You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
STT
Guest
Given the definition of matter, the basic substance which occupies space and constructs our reality, and considering the fact that soul is not material one can conclude that the soul does not share the same property as matter, namely it doesn’t occupy any space therefore the soul cannot have any location.This would be the first real discussion between you and me, STT.
What do you mean when you say that it is a given fact that the soul is immaterial and has no location?
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Again, why do you say that it is a fact that soul is not material. What is your experience concerning souls that authorizes you to say such a thing?Given the definition of matter, the basic substance which occupies space and constructs our reality, and considering the fact that soul is not material one can conclude that the soul does not share the same property as matter, namely it doesn’t occupy any space therefore the soul cannot have any location.
S
STT
Guest
Why bother and call it the soul? Call it a lamp of matter. I think we have to agree on the fact that if we can divide substances into material and immaterial. What do you think?Again, why do you say that it is a fact that soul is not material. What is your experience concerning souls that authorizes you to say such a thing?
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Well, my experience is that I interact with objects around me and that I have the ability to think about them. On the other hand, it is not an esoteric knowledge that there are guys who argue that the thoughts about objects are a kind of irradiation from objects, which they say are made of “matter” (the materialists), and other guys who argue that objects are a product of the mind (the idealists), to say it in a very gross manner. I belong to a third group of guys who tend to think that things and the thoughts about things are irreducible to each other, for there are certain characteristics that are peculiar to one or the to the other but not to both. In this sense I find it reasonable to distinguish between the material and the immaterial.Why bother and call it the soul? Call it a lamp of matter. I think we have to agree on the fact that if we can divide substances into material and immaterial. What do you think?
S
STT
Guest
Well, I agree with these three scenarios and the definition of material and immaterial. Now lets examine each of these scenario closely. Lets start with the first one.Well, my experience is that I interact with objects around me and that I have the ability to think about them. On the other hand, it is not an esoteric knowledge that there are guys who argue that the thoughts about objects are a kind of irradiation from objects, which they say are made of “matter” (the materialists), and other guys who argue that objects are a product of the mind (the idealists), to say it in a very gross manner. I belong to a third group of guys who tend to think that things and the thoughts about things are irreducible to each other, for there are certain characteristics that are peculiar to one or the to the other but not to both. In this sense I find it reasonable to distinguish between the material and the immaterial.
We have matter as the main substance. Matter has shape and occupies space. Most importantly matter has ability to experience and act based on the experience. What we call thoughts are manifestation of process of information, shape, in matter. Matter has the capacity to carry and experience information therefore this scenario seems reasonable.
Mind is the main substance in the second scenario. Mind does not occupy any space. Everything else including matter and thought is manifestation of mind activity. I think mind in the second scenario is what you call God so I was wondering why you exclude this scenario.
We have two main substances in the last scenario, mind and matter. I think that you believe that thoughts are processed inside mind. Moreover, that is mind which experiences. Unfortunately we have problem in the both cases. Lets discuss each of them in the following:
(1) Thoughts are the result of process of information. Information has shape. Mind doesn’t have any shape therefore mind cannot process information to form thoughts.
(2) Mind is immaterial. Mind doesn’t have any location. Our experience however has location, where our bodies are. We cannot causally related something which has no location to something which has location.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
But again, what are you discussing here? Definitions? I refuse to discuss definitions. It makes absolutely no sense to me.Well, I agree with these three scenarios and the definition of material and immaterial. Now lets examine each of these scenario closely. Lets start with the first one.
We have matter as the main substance. Matter has shape and occupies space. Most importantly matter has ability to experience and act based on the experience. What we call thoughts are manifestation of process of information, shape, in matter. Matter has the capacity to carry and experience information therefore this scenario seems reasonable.
Mind is the main substance in the second scenario. Mind does not occupy any space. Everything else including matter and thought is manifestation of mind activity. I think mind in the second scenario is what you call God so I was wondering why you exclude this scenario.
We have two main substances in the last scenario, mind and matter. I think that you believe that thoughts are processed inside mind. Moreover, that is mind which experiences. Unfortunately we have problem in the both cases. Lets discuss each of them in the following:
(1) Thoughts are the result of process of information. Information has shape. Mind doesn’t have any shape therefore mind cannot process information to form thoughts.
