporeal operations.
• The soul is the form of a substance which is both corporeal and incorporeal.
• The corporeal respects are the body, so the soul is the form of the body.
• The soul is not the form of a substance exhausted by its corporeal operations.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

A priori, this would seem to reinforce STT’s contention that consciousness is just a physical state.
ICXC NIKA

What I described would allow us to say that consciousness is associated to a physical state; but we would need to be too simplistic and superficial to conclude that it is a physical state.

 

[STT]

In the view of St. Thoams Aquinas:

Ok, so that is his view and he doesn’t have any proof for it.

The human soul is the form of a human being substance.

That I agree.

A human being has corporeal and incorporeal operations.

Can you give me an example of incorporeal operations?

The soul is the form of a substance which is both corporeal and incorporeal.

This I don’t understand. How soul could be both corporeal and incorporeal?

The corporeal respects are the body, so the soul is the form of the body.

Yes.

The soul is not the form of a substance exhausted by its corporeal operations.

What is left? I mean what else a human being can do except corporeal operation?

 

[GEddie]

This I don’t understand. How soul could be both corporeal and incorporeal?

The human soul is not corporeal, but is the form of a human being, who is corporeal.

ICXC NIKA

 

[STT]

The human soul is not corporeal, but is the form of a human being, who is corporeal.
ICXC NIKA

That is what Vico said: The soul is the form of a substance which is both corporeal and incorporeal. This is different from what you said.

Moreover, you are suggesting doesn’t make any sense to me because in Thomas view soul is the form of substance. So what you said doesn’t follow unless we accept that human is constitute of substance, form and soul.

 

[GEddie]

That is what Vico said: The soul is the form of a substance which is both corporeal and incorporeal. This is different from what you said.

Moreover, you are suggesting doesn’t make any sense to me because in Thomas view soul is the form of substance. So what you said doesn’t follow unless we accept that human is constitute of substance, form and soul.

The difficulty is that you don’t speak Aquinas, nor really do I.

The words form and substance do not mean in Aquinas what we are used to them meaning.

ICXC NIKA

 

[STT]

What I described would allow us to say that consciousness is associated to a physical state; but we would need to be too simplistic and superficial to conclude that it is a physical state.

What do you mean with “is associated”?

Any physical process leads to a physical state and no more hence consciousness is a physical state.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What do you mean with “is associated”?

Any physical process leads to a physical state and no more hence consciousness is a physical state.

If you are used to rigorous thinking, and you think you are authorized to say that consciousness is a physical state, then it must be because you can say which physical state it is. Just say it: specifically, which physical state is consciousness?

Your statement “Any physical process leads to a physical state and no more hence consciousness is a physical state”, proves nothing. If consciousness is a physical state among many other physical states, why does it contain a multitude of the other physical states? Why and how do all the other physical processes become patent through it?

 

[STT]

If you are used to rigorous thinking, and you think you are authorized to say that consciousness is a physical state, then it must be because you can say which physical state it is. Just say it: specifically, which physical state is consciousness?

Let me to expand this a little. Any physical state in principle is related to how the constituted particles, electron and atom for example, are arranged and move. Atoms move freely in gas and liquid state (air and water for example). Electrons mover freely and atoms are fixed in metal state (iron and copper for example). Electrons and atoms are fixed in insulator state (stone and wood for example). In the case of brain we have electrons and neurons. Electron moves when neuron fires and neuron has the capacity to change its internal state. So we are dealing with a more complex system but any physical state in brain, one of them conscious state, again is related to movement of electrons. I hope that thong is more clear by now.

 

[Vico]

Ok, so that is his view and he doesn’t have any proof for it.

That I agree.

Can you give me an example of incorporeal operations?

This I don’t understand. How soul could be both corporeal and incorporeal?

Yes.

What is left? I mean what else a human being can do except corporeal operation?

St. Thomas presents a proof, I am not quoting it because you are trying to take a shortcut, It isn’t working is it?

Try this from Summa Theologica Q75:

Article 4: Whether the soul is the person?

It would seem that the soul is the person.

1. For it is written (2 Cor. 4:16): “Though our outward person is corrupted, yet the in ward person is renewed day by day.” But that which is within the person is the soul. Therefore the soul is the inward person.
2. Further, the human soul is a substance. But it is not a universal substance. Therefore it is a particular substance. Therefore it is a “hypostasis” or a person; and it can only be a human person. Therefore the soul is the person; for a human person is a person.

On the other hand, Augustine (De Civ. Dei xix, 3) commends Varro as holding “that the person is not a mere soul, nor a mere body; but both soul and body.”

