What exactly is the soul?

[Blue_Horizon]

The complete comment.
*Contra Gentiles *I, 55, [4] (trans. Anton C. Pegis, Hanover House, 1955-57) *

Item. Vis cognoscitiva non cognoscit aliquid actu nisi adsit intentio: unde et phantasmata in organo conservata interdum non actu imaginamur, quia intentio non fertur ad ea; appetitus enim alias potentias in actum movet in agentibus per voluntatem. Multa igitur ad quae simul intentio non fertur, non simul intuemur. Quae autem oportet sub una intentione cadere, oportet simul esse intellecta: qui enim comparationem duorum considerat, intentionem ad utrumque dirigit et simul intuetur utrumque. *

Again, a knowing power does not know anything in act unless the intention be present. Thus, the phantasms preserved in the organ are not always actually imagined because the intention is not directed to them. For among voluntary agents the appetite moves the other powers to act. We do not understand together, therefore, many things to which the intention is not directed at the same time. But things that must fall under one intention must be understood together; for he who is considering a comparison between two things directs his intention to both and sees both together.

dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles.htm

And your reason for showing the whole paragraph is?

 

[ynotzap]

That makes perfect sense to me. It’s good to know that Thomas can be read without a lot of arm waving .

On your last para, that could mean that a spiritual/abstract concept which has no representation cannot actually exist. I’ve heard it said that the underlying function of all religions is to provide the representations, to provide a language and tradition by which we can talk of and share spiritual experiences.

Spain is rich in Catholic tradition, and experiences of a religious nature. If you read the Life of St. Theresa of Avilla a Doctor, (teacher of the spiritual life of Catholic Christians) you will come across concepts dealing with “inner locutions” God speaking to the individual within his own mind, or what is even more spiritual without the " spiritual meaning coming from the inner word, is the “awareness of God” without an Inner word. This to me is purely spiritual, but exceptional. In our present existence, no matter how deep our spiritual thoughts are, they are always associated with the physical word, because the body and soul are united as one. Hence it said that the soul is the form of the body, and without the soul, the body would not be a body God can infuse directly into the human mind when He chooses to. Also there are the uncorruptable bodies of some saints who lives were very holy and pure that this spiritual perfection even affected their bodies after the change of their state of existence call “death”. The fact is science can not destroy matter, nor can it destroy soul, what God creates, He creates eternally. Even in our day, we have a St. Padre Pio.

 

[GEddie]

Agreed. Down with dualism. Better dead than Descartes. Monists of the world, unite. ¡Venceremos!

Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!!!

Sorry, couldn’t resist!

 

[ynotzap]

Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!!!

Sorry, couldn’t resist!

Love it!! Between you and Linus, I don’t think I will be able to stand it That includes Innocente too!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

An element is called a bit (BInary digiT) and is a switch with two states, clear and set (alternatively 0 or 1, false or true, or whatever). A byte is eight bits. Usually the bits are held contiguously and accessed sequentially. A more expensive but potentially faster solution is to “stripe” the bits, for instance the first on one physical unit, the second on another, etc., so they can be accessed in parallel.

Usually, but again they may be striped, as when the bytes are spread across several hard drives to improve performance (the jargon is RAID 0).

An address tells the processor where to fetch or store data, and as such the address has to be placed in a register within the processor, and so it is kept in that form for efficiency. On most processors, registers are 32 or 64 bits wide.

Not sure what you mean. A document would probably be held in memory as a sequential array of bytes, with the address pointing to the first of those bytes. So, for instance, the software asks the operating system to tell it the length of the file containing the document. Then it gets the operating system to reserve a sufficiently long block of memory. The operating system replies with the start address of that block, and the software tells the operating system to read the document into the block.

(Remembering that to a computer the world is made of bits. A byte can hold a value between 0 and 255 (binary 00000000 to 11111111). The letter A might be coded as 65 and a blank space as 32, bright yellow as { 255, 255, 0 }, and so on).

Ok, I understand then that the elements of a memory are independent from each other, no matter if they are located within a row; even those which belong to a byte are independent between them.

I thought the addresses of the bytes were kept in the same USB device, because I can use the USB in any computer and reproduce my documents. If I store a document in my USB device using computer A, how is it possible to reproduce it using a computer B? Anyway, is a register something different from a set of bits?

If I store “n” documents in a memory until it is full, and then I erase some of them which are not contiguous, can I store a new document which is as big as the ones I erased (all together)?