(2) Mind is immaterial. Mind doesn’t have any location. Our experience however has location, where our bodies are. We cannot causally related something which has no location to something which has location.
I can distinguish certain patterns in the reality that surrounds me, and also in my own body. Given an (name removed by moderator)ut X, a chain of changes takes place, and if I artificially introduce a limit in time, I will observe what I will call an output Y. Under similar conditions, every occasion the (name removed by moderator)ut X is given, the output Y will take place after the selected time period. That is what happens, for example, when I shoot a scene with a video camera and by using a set of those apparatuses called transmitters and receptors another person far away observes an image of the scene on a screen; or when I press the key with the symbol “P” in my keyboard and observe a similar symbol on my screen. Those are what I call electromechanical chains of changes.
In the realm of my thoughts, on the other hand, I can distinguish what I call “meaning”. There is no “meaning” in the chains of electromechanical changes, but there is meaning in my thoughts. And when I say “experience”, I associate this word with meaning; never with “simple” chains of electromechanical changes. Same thing with the term “information”.
Concerning space and the ability to interact with the objects of my surroundings, there is no doubt that I inhabit space and that I do interact with those objects, even though immateriality is something that can be attributed to me.
S
STT
Guest
I was not discussing definition. I was making a few arguments. Perhaps we would come to that post again.But again, what are you discussing here? Definitions? I refuse to discuss definitions. It makes absolutely no sense to me.
That I agree with.I can distinguish certain patterns in the reality that surrounds me, and also in my own body. Given an (name removed by moderator)ut X, a chain of changes takes place, and if I artificially introduce a limit in time, I will observe what I will call an output Y. Under similar conditions, every occasion the (name removed by moderator)ut X is given, the output Y will take place after the selected time period. That is what happens, for example, when I shoot a scene with a video camera and by using a set of those apparatuses called transmitters and receptors another person far away observes an image of the scene on a screen; or when I press the key with the symbol “P” in my keyboard and observe a similar symbol on my screen. Those are what I call electromechanical chains of changes.
Could you have a single thought without electrochemical chains? There is a purpose for them. Isn’t it? Why do you think that meaning cannot be a manifestation of electrochemical chains? Do you have an argument for that? I already argue that soul cannot process information. Do you have an objection with that?In the realm of my thoughts, on the other hand, I can distinguish what I call “meaning”. There is no “meaning” in the chains of electromechanical changes, but there is meaning in my thoughts. And when I say “experience”, I associate this word with meaning; never with “simple” chains of electromechanical changes. Same thing with the term “information”.
So you agree that you inhabit a space and have a location. I am sure that you agree that you can interact locally with your body too. So here a question arises: Why do you think that you are immaterial if you are local entity and you locally interact with your body? In fact we have evidences that the Iness is produced by electrochemical chains in left part of brain.Concerning space and the ability to interact with the objects of my surroundings, there is no doubt that I inhabit space and that I do interact with those objects, even though immateriality is something that can be attributed to me.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
You argued that a thing, which you called “soul”, and for which you proposed a set of characters, cannot process something you called “information”, for which you also proposed a set of characters. Though basically I cannot discuss your argument because I have no experience of anything in the world with those features, I would say that it is not impossible to conceive an entity which transduces something with shape into something without shape (though with “form”, in the aristotelian sense of the word), and back again into something with shape.Could you have a single thought without electrochemical chains? There is a purpose for them. Isn’t it? Why do you think that meaning cannot be a manifestation of electrochemical chains? Do you have an argument for that? I already argue that soul cannot process information. Do you have an objection with that?
So you agree that you inhabit a space and have a location. I am sure that you agree that you can interact locally with your body too. So here a question arises: Why do you think that you are immaterial if you are local entity and you locally interact with your body? In fact we have evidences that the Iness is produced by electrochemical chains in left part of brain.
On the other hand, it is evident that “meaning” is human. And when something else (a safety signal, for example) has meaning (more precisely, acquires meaning), it is because of the activity of human beings. If we were able to establish an accurate correlation between what happens in our brains and our thoughts, that correlation (I insist: established by us) would be precisely the human attribution of a “meaning”. Without that tremendously laborious human activity, the brain changes that you could witness somehow, would mean nothing to you nor to anybody.
