The fallacy of the interaction problem

[SentinelofTruth]

polytropos:

Particular accidents have accidental forms.

Then what’s an accidental form? If red is an accident, then what form does it have? Also, does redness have a substantial form?

Bahman:

You are talking in a way that you exactly know what is the matter nature. All which was said was that the matter is a form of mind, subconscious (sorry for mistype in previous post) and can easily interact with other type of mind.

Matter is hardly a self-defined concept. What we understand to be matter, we have inferred from our sensory experiences. Our experiences allow us to further infer (granting their validity, of course), that physical things are deterministic, which, clearly, is not a property that our souls/minds have.

Bahman:

Why pretty absurd? You are talking a way that you know what is exactly nature of mind and forms it could take. I am taking the exactly opposite approach to hylomorphism which states that soul is form of matter which to me is very inconsistent for a strong reason namely it is against eternality of soul since once a person is dead the form is lost and the concept of soul disappear.

I know at least roughly what is the nature of mind, because I have introspection, and also, that’s not an inconsistency. An inconsistency is a contradiction.

 

[polytropos]

Then what’s an accidental form?

I gave a definition of accidental form.

If red is an accident, then what form does it have?

A thing’s particular redness has the accidental form of redness.

Also, does redness have a substantial form?

No, redness is not a substance.

Anyway - I think we’ve debated semantics enough, especially since hylemorphism was not actually relevant to your OP.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

polytropos:

A thing’s particular redness has the accidental form of redness.

Then does accidental form just mean the form of an accident?

polytropos:

Anyway - I think we’ve debated semantics enough, especially since hylemorphism was not actually relevant to your OP.

Yes, we definitely have… but I think we’re done with the semantic stuff now.

Well, it looks like neither of the arguments I have so far apply to your version. Here’s a third one:
“Form is the unitive principle of a substance that accounts for its essence (real definition), ie. the things that are essential to what it is.” -you
The soul, then, being (supposedly) the form of the body, would just be a collection of “things that are essential to what the body is”. But what defines a body? Is it a body because it’s being directed by a soul? If so, then to identify the soul with the form of the body says “the soul is the essential qualities/attributes/properties (are any of these the right term?) of that which is defined by it’s being directed by the soul” (sorry if that was a mouthful), which is recursive definition.

 

[polytropos]

Then does accidental form just mean the form of an accident?

Yes, distinguished from the form of a substance (substantial form) because substances and accidents are two different categories of being.

Yes, we definitely have… but I think we’re done with the semantic stuff now.

I feel like it has been nothing but semantics.

“Form is the unitive principle of a substance that accounts for its essence (real definition), ie. the things that are essential to what it is.” -you
The soul, then, being (supposedly) the form of the body, would just be a collection of “things that are essential to what the body is”. But what defines a body? Is it a body because it’s being directed by a soul?

It would be more accurate to say that the soul is the form of a living body (taking under consideration the various qualifications we’ve made; by this I don’t mean soul = form of living body, but rather the soul is the form of a living body because it is what unites the essence of a living body, ie. the rational, appetitive, and nutritive aspects of man’s substance). A dead body, for instance, does not have a soul.

And again, a form is not a bundle of characteristics. It would not be just the collection of “things that are essential to what the body is” (we would already have to modify this characterization because humans are not essentially/fully bodily and physical, although they are to an extent). It is not a collection but, as I’ve said, a unitive principle. If it were just a collection of characteristics, then the characteristics would have no necessary relationship; the necessary relationship of properties is that they flow necessarily from a substance with a particular essence by virtue of its form.

However, I’m really not interested in defending hylemorphism further here, since I have clarified quite a bit and it is not directly relevant to the OP. It was nice speaking with you.

 

[Bahman]

Matter is hardly a self-defined concept. What we understand to be matter, we have inferred from our sensory experiences. Our experiences allow us to further infer (granting their validity, of course), that physical things are deterministic, which, clearly, is not a property that our souls/minds have.

Matter does not always behave in deterministic manner. In fact our body is made of matter, including our bones, tissue and on top of that brain, which last one behave in very indeterministic way. Lets call this part of our mind as level 0 mind which in fact is in state of vegetate. The focal focus of this mind is inside brain wherein the soul/mind level 1 could interact with mind 0.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

polytropos:

It is not a collection but, as I’ve said, a unitive principle.

Interesting. This is starting to sound a lot like dualism.

polytropos:

However, I’m really not interested in defending hylemorphism further here, since I have clarified quite a bit and it is not directly relevant to the OP. It was nice speaking with you.

Very well…

Bahman:

Matter does not always behave in deterministic manner. In fact our body is made of matter, including our bones, tissue and on top of that brain, which last one behave in very indeterministic way.

To believe that just because science has not learned how to completely predict something’s behaviour, it must be indeterministic, is, no offense but, very immature. Especially when there is an obvious explanation for it’s “unpredictable” behaviour: it’s being directed by a soul, which has free will, so no wonder it doesn’t seem deterministic when scientists study it, most of whom aren’t dualists.

Lets call this part of our mind as level 0 mind which in fact is in state of vegetate. The focal focus of this mind is inside brain wherein the soul/mind level 1 could interact with mind 0.

I do not get what you’re saying about the level 1 and level 0 stuff. There is only one mind (per person, of course. Not implying solipsism here).

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, distinguished from the form of a substance (substantial form) because substances and accidents are two different categories of being.

I feel like it has been nothing but semantics.

It would be more accurate to say that the soul is the form of a living body (taking under consideration the various qualifications we’ve made; by this I don’t mean soul = form of living body, but rather the soul is the form of a living body because it is what unites the essence of a living body, ie. the rational, appetitive, and nutritive aspects of man’s substance). A dead body, for instance, does not have a soul.

And again, a form is not a bundle of characteristics. It would not be just the collection of “things that are essential to what the body is” (we would already have to modify this characterization because humans are not essentially/fully bodily and physical, although they are to an extent). It is not a collection but, as I’ve said, a unitive principle. If it were just a collection of characteristics, then the characteristics would have no necessary relationship; the necessary relationship of properties is that they flow necessarily from a substance with a particular essence by virtue of its form.

However, I’m really not interested in defending hylemorphism further here, since I have clarified quite a bit and it is not directly relevant to the OP. It was nice speaking with you.

I have not participated in this thread but have read most of your posts.

Thank you for your clarity and patience in explaining what can be a very daunting subject.

I want you to know that your time has not been wasted (as it might seem to you given you have had to rehash points continuously.)

I will reread your posts again over the course of the next few days. Your depth of understanding and clarity of explanation are appreciated and are, no doubt, the result of tenacity and grace.

Again, thanks for your excellent contributions to CAF!

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Annnnyway, sorry about this whole distraction with hylomorphism. Does anyone care to return to the topic of the interaction problem?

 

[polytropos]

I have not participated in this thread but have read most of your posts.

Thank you for your clarity and patience in explaining what can be a very daunting subject.

I want you to know that your time has not been wasted (as it might seem to you given you have had to rehash points continuously.)

I will reread your posts again over the course of the next few days. Your depth of understanding and clarity of explanation are appreciated and are, no doubt, the result of tenacity and grace.

Again, thanks for your excellent contributions to CAF!

Thank you for your kind words.