Primary and Secondary Matter

[Bahman]

Anything that we can observer using the naked eye or using scientific equipment.

Good.

The limit to the level that a particle can be divided is set by the form. For example, the form of the fundamental particle.

Why?

It means that the electron and positron had a potentiality to become a photon. The continuity of this process is explained through the concept of prime matter.

How? I didn’t get it. Is there a concept like anti-form?

The corruption of the material parts of the human body given form by the human soul can be corrupted. But not the immaterial aspects of the human soul. Namely the intellect. If you want, we can begin a discussion of the Thomistic view on this question.

God bless,
Ut

I would be happy to open a line of discussion about this topic.

 

[Richca]

It raises an interesting question in regard to Transubstantiation. The accidents of bread and wine remain but as adhering in no substance, according to Thomas. Does that mean the accidents have lost their first substance and, if so, have they also lost signet or designate matter along with their first substance? And if both of these are true, wouldn’t that mean that the accidents have no first substance and no signate or designate matter at all? And wouldn’t that, in turn, mean that there really is no bread or wine left, that we are seeing a kind of mirage and tasting something that really has no existence at all? But if it is no mirage, then wouldn’t we have to say that the accidents represent a second miracle or a different aspect of the same miracle, that the accidents exist without even first substance and without signate or designate matter? And if this is all true, aren’t we saying that the bread and wine no longer exist, that only accidents exist?

Pax
Linus2nd

Yes, the accidents of the bread and wine remain miraculously by divine power without the substances of bread and wine after the consecration. The whole substance of the bread, i.e., the substantial form and matter of the bread, is changed into the substance (the substantial form and matter) of Christ’s body. And likewise, the whole substance of the wine is changed into the substance of Christ’s blood.

 

[Richca]

Soul is form of body in case human. Human is made of soul and primary matter. Primary matter is changeless (please read the following comment) hence what is subject to change is soul which the form.
.

Substantial forms do not corrupt per se. What takes places in the substantial changes of material substances is that the matter takes on a new form. Material forms are educed out of the matter and recede back into matter in substantial changes. The soul of the human person is a different case. It is immediately created by God at conception and it doesn’t recede back into matter at death in a state of potency. The human soul is immortal, it simply leaves the body at death and the corpse takes on a number of different substantial forms in the process of decay.

 

[Bahman]

Substantial forms do not corrupt. What takes places in the substantial changes of material substances is that the matter takes on a new form. Material forms are educed out of the matter and recede back into matter in substantial changes. The soul of the human person is a different case. It is immediately created by God at conception and it doesn’t recede back into matter at death in a state of potency. The human soul is immortal, it simply leaves the body at death and the corpse takes on a number of different substantial forms in the process of decay.

And how substantial form could manifest itself when you are aging? I mean how we could be sure it is real. Of course we can assume it for sake of belief but that doesn’t tell me much.

 

[utunumsint]

I would be happy to open a line of discussion about this topic.

OK. Lets look at the immateriality of the intellect.

First, the basic Aristotelian principle is that nothing is in the intellect that was not first apprehended by the senses. The senses create sense images or phantasms in the mind that represent the singular instance of the object observed. These images get stored in memory.

Along with the animals, bodily organism feels attracted or repelled (or potentially indifferent) by sense objects. It also has what Aquinas called the irascible response where animals either overcome difficulties by confrontation (fight response) or by avoidance (flight response).

So, as you can see, there is a way in which animals are conscious, but their reactions are instinctive and biologically driven.

Human beings have the added level of the intellect. What happens here is that the human intellect abstracts (dematerializes and de-individualizes) the sensual images, removing differences of size, color, and location. For example, the intellect takes the image of a particular triangle, and abstracts from all individualizing specifics to focus on the essence of triangularity.

The intellect grasps essences. And based on this world of essences that it absorbs from the sensual world from an early age, the intellect builds up a structure of further concepts and ideas, such as being, truth, beauty, and the like. This is mankind’s intellectual world in a nutshell. It is immaterial and universal. Human beings can also focus the intellect on the particular as well, but it does so based on this framework of immaterial universals.

As you may be aware, modern science has a heck of a time explaining things like qualia, intentionality, and intellect. Eliminative materialists deny that qualia, intentionality, and intellect exists at all. Emergent materialists say they do exist, but they somehow emerge from material processes. Scholastics believe that there is no way in principle that intellect can develop from material processes on account of the immaterial nature of the things contemplated in the intellect. Although the intellect depends on the senses to gather abstractions and create concepts, and granted that the corruption of aging has a serious impact on the intellectual faculties, the intellect remains due to its immateriality. It must be immaterial on account of the immaterial things it contemplates. It must also have its source directly in God if material processes cannot account for its existence.