We have learnt to say “my body”, “your body”, “her body”, etcetera, just like we say “my horse” or “your house”, or “her kitchen”. However, “your body” is not yours in the same sense as “your dog” is yours: whatever is happening to “your body” is happening to you. Whatever is happening to “your dog” is not happening to you. Still, immateriality (with the “meaning” that I suggested previously) is one of your peculiarities, which you don’t share with electrons, or with rocks, or…
S
STT
Guest
I have problem with the bold part. How a entity without shape (has no location) can causality interact with something with shape (body for example which has a location) in order to conceive or do something?You argued that a thing, which you called “soul”, and for which you proposed a set of characters, cannot process something you called “information”, for which you also proposed a set of characters. Though basically I cannot discuss your argument because I have no experience of anything in the world with those features,** I would say that it is not impossible to conceive an entity which transduces something with shape into something without shape (though with “form”, in the aristotelian sense of the word), and back again into something with shape.**
Do you mean that meaning is more that manifestation of brain activity? What is that extra activity which gives rise to meaning?On the other hand, it is evident that “meaning” is human. And when something else (a safety signal, for example) has meaning (more precisely, acquires meaning), it is because of the activity of human beings. If we were able to establish an accurate correlation between what happens in our brains and our thoughts, that correlation (I insist: established by us) would be precisely the human attribution of a “meaning”. Without that tremendously laborious human activity, the brain changes that you could witness somehow, would mean nothing to you nor to anybody.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Why not? Thinking that only a body can act on another body is just a prejudice.I have problem with the bold part. How a entity without shape (has no location) can causality interact with something with shape (body for example which has a location) in order to conceive or do something?
Establishing relations, STT.Do you mean that meaning is more that manifestation of brain activity? What is that extra activity which gives rise to meaning?
S
STT
Guest
Then think of the following situation to see the problem: Two bodies and two souls. How could you causally make a connection between the right body and the right soul considering the fact that soul has no location?Why not? Thinking that only a body can act on another body is just a prejudice.
Could you please elaborate?Establishing relations, STT.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Considering “the fact” that your “souls” have no location, your question makes no sense: Given a reference system, there might be a body to the left or to the right, but the non located “soul” could not be said to be to the right nor to the left. Nevertheless, such “soul” could wish to move the body to the right, and it would move. Why not?Then think of the following situation to see the problem: Two bodies and two souls. How could you causally make a connection between the right body and the right soul considering the fact that soul has no location
In the kantian philosophy it is not only “souls” which are not in space, but everything which is real (the noumenal realm) has nothing to do with space, for it would be just a pure form of our intuition. Still, what takes place in the phenomenal realm would be related to the noumenal realm.
Time ago I had a lengthy discussion with lmelahn concerning “relations” and “interactions”. If you are interested you can find it in the thread entitled “How do we come to know things?”.Could you please elaborate?
S
STT
Guest
There is no problem with one body and one soul. The problem arises when you have two souls and two bodies or more. There was no problem if soul was a local entity either since you could easily make a connection between a soul and a body without disturbing another soul and another body. Soul however is not a local entity meaning that it is causally connected to every body which exists. This is a little hard to comprehend and explain but I am sure you can make it.Considering “the fact” that your “souls” have no location, your question makes no sense: Given a reference system, there might be a body to the left or to the right, but the non located “soul” could not be said to be to the right nor to the left. Nevertheless, such “soul” could wish to move the body to the right, and it would move. Why not?
Therefore we have there is a problem with noumenal as well. To me any entity which does not occupy any space is incoherent.In the kantian philosophy it is not only “souls” which are not in space, but everything which is real (the noumenal realm) has nothing to do with space, for it would be just a pure form of our intuition. Still, what takes place in the phenomenal realm would be related to the noumenal realm.