I assume that you are using terms like “asks”, “tell”, “length”, “reserve”, “replies”, and “read” knowing that there are not such actions in a computer.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I don’t understand your last sentence, it sounds mystical but I can’t grasp your meaning.

My last sentence is just an extrapolation of the effects of a progressive lose of memory: A person who suffers one of those illnesses looks at a person X at moment A. She even talks to her. At another moment B, she feels she is in front of X for the first time. Taken that to the limit, there would be only “present”.

On your walk, suppose there is a stump where yesterday there was your favorite tree. Also suppose that at another place there are flowers were yesterday there were only buds. I suggest you are more likely to consciously notice the stump than the flowers, because your memory records that flowers come and go at this time of year, whereas that stump signifies something remarkable.

Yes, I agree, it is more likely.

Have you never driven the whole way home thinking of some work-related problem and then on arrival had no recall of any of the journey?

Yes, and not only that, but most of my activities during the day take place automatically, so to say.

I believe I’m just using standard terminology. We couldn’t predict elephants if we only knew of elementary particles, but we can explain the existence of elephants and their behaviors from those underlying phenomena. So the elephant doesn’t just appear, it emerges out of the underlying phenomena. Whereas supposed immaterial spiritual substances do just appear, inexplicably.

Of course: the spiritual substance cannot be explained because it is irreducible to matter. But you say you can explain the behaviors of an elephant based on the behavior of elementary particles. I am inviting you a beer; please sit down and go ahead with your explanation. You can select whatever behavior you like.

I don’t know that logic works like that in the brain. For instance, in a computer, X OR Y works like this: X and Y are bits (switches) and OR means they are wired in parallel. So if either bit is true (switch is on), a current flows, which represents true, and if both are false (both are off) no current flows, which represents false.

Not sure our brains are wired anything like that. Alternatively, we may learn the truth table for X OR Y by rote. Or some other way.

Being persuaded of something probably involves not just laying down new memories but bypassing or modifying old memories. We each have different histories, and therefore different memories and ways of seeing the world. If for no other reason than that, each of us is unique and I don’t think we can be reduced to an assembly line.

You have mentioned that mind emerges from matter (not from any matter, I guess, but from one that constitutes a system; a physical system). Now, logic is an aspect of mind and, therefore, it must be -according to you-, a result of a specific matter arrangement. Memories, experiences, histories, whatever, should be reduced, in the end -always according to you-, to variations in the physical arrangement. Therefore, to produce a determined output you need to provide a very specific (name removed by moderator)ut, or modify the arrangement, as I said. You would be a machine among many others, and what you say would not be better, nor truer than any other saying. It would be just vibrations in the air.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ok, I understand then that the elements of a memory are independent from each other, no matter if they are located within a row; even those which belong to a byte are independent between them.

I thought the addresses of the bytes were kept in the same USB device, because I can use the USB in any computer and reproduce my documents. If I store a document in my USB device using computer A, how is it possible to reproduce it using a computer B? Anyway, is a register something different from a set of bits?

If I store “n” documents in a memory until it is full, and then I erase some of them which are not contiguous, can I store a new document which is as big as the ones I erased (all together)?

I assume that you are using terms like “asks”, “tell”, “length”, “reserve”, “replies”, and “read” knowing that there are not such actions in a computer.

JF your questions really have nothing directly to do with the essentials of how chips actually hold data over time - they are lesser issues about how it is organised.

Innocente has given you essentially correct answers, though he is seeing things from a higher “organisational layer” (he is seeing things in terms of HDD management and the use of very complex microprocessors as typically used in Computers.

You are essentially correct in the “logical” (as opposed to “physical”) understanding of chip memory.

The “byte” addresses are contiguous, side by side. Imagine a very long street with letterboxes only on one side. Each letterbox holds only 1 byte of potential data storage.
The letterbox addresses are numbered in order 1,2,3 etc

If you want the byte in letterbox 28 then the microcontroller sends that address by electrical impulses to the memory chip and the memory chip automatically returns the byte of data held in that letterbox to the microcontroller to do whatever it wants.

Why do we work in bytes (8 pieces of simple on/off “flags”)?
Because its a code standard known by all PCs and programmers.
8 on/off “bits” of data can clearly store 256 different patterns of on/off information.
This standard code was known originally as ASCII (extended).
Clearly all the letters of the English alphabet, lower and uppercase, all the numerals and a lot of punctuation characters can be signified arbitrarily by those 256 different patterns of eight on/off states.

When you place these bytes next to each other you start building up words, phrases, sentences and documents.

