What exactly is the soul?

[Blue_Horizon]

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

If memory is defined as “memory is the process in which information is encoded, stored, and retrieved” or “The faculty by which the mind stores and remembers information” then you would appear mistaken.

What is your definition of memory - do you think it acceptable to the average Joe Bloggs English speaker?

 

[Vico]

Spark Notes - forming phantasms, that is, mental images.

Summa Theologica: The Nature and Limits of Human KnowledgeIn part 1 of the Summa, Aquinas begins his examination of the operation and limits of man’s intellect after discussing the soul and the union of body and soul. Questions 84, 85, and 86, each of which is subdivided into various Articles, address (1) the question of how the soul, when united with the body, understands corporeal things; (2) the mode and order of understanding; and (3) what our intellect knows in material things.

The soul knows bodies through the intellect by a knowledge that is immaterial, universal and necessary, although only God can understand all things. The cognitive soul has the potential to form principles of understanding and principles of sensation. Individual objects of our knowledge are not derived from Platonic forms but rather from the mind of God. Intellectual knowledge is formed by a conjunction of the passive senses and the active intellect. It is impossible for the intellect to understand anything without the mind forming phantasms, that is, mental images.
…Aquinas concludes that phantasms are indeed ultimately derived from individual things but require the abstraction that the intellect provides to rise to the level of being knowledge. This process of abstraction results in the formation of ideas of universals, that is, of ideas that define objects according to their essential qualities.

Aquinas arrives at the surprising notion that, although sense experience of a particular object is necessary to formulate both a mental image of that object and a universal concept that applies to that and all similar objects, knowledge of the particular material object, as that object is in itself, is impossible precisely because we have a mental image of it. It is true that we get to know the essence of the object through abstraction. Yet we do not, and indeed cannot, have knowledge of the object as a material object. Aquinas is thus saying that all knowledge worth the name “knowledge” is necessarily abstract.

sparknotes.com/philosophy/aquinas/section3.rhtml
sparknotes.com/philosophy/aquinas/section3/page/2/

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “memory is the process in which information is encoded, stored, and retrieved” or “The faculty by which the mind stores and remembers information” . . .

Although the first definition seems as though it is addressing the brain aspect of memory, talking about encoding, storage and retrieval, it is all about mind.

The brain is a physical entity; its constituent parts and processes are material in nature.

As an organism interacts with the physical universe, it undergoes changes that will result in alterations in its behaviour.
In the brain, what occur are changes between nerve cells by forming or breaking connections, and within cells, through processes that facilitate or inhibit communication with other cells.
There is no encoding, no storage and no retrieval at this “level” of human existence. From a modern science approach, there is simply chemical activity. Thinking about the brain as a part of a organism in the world, it can all be explained biophysiologically and in terms of physics: photons, vibrations in air, receptors cells, neurotransmitters, enzymes, glucose, oxygen etc.
All this material stuff going on has material causes and effects. There is no need to appeal to mind if one is looking at chemicals.
However, if one wants to make sense of it, to speak of memory for example, one must enter the domain of the mind.

The mind does not so much control the brain as it explains why the brain is behaving as it does.
And, the brain does not create the mind;.
It may be worthwhile to consider the brain as the mind’s physical manifestation, the mind the brain’s, mental dimension.

 

[Aloysium]

Although the first definition seems as though it is addressing the brain aspect of memory, talking about encoding, storage and retrieval, it is all about mind.

The brain is a physical entity; its constituent parts and processes are material in nature.

As an organism interacts with the physical universe, it undergoes changes that will result in alterations of its behaviour.
In the brain, what occur are changes between nerve cells forming or breaking connections, and within cells, processes that will ultimately facilitate or inhibit communication with other cells.
There is no encoding, no storage and no retrieval at this “level” of human existence. From a modern science approach, there is simply chemical activity.
It can all be explained biophysiologically, in terms of physics: photons, vibrations in air, receptors cells, neurotransmitters, enzymes, glucose, oxygen etc.
All this material stuff going on has material causes and effects. There is no need to appeal to mind if one is looking at chemicals.
However, if one wants to make sense of it, to speak of memory for example, one must enter the domain of the mind.

The mind does not so much control the brain as it explains why the brain is behaving as it does.
And, the brain does not create the mind; it may be worthwhile to consider it, its physical manifestation.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If memory is defined as “memory is the process in which information is encoded, stored, and retrieved” or “The faculty by which the mind stores and remembers information” then you would appear mistaken.

What is your definition of memory - do you think it acceptable to the average Joe Bloggs English speaker?

Since you have bee saving up your objections, I’ll answer this one first. Of course the brain " saves " the incoming impulses in its sensory centers, at least for enough time to alert the soul that it has work to do. There is no evidence that the sensory centers retain this information for longer than milliseconds. If you want to call that memory, I have no personal objection.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

I think the imagery of a movie is over played and it there is certainly no proof that it is the brain which is making the movie. A better explaination is that the mind, being an intellectual substance, has the power to recognize the electrical impulses when correctly received by the brain. The good and gifted doctor discovered a way to by pass the injured eye so that the correct impulses would be received by the brain. The mind sees this and provides the intellect with a " movie. "

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?