I believe that the Scholastics are right. I also believe that this is also a good starting point to understand what a simple immaterial angel or the simplicity of God would be like.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

OK. Lets look at the immateriality of the intellect.

First, the basic Aristotelian principle is that nothing is in the intellect that was not first apprehended by the senses. The senses create sense images or phantasms in the mind that represent the singular instance of the object observed. These images get stored in memory.

Along with the animals, bodily organism feels attracted or repelled (or potentially indifferent) by sense objects. It also has what Aquinas called the irascible response where animals either overcome difficulties by confrontation (fight response) or by avoidance (flight response).

So, as you can see, there is a way in which animals are conscious, but their reactions are instinctive and biologically driven.

Human beings have the added level of the intellect. What happens here is that the human intellect abstracts (dematerializes and de-individualizes) the sensual images, removing differences of size, color, and location. For example, the intellect takes the image of a particular triangle, and abstracts from all individualizing specifics to focus on the essence of triangularity.

The intellect grasps essences. And based on this world of essences that it absorbs from the sensual world from an early age, the intellect builds up a structure of further concepts and ideas, such as being, truth, beauty, and the like. This is mankind’s intellectual world in a nutshell. It is immaterial and universal. Human beings can also focus the intellect on the particular as well, but it does so based on this framework of immaterial universals.

As you may be aware, modern science has a heck of a time explaining things like qualia, intentionality, and intellect. Eliminative materialists deny that qualia, intentionality, and intellect exists at all. Emergent materialists say they do exist, but they somehow emerge from material processes. Scholastics believe that there is no way in principle that intellect can develop from material processes on account of the immaterial nature of the things contemplated in the intellect. Although the intellect depends on the senses to gather abstractions and create concepts, and granted that the corruption of aging has a serious impact on the intellectual faculties, the intellect remains due to its immateriality. It must be immaterial on account of the immaterial things it contemplates. It must also have its source directly in God if material processes cannot account for its existence.

I believe that the Scholastics are right. I also believe that this is also a good starting point to understand what a simple immaterial angel or the simplicity of God would be like.

God bless,
Ut

So what you basically saying is that consciousness (in my vocabulary) and intellect (in your vocabulary) is not subject of corruption but somehow the flow of information through our bodies which is subjected to corruption. Well, that doesn’t solve the problem, hence form is the soul. Identity is gone upon death and there is no way to return it, hence the same rule applies to memory, knowledge, etc. as well.

I would be grateful if you answer to questions I raised in post #61.

 

[utunumsint]

So what you basically saying is that consciousness (in my vocabulary) and intellect (in your vocabulary) is not subject of corruption but somehow the flow of information through our bodies which is subjected to corruption.

The information obtained through the senses are phantasm or sensory pictures of the actual instances of the objects in the material world. This type of information, we share with the animals and it is corruptible in the same way that the information on your computer hard drive is corruptible, say if you dip the hard drive in water or smash it to bits with a mallet. Intellect in not subject to corruption because it deals with the universal aspects of objects devoid of their material and individuating properties.

Well, that doesn’t solve the problem, hence form is the soul. Identity is gone upon death and there is no way to return it, hence the same rule applies to memory, knowledge, etc. as well.

In a way, the intellect that survives death is incomplete without its bodily organs and exists in a different mode. It cannot access sense data anymore, but it can access the content of intelligible knowledge (essences) that it has accumulated over its lifetime.

I would be grateful if you answer to questions I raised in post #61.

Remember that prime matter and form are separable only in the human mind. What undergoes change in the material world is the composite. When the the composite substance loses its structure from which derives its powers and properties and reconfigures into a new structure, you have the corruption of the original composite of form and matter and the generation of a new composite of form and matter. For this to occur, there must have been a potency in the original composite for such a change to occur given the right circumstances. Remember, it is the composite that is corrupted, not the form or prime matter that are corrupted.

As for the limits of matter being defined by form, I mean that however small we get in the chain of substances or particles, those substances will be composites of form and matter. If there is a bottom level to this chain, that bottom level will still be such a composite. And the limit, in terms of it size, will be determined by the form of the composite.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Aloysium]

So what you basically saying is that consciousness (in my vocabulary) and intellect (in your vocabulary) . . . I would be grateful if you answer to questions I raised in post #61.

If I may offer an opinion:

Words like “intellect” and “consciousness” derive their more specific meaning from the context. Ut’s context, I understand to be philosophical writings of the Scholastics. I have no idea what consciousness means to you. One can’t simply say that the two terms mean the same thing. The end result is that it sounds like you are arguing with yourself.

As to #61

• Why is the limit to the level that a fundamental particle can be divided set by the form?

I would say because, being a fundamental particle, its very definition is that it is incapable of further division.

• How is the continuity of a process whereby an electron and positron had a potentiality to become a photon explained through the concept of prime matter?