Clearly you need to develop another standard to identify when one line (of text on a page) ends and a new line begins (in the old days they always thought about how do I send this byte stream to a real world dot matrix printer). One of those 256 patterns is especially reserved to signal this function to the microcontroller (or the printer) so it does a carriage return and rolls the paper up one line. These special control patterns (or “characters”) are not surprisingly called the CR code (carriage return) and the LF code (line feed).

This is part of the internationally recognised ASCII Standard. If you were around in the old days of dot matrix printers you may even have come across “escaped characters”. That is what those control codes above are, there are many more (there is one called “bel” used to make a ding on the printer like the old typewriters!).
But this is all old 1970s stuff. With a global world ASCII has become hoplessly inadequate as a character formatting standard. We need Greek characters and Korean and Chinese and Wingdings - that is why the standard has now turned to Unicode.
Unicode is actually based on, usually, 32 bit storage units (ie 4 bytes grouped together).
4 bytes can store any one of 256x256x256x256 different unique characters. You do the maths.

Then we have to separate out different documents on our USB stick. For this we need a file standard. We know when we hit the end of a file (ie a document) when we go running down our memory street because that letterbox holds a very special code pattern. Its called the EOF character (end of file) strange to say.

This should answer many of your questions below.

However much more interesting than man-made text documents are surely sounds and visual images which can also be represented using these ASCII patterns in memory.
I was hoping you would go there, much more interesting philosophically as its a closer analog to the Sensorium of the ancients and how they impress the brain (or mind if you prefer!).

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JF your questions really have nothing directly to do with the essentials of how chips actually hold data over time - they are lesser issues about how it is organised.

Innocente has given you essentially correct answers, though he is seeing things from a higher “organisational layer” (he is seeing things in terms of HDD management and the use of very complex microprocessors as typically used in Computers.

You are essentially correct in the “logical” (as opposed to “physical”) understanding of chip memory.

The “byte” addresses are contiguous, side by side. Imagine a very long street with letterboxes only on one side. Each letterbox holds only 1 byte of potential data storage.
The letterbox addresses are numbered in order 1,2,3 etc

If you want the byte in letterbox 28 then the microcontroller sends that address by electrical impulses to the memory chip and the memory chip automatically returns the byte of data held in that letterbox to the microcontroller to do whatever it wants.

Why do we work in bytes (8 pieces of simple on/off “flags”)?
Because its a code standard known by all PCs and programmers.
8 on/off “bits” of data can clearly store 256 different patterns of on/off information.
This standard code was known originally as ASCII (extended).
Clearly all the letters of the English alphabet, lower and uppercase, all the numerals and a lot of punctuation characters can be signified arbitrarily by those 256 different patterns of eight on/off states.

When you place these bytes next to each other you start building up words, phrases, sentences and documents.

Clearly you need to develop another standard to identify when one line (of text on a page) ends and a new line begins (in the old days they always thought about how do I send this byte stream to a real world dot matrix printer). One of those 256 patterns is especially reserved to signal this function to the microcontroller (or the printer) so it does a carriage return and rolls the paper up one line. These special control patterns (or “characters”) are not surprisingly called the CR code (carriage return) and the LF code (line feed).

This is part of the internationally recognised ASCII Standard. If you were around in the old days of dot matrix printers you may even have come across “escaped characters”. That is what those control codes above are, there are many more (there is one called “bel” used to make a ding on the printer like the old typewriters!).
But this is all old 1970s stuff. With a global world ASCII has become hoplessly inadequate as a character formatting standard. We need Greek characters and Korean and Chinese and Wingdings - that is why the standard has now turned to Unicode.
Unicode is actually based on, usually, 32 bit storage units (ie 4 bytes grouped together).
4 bytes can store any one of 256x256x256x256 different unique characters. You do the maths.

Then we have to separate out different documents on our USB stick. For this we need a file standard. We know when we hit the end of a file (ie a document) when we go running down our memory street because that letterbox holds a very special code pattern. Its called the EOF character (end of file) strange to say.

This should answer many of your questions below.

However much more interesting than man-made text documents are surely sounds and visual images which can also be represented using these ASCII patterns in memory.
I was hoping you would go there, much more interesting philosophically as its a closer analog to the Sensorium of the ancients and how they impress the brain (or mind if you prefer!).