The NMS has been given the power to observe and translate these impulses, it does it by the powers which are naturally its own, given by God at its creation. The NMS does not evolve, it is created, immediately by God. This is evident from Scripture, and is a Dogma of the Catholic Church. So the NMS does not 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?

There is no evidence that it is the brain which does the translation and that it makes the images. Yes, and my explanation does not violate the laws of nature. What the brain does effects the soul, alerts it, makes it act. The soul then acts. All perfectly natural. God created the soul, and though it is spirtual, it is a part of nature. When God created the soul, he gave it certain powers, it uses theses powers to govern everything man does, from walking, to digesting, to making sense of the data comeing to the senses from the outside world, to thinking and praying. Obviously I am not aware of my soul doing most of these things. I am not aware of my soul or intellect translating incoming data, of collating it, and of forming intelligible images. But I am aware that I see, hear, feel, taste, smell, and that is good enough for me.

You do agree that we are aware that we see, hear, feel, taste, smell don’t you? Good, let me put the shoe on the other foor. How does the brain, a physical organ, make my soul, a spiritual entity, aware of all this?
.

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?

Sorry, I thought I had explained. I have explained the best I can. First of all some of what I have said is purely my opinion, but I think it is justified. The main thing to keep in mind is that the brain is a physical organ, it is recording the outside world as a camera would, but it does not " develope the negatives, " indeed, one can ask whether or not there are any " negatives. " Where are they if they exist? And how does the brain play them back, if it does? Where is the "screen " on which the images are played? The fact is we are attributing to the brain things requiring intelligence, which means that the soul is the thing which is doing all that.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

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.

Evil spirits, imitate the Holy Spirit, and can appear as an “angels of light”, deception is their game. People may ascend in their beliefs if there is something to ascend to in their beliefs, whether their beliefs are true, or not will determine what they ascend to.
or if we have already ascended, then our beliefs are confirmed. There are many beliefs which contradict each other, and all are not true. If the experience is legitimate, a truly real spiritual experience involving Jesus Christ, God then its not so much the experience that is the most important but the good and positive effects it has on the recipient It is reminiscent of the New Life of grace, one receives on one’s conversion.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

And what is your point?

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 .

Goodness, you yourself said A/T were wrong on some things. I say they are wrong here.

]QUOTE]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:

Yes, I read them. I do not reject " common sense, " imagination, fantasy, or phantasms. I reject where they place them. I place them in the soul, that’s all.

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

Still the soul, man has only one soul, the intellectual soul. So if it exists in the " sentient soul, " it can only be man’s intellectual, immortal soul he means or should have meant. You will recall That Thomas thought the soul of the developing fetus underwent a change from vegative soul, to sentient soul, to intellectual, immortal soul. He was absolutely wrong, right? .

“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.

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.

Well, the reference was incorrect. Vico gave me the correct one. By the way, don’t be embarassed by giving an incorrect reference. I have done it on this thread myself. And I found an incorrect reference in Gilson’s Elements of Christian Philosophy. So even great men make mistakes.

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

Certainly.

“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.

And I say these are powers of the intellectual, immortal soul.

“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

I reject that.

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.

So what?

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

Yes. So what?

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

You are several days behind times, I know I was wrong. Big deal. Don’t get so worked up over nothing.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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).

No, I don’t agree with any of it. Aquinas says " 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. " S.T., part 1, art 78, ans 4

Cogitation is an intellectual operation, not a physical one.

This phantasm, being “material”, is a sensible image representing external individuated material forms.

It is not material, I don’t have a material tree in my mind. I have an image of that tree.
And I think calling it " sensible " is playing with words. That does not mean, to me at least, that it is actually material.

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.

I agree, but that does not make it an actual material object.

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.

Only the mind can produce a likeness. Cells, neurons, synapses can’t produce anything. " Imitated " is not the same as being actual images…

Read my post to Inocente.

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

I’m not embarrassing myself, I understand what they are saying. I disagree that’s all. Have you reached the point that we now have to agree with them about everything? Sounds like a 360 degree change to me.

Aquinas clearly holds the phantasm is material so your argument isn’t yet in the running.

Oh, I don’t know about that, some here agree with me .

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.

That’s what he says alright.

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

I accept it partially. I believe it is an image, I do not believe it is material, and I do not believe it is the product of the material organ. An image is non-material, therefore it cannot be a product of a material organ.

Linus2nd

 

[JuanFlorencio]

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).

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).

Yes, I was thinking on those memory sticks. Then I was asking if the elements of the registers which keep the addresses are something different from the elements which form a byte.

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

No problem, I take this as one of the ways you have to mean: “Yes, you can assume that”.

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

I really don’t think that anyone here who believes that memory is “located” in an ISS will deny the reality of memory illnesses. Guys: do any of you deny the existence of memory illnesses?

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.

