B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
This is a philosophy forum.
The point is that Phil seems unable to tightly prove what you believe.
Even Aristotle, whose defining and reasoning you seem to accept, did not clearly reach this conclusion.
- Status
The point is that Phil seems unable to tightly prove what you believe.
Even Aristotle, whose defining and reasoning you seem to accept, did not clearly reach this conclusion.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Ok. Thanks. I think ill bow out now before i get confused again.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Before I go, what do you mean by the part where you wrote “without, because nonphysical being any of them”?
G
GEddie
Guest
I am not a philosopher.
But the Holy Church has an army of professional philosophers and always has had, and they concluded the existence of the immaterial soul long ago.
BTW, human afterlife just does not make sense without it. Your head will turn to mush inside within an hour of your death. The mind, if physical, will be irrecoverable. Even a full-body resurrection (which in itself a matter of faith) would yield only a renewed human body, with a fresh **blank **brain. You wouldn’t be you anymore, just a body resembling you but with an empty mind.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
- The human mind can be described as residing in the brain, head, or body.
- The human mind is per se, nonphysical.
- Therefore, the human mind is not the same as the brain, head, or body, all of which are physical.
A
Aloysium
Guest
:twocents:
I think the problem lies in an inherent difficulty trying to conceptualize that which conceptualizes.
In my view the images, formulae, systems, analogies that we use to describe matter are really insufficient to know what it actually is.
Pretty much all of it is a backward description, derived from what it does, and much of this has to do with comparisons, measurements.
These can never truly get to what it actually is as itself.
With respect to the mind, because we are talking about human beings, the mind is associated with spirit.
While we associate mind with feelings, sensations, perceptions, the rudiments of thought and behaviour, our minds are spiritual.
Mind at this point has to do with our relationship with God.
As such, it then involves the appreciation of the good, beauty, truth and the capacity to create and to love - free will.
As has been discussed, human beings are a unity.
While we may speak of the brain or the mind as separate entities, we have to be very clear that we lose a lot of information about humanity when we do that.
We can describe this unity in different ways;
- the spirit is present throughout the body, thereby creating a human being
- the spirit contains the body
- the spirit and the body, to a greater extent than sperm and egg, combine to bring about a new creature
- there is one entity that is a living human being, who upon death returns to the earth and to his/her relationship with God.
How one feels, what one perceives and how one acts are physically-speaking, those areas of the cortex, the limbic system, the muscles and the world itself, all superimposed (if you will) experientially on each other.
This entire experience, related to thoughts and perceptions, is at the same time governed by physical processes.
The spirit is one with the physical being of the person in the world.
This unity sees the creation of the mind-brain, as part of the greater whole of the person, who has hands.
IOW: In the person, mind and the brain are one.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I don’t see how.
God made his Revelation through men guided by the Holy Spirit. Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to teach them all things and he would be with the Church until the end of the world. And to Peter he gave the keys to bind and loosen. And to the Apostotles he gave the commission the teach all things " I have taught you. " So Christ gave the Church, through the Pope, and the Bishops in union with him, the mission to teach authoritatively in his name concerning matters of faith and morals.
What I said in the last post is not a matter of science, it is Revealed Truth based on Revelation and all Catholics are bound to believe it. It is not an option.
There is no room for prudential rejection on any point of what I have just told you. It is a matter of Faith. There was nothing " prudential " about it.
And I likewise. I am half way through it now. It reiterates many things which are indeed dogmatic, but it also has much that must be judged prudentially.
That is defined doctrine, defined by several councils of the Church and reiterated throughout the history of the Church from the very beginning. It is not open to dispute for faithful Catholics.
Correct and the Church’s doctrine is not based on any philosophy at all.
The Church has never uttered one word about memory or its location, or images, fantasy, of phantasms, or agent and possible intellect etc. And it never will, such things are matters for philosophical discussion. And how the brain works is the job of science.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I think if you read Lession One of Aquinas’ commentary on Aristotle’s Memory and Remembering you will find that I have not misrepresented his thought.
And a small point: this is a philosophy forum.
Linus2nd
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Of course! Not that I want to try you with my questions, but if you know and you are willing to share your knowledge, I am willing to read you: please, tell me how computer “memories” work.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
Mine was a discussion by means of a series of questions and answers of logical soundness of definitions testing the meaning and existence of concepts in examining philosophical problems and truths.