Thanks. I will see if I can find it.Time ago I had a lengthy discussion with lmelahn concerning “relations” and “interactions”. If you are interested you can find it in the thread entitled “How do we come to know things?”.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Mmmmh, this is just a mental game, of course. But I can conceive bodies 1, 2, 3… And “souls” 1’, 2’, 3’… Then, “soul” 1’ wishes to move body 1, but not the others; “soul” 2’ wishes to move body 2, but not the others; “soul” 3’ wishes to move body 3, but not the others, and so on. They do it. What is the problem?There is no problem with one body and one soul. The problem arises when you have two souls and two bodies or more. There was no problem if soul was a local entity either since you could easily make a connection between a soul and a body without disturbing another soul and another body. Soul however is not a local entity meaning that it is causally connected to every body which exists. This is a little hard to comprehend and explain but I am sure you can make it.
It would not be incoherent, but non-spatial. Just that.Therefore we have there is a problem with noumenal as well. To me any entity which does not occupy any space is incoherent.
S
STT
Guest
The problem is how you relate soul 1 to body 1 while there is another body and when you accept the fact that soul has no location. Soul 1 is in charge of body 1 and it moves it when it wishes. Soul 1 however doesn’t have a choice or ability to move body 2. Somehow soul 1 is confined to body 1 and not body 2. You however cannot confine something which has no location.Mmmmh, this is just a mental game, of course. But I can conceive bodies 1, 2, 3… And “souls” 1’, 2’, 3’… Then, “soul” 1’ wishes to move body 1, but not the others; “soul” 2’ wishes to move body 2, but not the others; “soul” 3’ wishes to move body 3, but not the others, and so on. They do it. What is the problem?
Let me explain another problem related to soul. Lets think of a situation that you are experiencing something. You receive the information by your sensory system. This information is then sent to your brain. Brain process the information and then send it to soul for the experience. The problem is where the processed information goes. Of course nowhere since soul has no location. That is why I am claiming that an entity without location is incoherent because you cannot causally related it anything else in a systematic way. Now assume that somehow the information just evaporates and is consumed by soul 1. What happen for the information that the second body generates. That information also evaporates and is consumed by soul 1. Therefore soul 1 experiences the information delivered by all bodies. The same thing happen for soul 2, etc.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
It seems to me that matter slowly awakens to consciousness when it first felt out for food.
S
STT
Guest
Or matter was aware but just content of awareness became more complex over time.It seems to me that matter slowly awakens to consciousness when it first felt out for food.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Or it was God’s delight, who is fully consciousness, to “spin off” part of His being to the opposite extreme of consciousness (inconscient) and have it slowly return to him in the journey to full conscious unity. Hence, the drama, wonder and gift of creation.Or matter was aware but just content of awareness became more complex over time.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
STT, you just have to avoid thinking on spatial terms when you conceive the action of the “soul” upon the body. Don’t conceive it as confined within the body just because it wishes to act upon one body and not upon the others. But any way, as I said, this was only a mental excercise based on definitions and attribution of capricious “properties”. I don’t have any experience of any such “soul”.The problem is how you relate soul 1 to body 1 while there is another body and when you accept the fact that soul has no location. Soul 1 is in charge of body 1 and it moves it when it wishes. Soul 1 however doesn’t have a choice or ability to move body 2. Somehow soul 1 is confined to body 1 and not body 2. You however cannot confine something which has no location.
This has nothing to do with the way I understand the term “soul”. In a certain way, it sounds like a Cartesian conception. And Descartes had a problem like yours, because he had your same prejudice (only that he had it clear). For him, if an entity acted upon another, it had to be by direct contact. I don’t see why it cannot be otherwise. Nevertheless, I don’t understand the term"soul" as that Cartesian homunculus.Let me explain another problem related to soul. Lets think of a situation that you are experiencing something. You receive the information by your sensory system. This information is then sent to your brain. Brain process the information and then send it to soul for the experience. The problem is where the processed information goes. Of course nowhere since soul has no location. That is why I am claiming that an entity without location is incoherent because you cannot causally related it anything else in a systematic way. Now assume that somehow the information just evaporates and is consumed by soul 1. What happen for the information that the second body generates. That information also evaporates and is consumed by soul 1. Therefore soul 1 experiences the information delivered by all bodies. The same thing happen for soul 2, etc.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.