Response: The assertion “the soul is a person,” can be taken in two senses. * First, that the person is a soul; though this particular person, Socrates, for instance, is not a soul, but composed of soul and body. I say this, forasmuch as some held that the form alone belongs to the species; while matter is part of the individual, and not the species. This cannot be true; for to the nature of the species belongs what the definition signifies; and in natural things the definition does not signify the form only, but the form and the matter. Hence in natural things the matter is part of the species; not, indeed, signate matter, which is the principle of individuality; but the common matter. For as it belongs to the notion of this particular person to be composed of this soul, of this flesh, and of these bones; so it belongs to the notion of person to be composed of soul, flesh, and bones; for whatever belongs in common to the substance of all the individuals contained under a given species, must belong to the substance of the species. * It may also be understood in this sense, that this soul is this person; and this could be held if it were supposed that the operation of the sensitive soul were proper to it, apart from the body; because in that case all the operations which are attributed to the person would belong to the soul only; and whatever performs the operations proper to a thing, is that thing; wherefore that which performs the operations of a person is a person. But it has been shown above (A3) that sensation is not the operation of the soul only. Since, then, sensation is an operation of man, but not proper to him, it is clear that man is not a soul only, but something composed of soul and body. Plato, through supposing that sensation was proper to the soul, could maintain the person to be a soul making use of the body.

 

[STT]

Your statement “Any physical process leads to a physical state and no more hence consciousness is a physical state”, proves nothing.

Do you have any other way to explain consciousness. We know by fact that consciousness can be affected or diminished by manipulating the physical process. In case of anesthesia, physicians use a specific drug which is a physical entity to disturb process in brain.

If consciousness is a physical state among many other physical states, why does it contain a multitude of the other physical states?

I think you are talking about different modes of experience. Of course our consciousness is very rich. That however doesn’t say that it contains other physical states.

Why and how do all the other physical processes become patent through it?

Other physical states don’t patent through consciousness.

 

[STT]

St. Thomas presents a proof, I am not quoting it because you are trying to take a shortcut, It isn’t working is it?

Try this from Summa Theologica Q75:

Article 4: Whether the soul is the person?

It would seem that the soul is the person.

1. For it is written (2 Cor. 4:16): “Though our outward person is corrupted, yet the in ward person is renewed day by day.” But that which is within the person is the soul. Therefore the soul is the inward person.
2. Further, the human soul is a substance. But it is not a universal substance. Therefore it is a particular substance. Therefore it is a “hypostasis” or a person; and it can only be a human person. Therefore the soul is the person; for a human person is a person.

On the other hand, Augustine (De Civ. Dei xix, 3) commends Varro as holding “that the person is not a mere soul, nor a mere body; but both soul and body.”

Response: The assertion “the soul is a person,” can be taken in two senses. * First, that the person is a soul; though this particular person, Socrates, for instance, is not a soul, but composed of soul and body. I say this, forasmuch as some held that the form alone belongs to the species; while matter is part of the individual, and not the species. This cannot be true; for to the nature of the species belongs what the definition signifies; and in natural things the definition does not signify the form only, but the form and the matter. Hence in natural things the matter is part of the species; not, indeed, signate matter, which is the principle of individuality; but the common matter. For as it belongs to the notion of this particular person to be composed of this soul, of this flesh, and of these bones; so it belongs to the notion of person to be composed of soul, flesh, and bones; for whatever belongs in common to the substance of all the individuals contained under a given species, must belong to the substance of the species. * It may also be understood in this sense, that this soul is this person; and this could be held if it were supposed that the operation of the sensitive soul were proper to it, apart from the body; because in that case all the operations which are attributed to the person would belong to the soul only; and whatever performs the operations proper to a thing, is that thing; wherefore that which performs the operations of a person is a person. But it has been shown above (A3) that sensation is not the operation of the soul only. Since, then, sensation is an operation of man, but not proper to him, it is clear that man is not a soul only, but something composed of soul and body. Plato, through supposing that sensation was proper to the soul, could maintain the person to be a soul making use of the body.

This is not working this way. You gave me a list of attributes of soul and I had some questions. Could you please give me answer to those questions? We work on his proof later. Here are my questions:

Can you give me an example of incorporeal operations?

This I don’t understand. How soul could be both corporeal and incorporeal?

What is left? I mean what else a human being can do except corporeal operation?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Let me to expand this a little. Any physical state in principle is related to how the constituted particles, electron and atom for example, are arranged and move. Atoms move freely in gas and liquid state (air and water for example). Electrons mover freely and atoms are fixed in metal state (iron and copper for example). Electrons and atoms are fixed in insulator state (stone and wood for example). In the case of brain we have electrons and neurons. Electron moves when neuron fires and neuron has the capacity to change its internal state. So we are dealing with a more complex system but any physical state in brain, one of them conscious state, again is related to movement of electrons. I hope that thong is more clear by now.

Well, sometimes a joke is ok. Now, seriously, can you respond to my question?: specifically, which physical state is consciousness?