Blue Horizon:
The soul is the form of the body, the body is a place for all that makes the body. If you followed my statements about the soul co-existing with the body, that the soul is spiritual because it is a different substance than matter, is not mixed, for one is matter, the other non-matter, but is the union of the two. And analogy is justified, sometimes that’s all we can do. And spirit doesn’t occupy space, it is only known by it’s effects
Blue Horizon:
Agreed, The individual soul is created by God and infused into a body that is prepared to receive it, But as you say, it does not occupy space, but is present, and united, it is not mixed with matter. Hylomorphicism. two substances united into one human being,one material, the other spiritual. the soul because it is spiritual is not restricted by matter that it is united to, so it present to all it’s parts. It is an individual soul, the form of an individual body, so in a real sense, it is assigned to that body. Once separated by corruption of the body, it is free of all the limitations of matter, so in its powers of intellection and free will it can enjoy the full infusion of truth, and the will can enjoy the total good for which it was created, God.
Blue Horizon:
To understand how the soul exists, (it is said to be self-subsistent, but not it’s own cause) is not answered by understanding it’s essence, but by approaching the questions from an existential perspective, in other words, not what a soul is, but that it is. To understand all there is to understand about God’s creative act is beyond human comprehension. We can know many things, but we are not Omniscient, but know what we need to know about the ultimate goals for man to attain the fulfillment of his capacities to know truth, and to acquire the good.
J
JuanFlorencio
Guest
Are you too on the electronics business? I have read the article. Actually, I had read several of them already. Please, show me what is next.
Not exactly, Inocente. Before the existence of computers there were already discourses about memory. Memory was what those discourses were about. When computers came into the scene, the same word was used to refer to certain processes and objects in those apparatuses by analogy. I think we should classify all those phenomena to which the word is applied nowadays, and, by doing so -I think-, we will be able to see the differences between them. Then, we will need to invent new words, or revive old ones, to add precision to our speech. Meanwhile, I say that human memory is not the same as computer memory.You seem to be arguing that memory is only memory when you say it is memory.
Yes, “emergence” is an straightforward idea. Precisely that is why I am able to tell you that you don’t see the mind emerging from matter. You don’t see elephant behaviors and elephant properties emerging from the elementary particles of which elephants are composed either.Isn’t emergence a fairly straightforward idea? - elephants have properties and behaviors which couldn’t be predicted from the properties and behaviors of the elementary particles of which they’re composed.
As for your unfounded homunculus remark and your other personal remarks in that post, if you feel the need to do amateur psychoanalysis on other posters then fine, but please don’t try it on with me. As the moderator says when it’s necessary for him to intervene, discuss the subject not each other. Thanks.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I think you’ve missed the point.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
So if the Pope ex cathedra tells us that global warming is man-made then it must be true
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Linus if you do a course on Aquinas with a flesh and blood Thomist professor, rather than reading on your own, you will better understand what a disservice you are doing to Aquinas for readers in this thread on this point.
When you accept you are very mistaken in affirming that Aquinas holds the phantasm is a “immaterial image” I will respect your truth-seeking enough to resume reflecting on your contributions.
Correct, this is why I warn contributors here that you do not present Aquinas’s views well on this point.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
That’s an insightful question that your aquaintances were unable to answer
Just look this rather global one up on the Net, if you strike a particular problem fee free to put your more insightful question to me.
V
Vico
Guest
I.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Mar;1157:1-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2008.04117.x.
Dualism persists in the science of mind.Demertzi A1, Liew C, Ledoux D, Bruno MA, Sharpe M, Laureys S, Zeman A.
Author information
Abstract
The relationship between mind and brain has philosophical, scientific, and practical implications. Two separate but related surveys from the University of Edinburgh (University students, n= 250) and the University of Liège (health-care workers, lay public, n= 1858) were performed to probe attitudes toward the mind-brain relationship and the variables that account for differences in views. Four statements were included, each relating to an aspect of the mind-brain relationship. The Edinburgh survey revealed a predominance of dualistic attitudes emphasizing the separateness of mind and brain. In the Liège survey, younger participants, women, and those with religious beliefs were more likely to agree that the mind and brain are separate, that some spiritual part of us survives death, that each of us has a soul that is separate from the body, and to deny the physicality of mind. Religious belief was found to be the best predictor for dualistic attitudes. Although the majority of health-care workers denied the distinction between consciousness and the soma, more than one-third of medical and paramedical professionals regarded mind and brain as separate entities. The findings of the study are in line with previous studies in developmental psychology and with surveys of scientists’ attitudes toward the relationship between mind and brain. We suggest that the results are relevant to clinical practice, to the formulation of scientific questions about the nature of consciousness, and to the reception of scientific theories of consciousness by the general public.
II.“Some international physicists are convinced, that our spirit has a quantum state and that the dualism between the body and the soul is just as real to as the “wave-particle dualism” of the smallest particles.”
Dr. James G. of San Francisco, a former coworker of the German Max-Planck Society in Frankfurt …
Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Dürr, former head of the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich, represents the opinion that the dualism of the smallest particles is not limited to the subatomic world, but instead is omnipresent.