My reply would be that given that if these are fundamental particles, which cannot be broken down into constituent parts, then there must be something else that is continuous for one to become the other

• Is there a concept like anti-form?

I would think that this is an issue of words having different meanings. Antimatter and matter* would be different forms of what is understood as being matter. Matter* being far, far more common than antimatter would be taken to have the same meaning as matter for practical purposes.

That’s my shot at it; hoping I have understood correctly. Regretfully, the nuances in meaning of these philosophical terms seem to vanish as quickly as they appear in my mind.

 

[Bahman]

If I may offer an opinion:

Words like “intellect” and “consciousness” derive their more specific meaning from the context. Ut’s context, I understand to be philosophical writings of the Scholastics. I have no idea what consciousness means to you. One can’t simply say that the two terms mean the same thing. The end result is that it sounds like you are arguing with yourself.

Consciousness is an irreducible thing which experiences and affects metal states.

As to #61

• Why is the limit to the level that a fundamental particle can be divided set by the form?

I would say because, being a fundamental particle, its very definition is that it is incapable of further division.

But elementary particles do not have pure potentiality which is against the definition of primary matter.

• How is the continuity of a process whereby an electron and positron had a potentiality to become a photon explained through the concept of prime matter?

My reply would be that given that if these are fundamental particles, which cannot be broken down into constituent parts, then there must be something else that is continuous for one to become the other

That is correct. The problem is that we just can only see the surface, namely the result of scattering, rather than what is really happen when two particles meet.

• Is there a concept like anti-form?

I would think that this is an issue of words having different meanings. Antimatter and matter* would be different forms of what is understood as being matter. Matter* being far, far more common than antimatter would be taken to have the same meaning as matter for practical purposes.

In Aristotle notion, we expect to have a secondary matter when we have two primary matter together yet we don’t get a matter when we put an electron and a positron together. They just collapse to something that is more stable, a photon which is not matter.

 

[utunumsint]

Consciousness is an irreducible thing which experiences and affects metal states.

I could agree with this if by consciousness you mean intellect in human beings. Intentionality exists in most other things unconsciously.

But elementary particles do not have pure potentiality which is against the definition of primary matter.

That is correct. The problem is that we just can only see the surface, namely the result of scattering, rather than what is really happen when two particles meet.

If this is a fundamental level, then according to Aquinas and Aristotle, there is no way to find prime matter on its own.

In Aristotle notion, we expect to have a secondary matter when we have two primary matter together yet we don’t get a matter when we put an electron and a positron together. They just collapse to something that is more stable, a photon which is not matter.

You are using the scientific understanding of matter, not the one that Aristotle and Aquinas would use. For Aquinas and Aristotle, all things in the material world are composites of form and matter. Even a photon. Have you had a chance to see my post 67?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

Sorry, that I missed your post.

The information obtained through the senses are phantasm or sensory pictures of the actual instances of the objects in the material world. This type of information, we share with the animals and it is corruptible in the same way that the information on your computer hard drive is corruptible, say if you dip the hard drive in water or smash it to bits with a mallet. Intellect in not subject to corruption because it deals with the universal aspects of objects devoid of their material and individuating properties.

I understand that.

In a way, the intellect that survives death is incomplete without its bodily organs and exists in a different mode. It cannot access sense data anymore, **but it can access the content of intelligible knowledge (essences) that it has accumulated over its lifetime. **

This part is the part that I cannot understand. We lose our memory as we become older and some people even lose their identities. I don’t remember my childhood crystal clear hence it seems that I lost that knowledge.

Remember that prime matter and form are separable only in the human mind. What undergoes change in the material world is the composite. When the the composite substance loses its structure from which derives its powers and properties and reconfigures into a new structure, you have the corruption of the original composite of form and matter and the generation of a new composite of form and matter. For this to occur, there must have been a potency in the original composite for such a change to occur given the right circumstances. **Remember, it is the composite that is corrupted, not the form or prime matter that are corrupted. **

How you can justify that? I think we could agree that secondary matter loses its potentiality as we cut it into smaller pieces. It is quite natural to expect that primary matter has no or minimum potentiality which is opposite to what we observe and expect.

 

[Bahman]

I could agree with this if by consciousness you mean intellect in human beings. Intentionality exists in most other things unconsciously.

But elementary particles do not have pure potentiality which is against the definition of primary matter.

I don’t see the universe as black and white.

If this is a fundamental level, then according to Aquinas and Aristotle, there is no way to find prime matter on its own.

I think so.

You are using the scientific understanding of matter, not the one that Aristotle and Aquinas would use. For Aquinas and Aristotle, all things in the material world are composites of form and matter. Even a photon. Have you had a chance to see my post 67?

God bless,
Ut

I see what you mean and I am sorry for not replying to your post earlier.