I was going there, Blue, but you are much more faster than me. Naturally, I would like you and Inocente could let me know how a machine works to reproduce a sound or a visual image. So far I have gotten the impression that a computer is a device in which millions of elements can change from a state A to a state B, in such a way that electrical pathways are established sequentially and/or in parallel and electrical (name removed by moderator)uts which travel through them “produce” electrical outputs (which transducers can “convert” immediately into optical, or auditory effects). So, in the case of a document, I would not say that it is stored somehow in the computer memory, but that a mechanism has been set that will allow the reproduction of my document as long as I feed certain (name removed by moderator)uts into it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think there’s evidence that our brains are in part wired according to our individually unique histories.

There are persons who would be able to build a dinosaur starting from the tusk of a dog. The available evidences do not allow to say that much, Inocente.

Perhaps, philosophically, there is a logic to believing that the mind is forever inexplicable, and therefore that research is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. But I suggest that anyone who has a child or partner suffering from major depression or another mental disorder, will abandon such a belief in a heartbeat and be grateful for the research. There’s your legitimacy.

That was a skillful way of evading my questions pretending that you were answering them. The mind can be inexplicable in terms of the behaviors of matter; still, even a dualist can see that matter can alleviate suffering.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… a computer is a device in which millions of elements can change from a state A to a state B, in such a way that electrical pathways are established sequentially and/or in parallel and electrical (name removed by moderator)uts which travel through them “produce” electrical outputs (which transducers can “convert” immediately into optical, or auditory effects). So, in the case of a document, I would not say that it is stored somehow in the computer memory, but that a mechanism has been set that will allow the reproduction of my document as long as I feed certain (name removed by moderator)uts into it.

JF you’re original starting point with us appears other than what you seem to state above if this is what you really want to talk about - which is not primarily about memory (persistence of information over time) at all but more about how a processor reconstructs a document (presumably to a screen or a printer) from memory… or “converts” real world quantities. A photocopied document is a form of memory is it not?

Obviously if a document (or even a temperature reading) is stored in memory in a symbolic/coded form by one person then another person wanting to retrieve it must know how it was symbolised in order to reconstruct it . A memory chip is not hormunculising the information (name removed by moderator)ut into it afterall! (I am reminded of those little glass domes that perfectly imitate a country village and when shaken it snows).
Just like Aquinas’s sensible “impressions” and “images” we are talking about accidental (not substantial!) transformations of biological matter which are used to represent within the body, in various stages,the forms derived from external substantial forms in the sensible world.

I offered to assist you with the hard questions your electronic friends could not answer when you queried them about memory chips. I believe we have answered more than adequately.

I suspect you were too hard on your friends. Yes they may have talked about computers “reading” data.

Obviously they did not mean “reading” in exactly the same way that humans do. I think it would be disingenuous to pretend they did. As Innocente mentioned, that simply means “fetching” the stored electrical bytes “codes” (each being 8 on/off flags) from the “letterboxes” at specific memory “addresses.”

If you have done scholastic philosophy you will recognise this is an analogical use of words.
Some things are the same some things are dofferent - it is still a valid use of the same word. We do the same with the attributes of God don’t we?

God is wise, just, loving, one, etc etc but while we know what those words mean when applied to humans we do not really know what they mean when applied to God. Because in God they are somehow the same “attribute” and in greater plenitude which doesn’t really make sense to us.

Yet, as Aquinas states, they are validly used even if inadequate. For if we did not use them we would only be able to say what God is not with any certainty…which isn’t terribly helpful for understanding God.

Thus with processors “reading” memory chips like humans read.
A PC is capable of “reading” visible text we put before it and speaking it back out aloud.
If a parrot could do that (which it cannot) we would probably call that reading acceptably enough.

But is it comprehending? That is another question entirely.
Is matter capable of doing that?
Well we would have to define exactly what comprehending means I suppose.
Higher primates clearly use basic language, which symbols they actually do respond to.

Anyways, I think we have answered your questions about electronic memory which were:
"…they were talking to me about …“information”, “reading” etcetera, attributing all this to computers. I just told them, pointing towards my computer: “Wait a minute; please don’t tell me there is information, reading, and interpretations here. It will be much better to me if you explain all we can see in terms of electrical pathways, electrical pulses, electromagnetic fields, transducers, etcetera…”

 

[inocente]

Ok, I understand then that the elements of a memory are independent from each other, no matter if they are located within a row; even those which belong to a byte are independent between them.

I thought the addresses of the bytes were kept in the same USB device, because I can use the USB in any computer and reproduce my documents. If I store a document in my USB device using computer A, how is it possible to reproduce it using a computer B? Anyway, is a register something different from a set of bits?

