P
Peter_Plato
Guest
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17305
Hylomorphic strawmen, more like.
- Status
Hylomorphic strawmen, more like.
R
robsully
Guest
Hello Bahman, I have read and reread your OP. As this is your claim(s) can you offer any evidence to support you claim(s). And re-affirming your claim(s) is not evidence.
U
utunumsint
Guest
I listened to the video. Interesting. I’ve been following Sam Parnia’s AWARE study for the last 5 years or so and got his book after he released the preliminary results. It was an interesting read, although disappointing that he was not able to capture any direct evidence from the operating rooms he had set up with the images. He did have two NDEs for the study though and was able to ratify what they saw during their NDE in terms of what was going on while he was under.I suppose we have enough on our plates trying to locate them in areas where only skilled neurosurgeons dare to go, however.
What was interesting with Sam was his heavy reliance on Chalmers and his panpsychism in his offering suggested alternatives to the prevalent materialism in medical circles. I remember Feser’s describing Chalmer’s theories in detail in his Philosophy of Mind book then saying “one could respond that this is just crazy.”
For the purposes of this thread, my only concern with the video would be that it really isn’t a true immateriality. Quantum particles are not immaterial. So if anything, it would fall into Bahman’s concept that ideas and mind are material. Quantum entanglement involves two quantum particles that are in two different locations.
Feser’s arguments, on the other hand, are based on proofs that are suppose to show that ideas, concepts, universals in the mind cannot, in principle, be material, in any way.
God bless,
Ut
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I would tend to agree with Feser, but the point of the videos was to show that a substantial part of the physical brain could be missing, injured or completely incapacitated and these conditions would not necessarily remove consciousness or restrict intelligence.I listened to the video. Interesting. I’ve been following Sam Parnia’s AWARE study for the last 5 years or so and got his book after he released the preliminary results. It was an interesting read, although disappointing that he was not able to capture any direct evidence from the operating rooms he had set up with the images. He did have two NDEs for the study though and was able to ratify what they saw during their NDE in terms of what was going on while he was under.
What was interesting with Sam was his heavy reliance on Chalmers and his panpsychism in his offering suggested alternatives to the prevalent materialism in medical circles. I remember Feser’s describing Chalmer’s theories in detail in his Philosophy of Mind book then saying “one could respond that this is just crazy.”
For the purposes of this thread, my only concern with the video would be that it really isn’t a true immateriality. Quantum particles are not immaterial. So if anything, it would fall into Bahman’s concept that ideas and mind are materialII. Quantum entanglement involves two quantum particles that are in two different locations.
Feser’s arguments, on the other hand, are based on proofs that are suppose to show that ideas, concepts, universals in the mind cannot, in principle, be material, in any way.
God bless,
Ut
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Which are reasonable considering what sort of entity God would be. Why don’t you substantiate your claims?
The soul is embedded inside matter, rather the soul informs and animates matter. What do you understand “form” to mean? I’m taking my definition from Aristotle, where the soul is the formal cause of a human body, which gives it animation and human characteristics. Because human beings are composite beings (both material and immaterial), it seems obvious that the human soul would inform matter.
B
Bahman
Guest
I am happy that you accepted the fact that soul doesn’t occupy any room upon the death. This however means that the soul cannot be located hence resurrection is impossible.
Assuming that God could create soul upon conception, God cannot locate soul hence he cannot unite soul with the matter to create body. Conception and resurrection suffer from the same problem.
B
Bahman
Guest
My main claim is that soul doesn’t occupy any room upon death hence resurrection is logically impossible. The rest is just definition of Hylomorphism dualism which is part of Catechism.
B
Bahman
Guest
What is the definition of Hylomorphic dualism?
B
Bahman
Guest
My claim is very simple: Soul is immaterial and cannot occupy any room upon death. This is my axiom which seems reasonable.
I am arguing against this picture.
Y
You
Guest
Your arguments are incomprehensible. Can you explain and define what you mean by room, locate, occupy and what exactly is the connection in your mind between cannot be located and impossible.
Just repeating the same old words over and over is no good, you will have to find new words and an explanation.
U
utunumsint
Guest
In terms of location, the spiritual immaterial aspect of the human person goes to the particular judgement when death occurs. The temporary location after that is heaven, purgatory, or hell. The form of the body is simply the material aspects of the human person. But what is most essential to the human person, is the spiritual aspect.
The Catechism defines the resurrection this way:
So the form of body that is given back to the form of the spirit is drastically different from the form that it had during its temporal life in time and space. It is a body suitable to a state of existence beyond time and space.
In any event, the body is simply the conglomeration of matter and cells in a certain shape. Science tells us that we replace all of our skin cells every 8 years. And yet we continue being the same entity that we were 8 years ago. What explains this continuity is not the body but the presence of the person.
So God does not literally have to find the old form of the body somewhere, dust it off, and resurrect it. We are promised a new body in the resurrection. The one thing that maintains continuity between the old body and the new body is the spirit. That part of the human soul that works with universal things and concepts such as treeness, truth, goodness, and God.
How can something like this continue to exist without a body? The answer to that is by the power of God. That being lives in a drastically incomplete state until the time of the resurrection. We have grounds to believe that the intellectual soul cannot be destroyed based on what the intellect works with. It works with universal and perfect ideas that can in no way be perfectly instantiated in the material world. These universals and perfect ideas do not pass away. They would be true regardless of whether the material world existed. Therefore the human soul must also have this same indestructibility.