Dr. Christian Hellweg is also convinced the spirit has a quantum state. Following his studies in physics and medicine, he researched brain function at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen for many years.
Quantum physicist David Bohm, a student and friend of Albert Einstein, made similar claims. His summary: “The results of modern natural sciences only make sense if we assume an inner, uniform, transcendent reality that is based on all external data and facts. The very depth of human consciousness is one of them.”
Nuclear physicist and molecular biologist Jeremy Hayward of Cambridge University makes no secret of his convictions either: “Many scientists who are still part of the scientific mainstream are no longer afraid to openly state that consciousness / awareness could, in addition to space, time, matter and energy, be a fundamental element of the world - perhaps even more fundamental than space and time. It may be a mistake to ban the spirit from nature.” It is even questioned as to whether matter should be considered a fundamental element of the universe.
huffingtonpost.co.uk/rolf-froboese/scientists-find-hints-for-the-immortality-of-the-soul_b_5499969.html
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
No, the Pope didn’t and won’t. That is the job of science.So if the Pope ex cathedra tells us that global warming is man-made then it must be true
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I guess they will have to read Memory and Remembering for themselves then, right. So once again, here it is. Everyone can read it for themselves
.:.dhspriory.org/thomas/english/MemoriaReminiscentia.htm
They can also read S.T., part 1, art 78, ans 4
Thus, therefore, for the reception of sensible forms, the “proper sense” and the “common sense” are appointed, and of their distinction we shall speak farther on (ad 1,2). But for the retention and preservation of these forms, the “phantasy” or “imagination” is appointed; which are the same, for phantasy or imagination is as it were a storehouse of forms received through the senses. Furthermore, for the apprehension of intentions which are not received through the senses, the “estimative” power is appointed: and for the preservation thereof, the “memorative” power, which is a storehouse of such-like intentions. A sign of which we have in the fact that the principle of memory in animals is found in some such intention, for instance, that something is harmful or otherwise. And the very formality of the past, which memory observes, is to be reckoned among these intentions.
Now, we must observe that as to sensible forms there is no difference between man and other animals; for they are similarly immuted by the extrinsic sensible. But there is a difference as to the above intentions: for other animals perceive these intentions only by some natural instinct, while man perceives them by means of coalition of ideas. Therefore the power by which in other animals is called the natural estimative, in man is called the “cogitative,” which by some sort of collation discovers these intentions. Wherefore it is also called the “particular reason,” to which medical men assign a certain particular organ, namely, the middle part of the head: for it compares individual intentions, just as the intellectual reason compares universal intentions. As to the memorative power, man has not only memory, as other animals have in the sudden recollection of the past; but also “reminiscence” by syllogistically, as it were, seeking for a recollection of the past by the application of individual intentions. Avicenna, however, assigns between the estimative and the imaginative, a fifth power, which combines and divides imaginary forms: as when from the imaginary form of gold, and imaginary form of a mountain, we compose the one form of a golden mountain, which we have never seen. But this operation is not to be found in animals other than man, in whom the imaginative power suffices thereto. To man also does Averroes attribute this action in his book De sensu et sensibilibus (viii). So there is no need to assign more than four interior powers of the sensitive part—namely, the common sense, the imagination, and the estimative and memorative powers.
dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/FP/FP078.html#FPQ78A4THEP1
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I don’t think I called the phantasm an " immaterial image. " But it certainly cannot be a material image, since it is the product of man’s cognative faculty.
" …Therefore the power by which in other animals is called the natural estimative, in man is called the “cogitative,” which by some sort of collation discovers these intentions…"
S.T., part 1, art 78, ans 4
Thomas also places these powers in the soul.
" On the contrary, Avicenna (De Anima iv, 1) assigns five interior sensitive powers; namely, “common sense, phantasy, imagination, and the estimative and memorative powers.”
" I answer that, As nature does not fail in necessary things, there must needs be as many actions of the sensitive soul as may suffice for the life of a perfect animal. If any of these actions cannot be reduced to the same one principle, they must be assigned to diverse powers; since a power of the soul is nothing else than the proximate principle of the soul’s operation. "
S.T., part 1, art 78, ans 4
Linus2nd
Correct, this is why I warn contributors here that you do not present Aquinas’s views well on this point.
G
GEddie
Guest
I don’t think I have.
You hold that because the immaterial human soul (mind) is not rigorously proven philosophically that it can be safely dismissed. I say that you can disbelieve anything you care to, but the Church is run by philosophers, and so whatever it teaches is going to hold up in that respect. This includes the IHS(M).
ICXC NIKA
- Status