There are lots of different devices with a USB plug, I guess you’re speaking of a memory stick. Usually this type of device emulates a hard disc - it follows all the same protocols and so the operating system sees it as a removable drive. As such it contains tables for organization and navigation, called folders, and collections of data called files. The entries in the tables include the addresses, often with indirection (an address pointing to another table containing addresses, which enables a folder or file to be fragmented).

If I store “n” documents in a memory until it is full, and then I erase some of them which are not contiguous, can I store a new document which is as big as the ones I erased (all together)?

Yes. When necessary, on a hard disc or memory stick the operating system will fragment the file, or in main memory it will move data around to make all the free memory contiguous (known as garbage collection).

I assume that you are using terms like “asks”, “tell”, “length”, “reserve”, “replies”, and “read” knowing that there are not such actions in a computer.

“Pedantry - Excessive concern with minor details and rules” Sorry, couldn’t resist.

My last sentence is just an extrapolation of the effects of a progressive lose of memory: A person who suffers one of those illnesses looks at a person X at moment A. She even talks to her. At another moment B, she feels she is in front of X for the first time. Taken that to the limit, there would be only “present”.

OK. Although those who believe that memory is located in an ISS (immaterial spiritual substance) might disagree.

Yes, and not only that, but most of my activities during the day take place automatically, so to say.

Agreed, we all spend a lot of time on autopilot.

Of course: the spiritual substance cannot be explained because it is irreducible to matter. But you say you can explain the behaviors of an elephant based on the behavior of elementary particles. I am inviting you a beer; please sit down and go ahead with your explanation. You can select whatever behavior you like.

Consider why you, and perhaps the elephant, drink beer. Metabolism → need to replace cells → needing chemicals → made of atoms → made of elementary particles. Turn it round and atoms can be explained from elementary particles, etc. An explanation backed up in intricate detail by hundreds of textbooks and thousands of papers. I wouldn’t have thought it’s in any way controversial.

Perhaps someone would now provide their alternative explanation, and also explain why there are not hundreds of textbooks or thousands of papers providing the detail for every step in their process.

You have mentioned that mind emerges from matter (not from any matter, I guess, but from one that constitutes a system; a physical system). Now, logic is an aspect of mind and, therefore, it must be -according to you-, a result of a specific matter arrangement. Memories, experiences, histories, whatever, should be reduced, in the end -always according to you-, to variations in the physical arrangement. Therefore, to produce a determined output you need to provide a very specific (name removed by moderator)ut, or modify the arrangement, as I said. You would be a machine among many others, and what you say would not be better, nor truer than any other saying. It would be just vibrations in the air.

Logic isn’t necessarily a very interesting aspect of mind, since amongst all forms of thought it’s one which by definition follows very strict rules, and can therefore be done by a machine.

How can you be so certain that a determined output involves the process you predict, given the plasticity of the brain and its immense complexity? And as far as explanation, no ISS fan has explained anything at all. It would be good to have some competition, but instead there’s only huffing and puffing, not even vibrations in the air, just loads of arm waving.

There are persons who would be able to build a dinosaur starting from the tusk of a dog. The available evidences do not allow to say that much, Inocente.

There’s a lot of evidence for neuroplasticity, it’s perhaps beyond any reasonable doubt. Can you provide a greater weight of evidence for any alternative explanation?

That was a skillful way of evading my questions pretending that you were answering them. The mind can be inexplicable in terms of the behaviors of matter; still, even a dualist can see that matter can alleviate suffering.

Oh come on, you don’t need to resort to this spiteful innuendo. (1) There was never a rational case for ISS, and no possible necessity for Christians to believe in it either. (2) It explains nothing, and there is no moral worth in non-explanations. (3) The working of the mind, and disorders, are vitally important in peoples’ lives. (4) For these reasons belief in ISS will die out over the next few generations. (5) That won’t be a bad thing.

 

[inocente]

Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!!!

Taylor Swifts of the world, ITUNE!!!

(for those who don’t follow the news time.com/3929784/taylor-swift-apple-open-letter-eddy-cue/)

 

[inocente]

Spain is rich in Catholic tradition, and experiences of a religious nature. If you read the Life of St. Theresa of Avilla a Doctor, (teacher of the spiritual life of Catholic Christians) you will come across concepts dealing with “inner locutions” God speaking to the individual within his own mind, or what is even more spiritual without the " spiritual meaning coming from the inner word, is the “awareness of God” without an Inner word. This to me is purely spiritual, but exceptional. In our present existence, no matter how deep our spiritual thoughts are, they are always associated with the physical word, because the body and soul are united as one. Hence it said that the soul is the form of the body, and without the soul, the body would not be a body God can infuse directly into the human mind when He chooses to. Also there are the uncorruptable bodies of some saints who lives were very holy and pure that this spiritual perfection even affected their bodies after the change of their state of existence call “death”. The fact is science can not destroy matter, nor can it destroy soul, what God creates, He creates eternally. Even in our day, we have a St. Padre Pio.