You may say, I reject all of this. Only matter exists. Ideas only exist in the human brain. Therefore they are not immaterial. Well, in a way, we see God’s creation in this same way. God is the actus purus. Out of his omniscience and power comes creation. Creation comes and is sustained in existence because he conceived it in himself. The material world and our very soul have a counterpart in his mind. How can we exist without a body? Because God wills us to exist. The immaterial spirit is held together by a composite of essence and existence. That existence… that esse is God’s power. We participate in God in this way. We are grounded in God in this way. So everything that exists, whether it be material or immaterial, it localizable in esse.
God bless,
Ut
B
Bahman
Guest
Lets define Mind as the world that all forms exist within. Form for example can be geometrical shape, colour, etc., in simple word any thing that could be experienced. Any form occupy some room inside Mind otherwise it could not be experience. In simple word something does have any geometrical shape, colour, etc cannot be experienced hence it cannot be detected.
Soul in hylomorphic dualism is the form of man, it is released upon death and join the body upon resurrection. This means that soul is dependent on matter to take a form. Soul however cannot experience anything between the time of death and resurrection since it is formless. Returning to the first paragraph soul cannot be located when it is formless hence resurrection is false.
Y
You
Guest
You’re using the same words again, but you’ve added some explanation.
You are assuming a lot.
The soul is a spiritual reality with the personality of the person. The person after death continues to live on in the spiritual realm as her own personal soul in the shape they assumed when alive. The soul is not formless or lost or non-existent. In the material world it requires a physical body but in the spiritual world it does not require it but retains its original form of the shape and personality of the person now alive and living in the spiritual place.
The soul in heaven can experience God and see all of Creation from the spiritual realm.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I’d like to begin by saying I appreciate that Ut and others have tried to maintain a sense of fairness and congeniality in this thread. A sense that my comments have overturned. I apologize for the aggressive tone of my posts. From here on I will follow Ut’s lead to the best of my ability.
In other words, even to make use of the powers or faculties of the soul, powers which do not have location, geometrical shape, colour, etc., we, as subjects, would have to control those powers (intellection, volition, sensation, etc.,) which are not, themselves, locatable since they do not have location, geometric shape, colour, etc.
It seems to be a pretty difficult and unresolvable objection to your thesis that the mind or intellect itself does not have the properties, like locatability, geometric shape, colour, etc., that you keep itemizing as essential for any consciousness - including God - to make use of something, yet the faculties of the soul (like intellection, volition, sensation, etc.,) have none of those properties but we as subjects of them still have no difficulty making use of them all the time.
How would you answer those objections, Bahman?
How would you, for example, answer a critic of this thesis who might point out that the intellect itself (or the loci of consciousness) does not have geometrical shape, colour, etc., and therefore cannot, itself, be experienced. And if the intellect (or the loci consciousness) cannot be detected then a subject could not possibly make use of it since a subject would not be able to locate it. This is much the same argument you are using against God being able to create or resurrect human beings.
Wouldn’t you agree that a soul could not experience things like location, geometrical shape, colour, etc., if the soul were merely made up of those properties? So, if the soul itself (the form of our essential whatness - what we are) doesn’t, itself, have those particular properties how do we as subjects possibly “locate” the potential to have the experiences of location, geometrical shape, colour, etc., in the first place?
In other words, even to make use of the powers or faculties of the soul, powers which do not have location, geometrical shape, colour, etc., we, as subjects, would have to control those powers (intellection, volition, sensation, etc.,) which are not, themselves, locatable since they do not have location, geometric shape, colour, etc.
It seems to be a pretty difficult and unresolvable objection to your thesis that the mind or intellect itself does not have the properties, like locatability, geometric shape, colour, etc., that you keep itemizing as essential for any consciousness - including God - to make use of something, yet the faculties of the soul (like intellection, volition, sensation, etc.,) have none of those properties but we as subjects of them still have no difficulty making use of them all the time.
How would you answer those objections, Bahman?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The fact that a question is not easily answered does not amount to a refutation of the idea behind the question.
G
GEddie
Guest
Because he wanted some thinking bodies, I.e., human beings, around. He already has a profusion of pure spirits around Him.
Because the human body we now know is too unstable a form for everlasting life, we will be restored to spiritual bodies, pneumatikon soma. We will remain however, beings of the thinking-body type, i.e., human beings.
ICXC NIKA.
Because the human body we now know is too unstable a form for everlasting life, we will be restored to spiritual bodies, pneumatikon soma. We will remain however, beings of the thinking-body type, i.e., human beings.
ICXC NIKA.
B
Bahman
Guest
Intellect cannot be formless since it changes. You can for example improve your intellect by performing specific exercise.
What properties? Do you mean that soul have shape or colour?
Soul have a shape when person is alive according to the theory that you believe. My objection however questions the state soul upon death. Soul apparently needs a body to experience and animate the body according to your thesis. Soul doesn’t have any form when it is separated from body, upon death, hence it cannot be located.
Soul apparently is powerless without a body otherwise God wouldn’t combine it with matter at the time of conception, hence intellect, volition, sensation, etc., have forms.
Intellect, volition, sensation, etc., do have shape since they change. My argument is about soul upon death.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
So God must have a body or he, too, would be powerless?
Rocks have bodies but that, in itself, does not make them powerful.
B
Bahman
Guest
We are talking about soul.
- Status