Is the intellect necessarily immaterial?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Shipman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Retreating into mathematics and science as a way of resolving the relationship between mind or consciousness and actual matter does not change the reality that these two categories of existent are mutually exclusive. From the naïve standpoint of knowing nothing about relativity, the chasm between the two is nevertheless incapable of fording.
The Church’s explanations, save of course our recourse to heaven for help, is largely a “political” expedient and medicinal salve to help keep the main happy, and spiritually satisfied. Her explanations help people stay healthy spiritually, and are good examples of how to help people begin contemplation and meditation on the subject, God.
Fact is, as I see it, as soon as the transcendent falls into one of our formulas as a variable or constant it is then that it loses its power as transcendent.
If we can quantify something in any way, or in any way perceive its effects on other material objects, then immediately that effect is a pointer to another material reality.
We can escape neither our limited state, nor the ungraspable nature of consciousness or mind. Similarly, we have to take into account that even as limited creatures, what we can discover is capable of expanding our notion of the material into a zone of discomfort.
Should we choose to accept that expansion or not, we can always contemplate the dilemma in “rare” form as the spiritual dilemma of mind and matter, spirit and body, etc., and that will keep us busy for life.
 
Michael19682 said:
If we can quantify something in any way, or in any way perceive its effects on other material objects, then immediately that effect is a pointer to another material reality.
Click to expand...
The time on earth of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is quantified - I heard it was about 33 years.
 
Tomdstone said:
The time on earth of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is quantified - I heard it was about 33 years.
Click to expand...
Thank You! 😃 Most interesting point, and well taken. My only response is that this fact falls into the category of mystery and is exempt from normal speculations. A corollary to this is that it was a special pre-transcendent (consubstantial, begotten), mind and body and is thus exempt from quantifiable scrutiny also – no sin to measure, purely positive resurrection, God himself in fullness, pure being.
To the extent that we share his life, we too comprise the mystery.
(I wasn’t trying to demean anyone’s approach, but only to show that formularizing the resurrection and such the being of God makes no sense.)
 
fisherman_carl said:
Give me a break! 😛
Click to expand...
The problem is that 2+2 does not always equal 4 as is seen from the rule for addition in special relativity. The following article “Two Plus Two May Not Always Equal Four: Consumer Study” shows that ordinary rules for addition do not apply to cases when you want to determine how much a percentage discount affects the price of the article you want to buy.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070515110951.htm
 
Tomdstone said:
The problem is that 2+2 does not always equal 4 as is seen from the rule for addition in special relativity. The following article “Two Plus Two May Not Always Equal Four: Consumer Study” shows that ordinary rules for addition do not apply to cases when you want to determine how much a percentage discount affects the price of the article you want to buy.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070515110951.htm
Click to expand...
T he problem with your argument is that both side of equation are not equal for a finite C number is the equality doesn’t hold unless C= infinite.
 
fisherman_carl said:
Feser talks about it in his book “The Last Superstition”, which I have read and it is worth reading. He also has an entire book on the subject that I have not read that would be worth checking out. Interestingly enough he came to believe in an immaterial mind as an atheist through reading other atheist philosophers on the subject. If you read his book the last Superstition and spent some time thinking about it you would better understand why he makes the claim that the mind is necessarily immaterial. I did quote a portion of his book but you said you only skimmed through it. Unfortunately, this material requires careful consideration or you will not understand the argument. And that is one of the points he makes in the book against atheists like Dawkind who Feser says do not understand philosophy and argue against straw men. Having only a cursory understanding of the argument means it is unconvincing. But it is interesting how much Feser believes in the arguments of Aquinas that he compares them to the solidity of believing 2 +2 = 4. He says was an atheist for 10 years because he believed there was a lack of evidence. It was partly through studying Aquinas that made him change his mind.
Click to expand...
I went back and found his argument in post #143. Following Aristotle, it says things are shapes made of shapeless stuff, so let’s invent two categories, form and matter, as a way of thinking about the world. It then says, as if it needs to be said, the mind can think of something without taking on the form of the thing, so thoughts cannot be made of material.

Yes, everyone can agree with that. A thought is indeed not made of material, it’s made of forms - the forms of all the parallel transient signals of which it’s composed. Forms can be made of the forms of forms of forms, and forms can be fleeting. Shiver me timbers. Big deal.

The argument isn’t saying anything, except perhaps that the reductionist division into those two categories doesn’t explain anything, it’s not a useful way of thinking about thinking.

He starts out arguing the soul is the form of the body and then muddies the water so much that perhaps some readers think he’s opened the door to a disembodied soul. But that’s not his intent, he just needs to employ a good editor.
 
Tomdstone said:
2+2 does not always equal 4. For example, in base 4 arithmetic, 2+2 = 10. Also, if you add together two vectors, both of length 2, you can get a vector of length less than 4. Further in relativity theory, when adding together two quantities such as velocity, you have to take into account an additional factor because the speed of light is constant and nothing can exceed the speed of light.
Suppose an object A is moving with a velocity v relative to an object B, and B is moving with a velocity u (in the same direction) relative to an object C. What is the velocity of A relative to C?
Code: 
               u  ...............                   v
                -------> A      --------> B

                   w
            ----------------->C
In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C. But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula
Code: 
     w =( u + v)/ (1 + u*v/c*c)
So suppose in some unit system u=2 and v=2. then 2+2 = 4/(1+ 4/c*c).
In conclusion it is not always true that 2+2=4.
Click to expand...
This kind of typifies the liberal arguments I have seen.
Rather then work with know accepted definitions, try to change the vocabulary.

The fact still remains.
If you have 2 rocks, and you put two more with them, the total will be four rocks.
Whatever base you wish to count in.
 
vz71 said:
This kind of typifies the liberal arguments I have seen.
Rather then work with know accepted definitions, try to change the vocabulary.

The fact still remains.
If you have 2 rocks, and you put two more with them, the total will be four rocks.
Whatever base you wish to count in.
Click to expand...
The validity of the theory of special relativity has nothing to do with politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top