I read about Sta. Teresa after having, over several weeks, a lengthy “spiritual experience”. Very hard to describe, a constant feeling of calm and a “oneness” along the lines of your “awareness of God without an Inner word”. When it ended, I found out that lots of people report having these kinds of experience, a lot more than I imagined, including atheists and all beliefs. There were a few neuroscientists researching it, although at the time it seemed mainly speculation. I still don’t know whether to take it as God, or a brainstorm, or just as part of life’s rich pageant. But whatever, it was a blessing.

 

[ynotzap]

I read about Sta. Teresa after having, over several weeks, a lengthy “spiritual experience”. Very hard to describe, a constant feeling of calm and a “oneness” along the lines of your “awareness of God without an Inner word”. When it ended, I found out that lots of people report having these kinds of experience, a lot more than I imagined, including atheists and all beliefs. There were a few neuroscientists researching it, although at the time it seemed mainly speculation. I still don’t know whether to take it as God, or a brainstorm, or just as part of life’s rich pageant. But whatever, it was a blessing.

There is also the knowledge and experience of “spiritual discernment” to discern if a spiritual experience is coming from a good spirit, or a bad spirit, and Angel or a Fallen Angel. Since we are speaking about the soul, and that topic covers everything we experience then I will speak a little about spiritual discernment. It can be acquired or endowed as a gift. When we have these experiences, if it is genuine, it is compared to water falling on a sponge, the experience speaks to our inner most consciousness, and thought. If it is not genuine, it like water falling on a rock, it splatters and does not penetrate. One becomes like a spectator, the genuine becomes a partaker in the experience. And the genuine one may even be confirmed by an external event. It may be experienced as a “consolation from God” These experiences are taylored to each ones spiritual need, to draw one closer to God., all the work of the Holy Spirit, they are called actual graces, different from sanctifying graces. That’s why even atheists can receive them as a divine influence (which can be rejected) to draw them closer to God. We have free will

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JF you’re original starting point with us appears other than what you seem to state above if this is what you really want to talk about - which is not primarily about memory (persistence of information over time) at all but more about how a processor reconstructs a document (presumably to a screen or a printer) from memory… or “converts” real world quantities. A photocopied document is a form of memory is it not?..

…Thus with processors “reading” memory chips like humans read.
A PC is capable of “reading” visible text we put before it and speaking it back out aloud.
If a parrot could do that (which it cannot) we would probably call that reading acceptably enough.

But is it comprehending? That is another question entirely.
Is matter capable of doing that?
Well we would have to define exactly what comprehending means I suppose.
Higher primates clearly use basic language, which symbols they actually do respond to.

Anyways, I think we have answered your questions about electronic memory which were:
"…they were talking to me about …“information”, “reading” etcetera, attributing all this to computers. I just told them, pointing towards my computer: “Wait a minute; please don’t tell me there is information, reading, and interpretations here. It will be much better to me if you explain all we can see in terms of electrical pathways, electrical pulses, electromagnetic fields, transducers, etcetera…”

I can see that you and Inocente have provided me with information with the intention to help me. I appreciate it a lot. I also have the intention to help clarifying certain things. Not because I think I know the truth, but because I sometimes realize that something doesn’t look like true; as an old colleague of mine used to say: “I don’t know how to prepare a good spaghetti, but I can tell you if this one which I am eating now tastes well or not”. I follow procedures that resemble the Socratic ones. It is natural in me (yes, I know that people here might come and say, “Boy, how arrogant!..”, etcetera, etcetera; but such is life…).

This is how the digression began: Inocente wrote

I was going for something else: A thousand years ago, philosophers must have struggled to imagine how something like a moving image could be remembered in the mind. How in heaven’s name could a moving image be recorded in static material substance? Well, obviously it can’t, it’s impossible, it must be supernatural, some kind of immaterial spiritual substance.

Whereas we all have a mobile phone which can make and remember a movie. If mobile phones can do it without any immaterial spiritual substance, so can our minds. (Another way to look at this is that immaterial spiritual substance turned out to be what we now call electricity, but I digress ).

… and I thought “Inocente is putting in the same bag things which are quite different between each other”. I intend to make the differences as much apparent as possible; but I guess I might have pushed too much. That happens sometimes.

