Again, form is form. We don’t have immaterial form and material form. There are two things involved in any thing, substance which allows that a thing has specific form which these together allows the thing a specific function. There exist not anything without form or substance. I think this is parallel to Aristotle’s thought. There is nothing left. I don’t know why Thomas change the idea.In the case of the soul and body, each rational soul is uniquely suited to that body, making it unique from another soul. The soul is an incomplete immaterial substance and the the intellect has no operation in common with the body.
Summa Contra Gentiles 2, 69:
[6] Concerning the fifth argument, let it be said that because the soul is in its substance the form of the body, it does not follow that every operation of the soul must be performed by means of the body, so that every power of the soul will be the act of a bodily thing. For we have already proved that the human soul is not a form wholly embedded in matter, but among all other forms occupies a most exalted place above matter. That is why it can produce an operation without the body, as being operationally independent of the body; since neither is it existentially dependent on the body.
In the case of animal life, and specifically human, the soul is an “intelligent form”, but not a determined form, so far as this intelligence is concerned; and it is willfully moving (animating) the material of the individual to manifest the self-knowing of the form (of the soul) and to acquire knowledge via the moved animated body (material). Thus the form perfects its knowing in and through the matter. A composite of soul and body perfecting the soul as the soul perfects the body. (“perfects” meaning it fully actualizes the potential of knowing and manifesting its being).Again, form is form. We don’t have immaterial form and material form. There are two things involved in any thing, stuff which makes the thing and form which gives thing a specific structure and functioning. I think this is parallel to Aristotle’s thought. There is nothing left.
Intelligence in human is the result of specific process which the later is the result of specific form, having a brain. That is why we are different from three, rock, etc.In the case of animal life, and specifically human, the soul is an “intelligent form”, but not a determined form, so far as this intelligence is concerned; and it is willfully moving (animating) the material of the individual to manifest the self-knowing of the form (of the soul) and to acquire knowledge via the moved animated body (material). Thus the form perfects its knowing in and through the matter. A composite of soul and body perfecting the soul as the soul perfects the body. (“perfects” meaning it fully actualizes the potential of knowing and manifesting its being).
For the moment I will respond to your request with an example: the other day, my daughter asked me to tighten a screw, but following the rhythm of the music. I did it. Nothing really complex, you see. I had to pay attention to the screw, to the piece into which I was tightening it, to the screwdriver, and to the music, at least. Four things simultaneously, full focus.To be aware of at least three things with full focus at the same time.
Yes one form: the form of the body is the soul. That form is immaterial.Again, form is form. We don’t have immaterial form and material form. There are two things involved in any thing, substance which allows that a thing has specific form which these together allows the thing a specific function. There exist not anything without form or substance. I think this is parallel to Aristotle’s thought. There is nothing left. I don’t know why Thomas change the idea.
Yes, because you know how to tighten a screw so you do it partially subconsciously not completely consciously. You can read more about multitasking here .For the moment I will respond to your request with an example: the other day, my daughter asked me to tighten a screw, but following the rhythm of the music. I did it. Nothing really complex, you see. I had to pay attention to the screw, to the piece into which I was tightening it, to the screwdriver, and to the music, at least. Four things simultaneously, full focus.
We can do a few things subconsciously when we master them.Another example, because I feel generous today: Did you know Herbert Von Karajan? He was a very famous philarmonic conductor. Surely you know there are many musical instruments in a philharmonic. No problem for him to conduct all the musicians in the group. Do you think he had to “focus his full attention” to each one of the sounds separately and successively to coordinate the philharmonic? No harmony would have been created that way!
All forms are of course immaterial.Yes one form: the form of the body is the soul. That form is immaterial.
St. Thomas Aquinas describes a material form: it exists as either an accident or substantial form in a corporeal subject, and does not subsist. For example, the souls of living bodies in general are material forms except for the intellectual soul.All forms are of course immaterial.
You know, taking the OP at face value, I doubt he speaks Aquinas. Methinks ye philosopher types will need to do what you roundly hate, to wit, translate into plain English.St. Thomas Aquinas describes a material form: it exists as either an accident or substantial form in a corporeal subject, and does not subsist. For example, the souls of living bodies in general are material forms except for the intellectual soul.
And why we should make distinction between form of living being that are not intellectual and the one who are intellectual? For me the difference between the form of intellectual living being and nonintellectual living being is in their form and not in the fact that their form is intrinsically different.St. Thomas Aquinas describes a material form: it exists as either an accident or substantial form in a corporeal subject, and does not subsist. For example, the souls of living bodies in general are material forms except for the intellectual soul.
Not unconsciously, nor subconsciously, but fully aware of the activity, in both cases. I suspect you believe more on what you read than on your own experiences, STT. Do you think that is the proper way to search for the truth? Multitasking is a completely different thing compared to the examples I have proposed. Thinking that the coordinating activity of the philharmonic conductor is multitasking is simply preposterous.Yes, because you know how to tighten a screw so you do it partially subconsciously not completely consciously. You can read more about multitasking here .
We can do a few things subconsciously when we master them.
Summa Theologica I, Q 75 has a proof that the human intellectual soul is immaterial subsistent but the other animal souls are not immaterial subsistents. The human intellectual soul has its own operation so is said to be the subject of the act of existence.And why we should make distinction between form of living being that are not intellectual and the one who are intellectual? For me the difference between the form of intellectual living being and nonintellectual living being is in their form and not in the fact that their form is intrinsically different.