In cognitive psychology some theorists have modeled human mind as if it was a computer. Of course, depending on how we consider things, we can find analogies between them. Finding analogies is always possible. They can be helpful, but sometimes they can be misleading.

You ask: “is matter capable of comprehending?” And I think it is still a reasonable question. And when Inocente says that we can explain the existence of elephants based on elemental particles, and that there’s evidence that our brains are in part wired according to our individually unique histories, I cannot avoid but respond that it is an exaggeration. The necessary condition to be able to say such things is not to pay attention to details; and that is not a virtue.

I am traveling tomorrow, and I need to rest now. I am coming back later…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A photocopy is not a memory, neither are electrical impulses, which, presumably is the way sensibles are received by the senses to the brain. The passage from electrical impulses to an act of the imagination, the phantasm, is an act of cogitation. Can the brain produce this act? Can the brain recognize and sort types of impulses to form a phantasm? Seems to me this an act that only a non-material substance can do - like the mind.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

There is also the knowledge and experience of “spiritual discernment” to discern if a spiritual experience is coming from a good spirit, or a bad spirit, and Angel or a Fallen Angel. Since we are speaking about the soul, and that topic covers everything we experience then I will speak a little about spiritual discernment. It can be acquired or endowed as a gift. When we have these experiences, if it is genuine, it is compared to water falling on a sponge, the experience speaks to our inner most consciousness, and thought. If it is not genuine, it like water falling on a rock, it splatters and does not penetrate. One becomes like a spectator, the genuine becomes a partaker in the experience. And the genuine one may even be confirmed by an external event. It may be experienced as a “consolation from God” These experiences are taylored to each ones spiritual need, to draw one closer to God., all the work of the Holy Spirit, they are called actual graces, different from sanctifying graces. That’s why even atheists can receive them as a divine influence (which can be rejected) to draw them closer to God. We have free will

In my case there was no question that it was good. It didn’t stop me functioning, it didn’t tempt me to do bad things, it didn’t upset me. If it had, I’d have seen my doctor.

I think anyone who has that kind of experience must be changed by it, since within the experience everything is, as it were, the same but different. I found it impossible to put into words, it transcended words. Which may be why so few people write them down.

But here’s a thought: religion relies on words, and each religion views such experiences in its own language. A Buddhist would describe the theory of such experiences in her terms, just as you describe it in yours. But the experience itself transcends words, and as such it’s a “meta-religious” experience. That’s why I think atheists and people of all faiths have such experiences, they transcend our beliefs. So if they have a purpose, maybe the purpose is to rattle our cage.

 

[inocente]

A photocopy is not a memory, neither are electrical impulses, which, presumably is the way sensibles are received by the senses to the brain. The passage from electrical impulses to an act of the imagination, the phantasm, is an act of cogitation. Can the brain produce this act? Can the brain recognize and sort types of impulses to form a phantasm? Seems to me this an act that only a non-material substance can do - like the mind.

Earlier I linked the research of Sheila Nirenberg and others. That stream of electrical impulses is the only information passing down the optic nerves, and therefore the only information from which the movie can possibly be made. How are those electrical impulses transmitted into your non-material substance (NMS)? How does the NMS know the code, a code which evolved over millions of years? Did the NMS also evolve? What does the NMS do which you think cannot be done physically? A physical system must follow the laws of nature, cause and effect, there must be order. So for the NMS to bring anything to the party, it must not follow cause and effect, not be orderly, otherwise it could be physical. How and why?

You never answer any of these questions, you never explain anything. All you seem to be saying is that when you can’t explain something, you decide no one else can, ever. Why should we believe your non-explanation?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
Linus the phantasm of Aquinas is not immaterial/spiritual and does not reside in the intellect/mind as you have clearly asserted below.

Hmnnn…
“In my view anything that can properly be called the subject of memory must be very like a phantasm, it is basically immaterial…”
“I don’t see how an image, by any definition, could be material. If it is not material, it must be spiritual ( immaterial ).”
“It is difficult to understand how the brain could sort out and collate the different nuances of sense impressions to form anything that could be described as an image or phantasm.”

For a truth-seeker home truths are always the most difficult to accept Linus…
You are a truth seeker, aren’t you .
Come on, you can do it, we all make mistakes, you are human too.

… here is a quote from Gilson.
… phantasms are images of particular things, impressed or preserved in corporeal organs. In brief we are here in the domain of the sensible both from the point of view of the subject and of the object."

I agree with this except where he says that they are " impressed or preserved in corporeal organs. " …Gilson is wrong…

OK Maritain’s Thomist school is wrong, Gilson is wrong, my three Thomist professors are wrong and only Linus is right when it comes to understanding Aquinas .

This reference seems to be incorrect. SCG is divided into four books in which we find three designated as chapter 55, each of which has a paragraph 2. However none of them contain anything related to phantasms? Please recheck your reference.

Is it so hard for a truth-seeker to search the SCG and ST on “phantasm” or “phantasy” for himself? And you would get these texts which are 1000% clearer and unambiguous compared to your alleged proof texts:

*“the phantasm, as a potential term of intelligence, does not transcend the grade of the sentient soul.” 2, 73,B1.

“These definite natures of sensible things are represented to us by phantasms, which however have not yet reached the stage of being objects of intellect, seeing that they are likenesses of sensible things under material conditions, which are individualising
properties, — and besides they are in bodily organs.” 2,77.

“The departed soul’s intellectual activity will not be accomplished by regard to such objects as phantasms existing in bodily organs … but the departed soul will understand by itself after the manner of those intelligences that subsist totally apart from bodies …” 2,80.*

I admit Thomas is hard to read but to quote the S.T, which is Thomas’ most mature work, hardly puts such quotes in the category of " isolated and ambiguous philosophy texts."

Oh dear…here we go then, a 20 sec search. Perfectly consistent with SCG, as would be expected with well-established basics. Not hard to read at all, and easy to find as predicted by Gilson, Maritain and my three professors. I am sure Feser would also agree, you must have misunderstood him if he did actually lecture you on this topic.

*"…the intellect requires the operation of the sensitive powers in the production of the phantasms." 1a,75,3,2

“The Commentator held that this union is through the intelligible species, as having a double subject, in the possible intellect, and in the phantasms which are in the corporeal organs.” 1a,76

“So there is no need to assign more than four interior powers of the sensitive part–namely, the common sense, the imagination (phantasy), and the estimative and memorative powers.” 1,78,4.

“But phantasms, since they are images of individuals, and exist in corporeal organs, have not the same mode of existence as the human intellect…” 1a,85,1,3*

Linus we understand that “likenesses” and “impressions” are, in modern terms, in a sense “immaterial”. Yes Augustine calls such immateriality “spiritual” (Aquinas mentions this in 1a,84,7,6) But this however is not how Aquinas and scholastics use the terms material/immaterial here when speaking of apprehension.
They simply say “likeness” or “impression” or “image” to signify what you call “immaterial” or “spiritual”.

Hence the “sensible image” known as a phantasm is in fact material, and therefore well described as the act of a corporeal organ in traditional Catholic Scholastic philosophy well enunciated by Aquinas.

We get it that you disagree with the terminology (and possibly the philosophy), but that certainly is Aquinas’s view.

Phantasms are generated and held in the sensible faculty called “phantasy” (often translated imagination) and are definitely called “material”.
And that is also why the sensible faculties may legitimately be identified with corporeal organs (ie parts of the brain).

But since I do not agree with Thomas on everything…

That’s fine.

The issue is you pretended that your view was Aquinas’s wrt the Phantasm and Phantasy. Nothing could be further from the truth sorry.

On this point most of the Scholastics are in agreement (except perhaps the nominalists) as this is very basic and well accepted stuff .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

… The passage from electrical impulses to an act of the imagination, the phantasm, is an act of cogitation. Can the brain produce this act?

Aquinas would not agree with this formulation Linus.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by “cogitation” … but the phantasm is clearly produced and held by a corporeal sensitive power (hence a corporeal organ is involved).

This phantasm, being “material”, is a sensible image representing external individuated material forms. It is in a sense the matter (ie the material cause) of truly immaterial knowledge in the intellect when the intellect abstracts such universal info from the phantasm by the light of the active intellect.

If the phantasm is therefore still a likeness of individualised matter (albeit the highest and most potentially intelligible form) … there is no apriori reason why it could not be imitated by sophisticated electronics.

Can the brain recognize and sort types of impulses to form a phantasm? Seems to me this an act that only a non-material substance can do - like the mind.

Linus, until you understand both Aristotle and Aquinas on this point you will keep intellectually embarrassing yourself.

Aquinas clearly holds the phantasm is material so your argument isn’t yet in the running.
It is the “concept” (abstracted from the phantasm) that is immaterial and it is this that needs to be held by a non-material substance (ie the intellective faculty of the soul)…at least according to Aquinas.

If you are going to use the word “phantasm” lets respect its traditional scholastic meaning - just as you surely would for “the soul.”