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.Summa Theologica I, Q 75 has a proof that the human intellectual soul is immaterial subsistent but the other animal souls are not immaterial subsistents. The human intellectual soul has its own operation so is said to be the subject of the act of existence.
The soul of animals is corruptible but not the human intellectual soul.
You are special if you can do multitasking. I just can perform one task at any given time which shows that thought in me is the result of unconscious process. I however have no idea how any thought could be the result of conscious process. I don’t think we can provide any evidence for this since introspection is not completely a reliable method. That is however all we have.Not unconsciously, nor subconsciously, but fully aware of the activity, in both cases. I suspect you believe more on what you read than on your own experiences, STT. Do you think that is the proper way to search for the truth? Multitasking is a completely different thing compared to the examples I have proposed. Thinking that the coordinating activity of the philharmonic conductor is multitasking is simply preposterous.
Why is is not understandable for a philosopher? Did you read the Summa Theologica, especially Q75?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.
Evidence! If something is evident to you it is so primarily because you are conscious of it. If, on the other hand, you find no evidence for conscious thinking, so much the less for unconscious thinking! It is vicious to pretend to rely on indirect “methods” instead on a direct one.You are special if you can do multitasking. I just can perform one task at any given time which shows that thought in me is the result of unconscious process. I however have no idea how any thought could be the result of conscious process. I don’t think we can provide any evidence for this since introspection is not completely a reliable method. That is however all we have.
I don’t really have time to read that right now. I was wondering if you could kindly summarize his idea in plain English.Why is is not understandable for a philosopher? Did you read the Summa Theologica, especially Q75?
newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm
Consciousness is only a physical state and it is result of physical (unconscious) processes which happens in brain. Suppose that you can do a specific operation X which consists of two sub-operations X={x1, x2}. There are two approaches that you can perform X. The first one is what you suggest. There is however another operation that I suggest in which each sub-operation is performed unconsciously and we become conscious of it when the operation is complete. We just become conscious of sub-operation but that doesn’t mean that the operation is done consciously. So as you can see it is difficult to provide any proof which we can relay on it.Evidence! If something is evident to you it is so primarily because you are conscious of it.
I am open to both approaches for people who could do multi-tasking as it is discussed in the first comment. I have to think thoroughly to see how conscious operation is possible for a person who could do one task at any given time.If, on the other hand, you find no evidence for conscious thinking, so much the less for unconscious thinking! It is vicious to pretend to rely on indirect “methods” instead on a direct one.
Once, I had to be anesthetized, and all my world temporarily disappeared together with myself. Afterwards, when the surgery was over, I was here again together with my world which reappeared before me. It is not possible to separate my consciousness from my world. My world can certainly be impoverished, but it cannot disappear completely without disappearing my consciousness. Is my world a simple thing? Not at all! It is full of diversity. My visual field extends in the three dimensions and it seems to have no borders. It certainly happens that I can focus my attention to a given object or to a reduced set of objects within the diversity, but it is not true that when doing it the rest of my world vanishes into some kind of darkness or nothingness. It is still there, constituting part of my consciousness, and I can change the focus of my attention at a given time precisely because it is so. Something similar happens with my auditory field: it is so complex!, and it is always there independently of the focus of my attention. You have no idea of the number of processes that are taking place at any given moment in the ambit of your consciousness.Consciousness is only a physical state and it is result of physical (unconscious) processes which happens in brain. Suppose that you can do a specific operation X which consists of two sub-operations X={x1, x2}. There are two approaches that you can perform X. The first one is what you suggest. There is however another operation that I suggest in which each sub-operation is performed unconsciously and we become conscious of it when the operation is complete. We just become conscious of sub-operation but that doesn’t mean that the operation is done consciously. So as you can see it is difficult to provide any proof which we can relay on it.
You say “I have to think thoroughly…”, as if it depended on your will; but you deny it. Nevertheless, it is true that it depends on your will, and you can dedicate all the time which is necessary for you to have a clearer view about all this matter.I am open to both approaches for people who could do multi-tasking as it is discussed in the first comment. I have to think thoroughly to see how conscious operation is possible for a person who could do one task at any given time.
I don’t understand how this is related to our discussion. Do you want to leave my argument intact? Or do you want to make an argument against it?Once, I had to be anesthetized, and all my world temporarily disappeared together with myself. Afterwards, when the surgery was over, I was here again together with my world which reappeared before me. It is not possible to separate my consciousness from my world. My world can certainly be impoverished, but it cannot disappear completely without disappearing my consciousness. Is my world a simple thing? Not at all! It is full of diversity. My visual field extends in the three dimensions and it seems to have no borders. It certainly happens that I can focus my attention to a given object or to a reduced set of objects within the diversity, but it is not true that when doing it the rest of my world vanishes into some kind of darkness or nothingness. It is still there, constituting part of my consciousness, and I can change the focus of my attention at a given time precisely because it is so. Something similar happens with my auditory field: it is so complex!, and it is always there independently of the focus of my attention. You have no idea of the number of processes that are taking place at any given moment in the ambit of your consciousness.
I think that my view is simple. That is why is hard to resist against it since anyone can understand it. I accept things as they are. Ugly or beautiful are not important to me when it come to understand what truth is.The simplistic view that you have exposed so far about consciousness is but an ugly caricature of what really happens.
I simply leave room for my error. One cannot never be sure of what it accepted as truth.You say “I have to think thoroughly…”, as if it depended on your will; but you deny it. Nevertheless, it is true that it depends on your will, and you can dedicate all the time which is necessary for you to have a clearer view about all this matter.