Inocente, I would be very surprised if someone found your response compelling. You seem to believe that you have explained elephant’s behaviors in terms of elementary particles by saying that elephants are made of elementary particles. How many papers would be necessary to explain, in terms of elementary particle properties, why cells die?

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.

You have good practice evading questions.

On my side, I am not afraid of saying openly that I cannot explain memory, nor reasoning, nor feeling, nor desire, etcetera. I just am aware that they are real and I am very interested on everything about them. The efforts to explain something consist in trying to reduce it to something else which is understood to be more basic. But the exposition of such efforts needs to follow the rigid norms of logic. It doesn’t matter if they aren’t very interesting. I was assuming that you considered logical (that is to say, “rigid”, “compelling”, “inevitable”, “rational”…) all what you have been saying here. But it is not, and you know it, right?

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?

I have no doubt that there have been important results in the study of brain; but it is an exaggeration to say that “there’s evidence that our brains are in part wired according to our individually unique histories”.

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.

Perhaps if you read Aristotle’s “On the soul” you might change your mind concerning your belief that there was never a rational case for ISS. On the other hand, if you are a materialistic monist you should think that history (and with it the historical fact that Christians believe in ISS) is simply the result of elemental particle interactions. If in a few generations this belief disappears it will be the results of those same elemental interactions. So, why should you worry?

 

[GEddie]

I’ve heard it said that if our minds were simple enough to be straightforwardly explained, they’d not have the power to do the explaining.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ichabode]

Many good post.

If you want to understand what is the soul/mind (spirit) then I suggest you read a good book on the subject. The two books I would recommend and in this order is “Theology for beginners” and “Theology and Sanity” both are by Frank Sheed. There are others and reference materials, but Frank Sheed was a beautiful way of taking the doctrinal and philosophical words and phrases and making them accessible and understandable.

Frank is a lot like Fulton Sheen or Steve Ray when it comes to explaining the faith, and you will happy you read his books listed above.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Since you have bee saving up your objections, I’ll answer this one first.

Nope, just not anxious or obsessed enough to look in on CAF everyday.
I have a life.

There is no evidence that the sensory centers retain this information for longer than milliseconds.

Not that you’ve really looked intently?
Apriori philosophers are not known to go searching for evidence that contradicts their opinions from my experience. And if it is thrust before them … well the evidence is always weak or hasn’t been peer-reviewed, or the definitions are wrong or can be interpreted in some unlikely way as to mean something else or etc etc.

Far more likely sense images are retained in an inexplicable, non-falsifiable spiritual substance of course .

Unsurprisingly you won’t answer a direct question that might mean you have to take an intellectual risk and commit to a definition - in this case memory.

Linus you might call such “discussions” as these philosophy - I am afraid I wouldn’t.
Just too disconnected and solipsistic for me despite noise and appearances to the contrary.

So I won’t be engaging with you much longer on this point I am afraid .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Although the first definition seems as though it is addressing the brain aspect of memory, talking about encoding, storage and retrieval, it is all about mind.

The brain is a physical entity; its constituent parts and processes are material in nature.

As an organism interacts with the physical universe, it undergoes changes that will result in alterations in its behaviour.
In the brain, what occur are changes between nerve cells by forming or breaking connections, and within cells, through processes that facilitate or inhibit communication with other cells.
There is no encoding, no storage and no retrieval at this “level” of human existence. From a modern science approach, there is simply chemical activity. Thinking about the brain as a part of a organism in the world, it can all be explained biophysiologically and in terms of physics: photons, vibrations in air, receptors cells, neurotransmitters, enzymes, glucose, oxygen etc.
All this material stuff going on has material causes and effects. There is no need to appeal to mind if one is looking at chemicals.
However, if one wants to make sense of it, to speak of memory for example, one must enter the domain of the mind.

The mind does not so much control the brain as it explains why the brain is behaving as it does.
And, the brain does not create the mind;.
It may be worthwhile to consider the brain as the mind’s physical manifestation, the mind the brain’s, mental dimension.

Nothing really heavy or pre-committed in my proffered definitions of memory.
One from the Oxford dictionary, the other from Wikpedia.

No point having heavy discussions on mind/brain and the place of memory if nobody can even agree on a definition .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Well that’s refreshing Linus, first time I have ever seen you publicly admit being wrong.
Mind you it took a lot of effort to get you to this point, you would have to admit, because you denied it ferociously for quite a while.

Sorry about that, but the alternative was for readers here to go away with a completely wrong view on Aquinas essentials.

You appear surprised that I agree with Aquinas on this point.
Well doing that has never actually been my point.
I am simply making sure his well known understanding and conclusions are correctly presented because the Church also holds them (though prudentially not infallibly you must understand) and so they are influential.

Lets keep in mind Aquinas certainly believed in “mind”. But he also gave much more weight to “brain” than many of today’s traditional Catholic philosophers give him credit for.

Yes I would agree with much of his conclusions regarding of memory and his views that some “cogitations” are held/done by corporeal organs … I am indifferent to how he reached these somewhat obvious conclusions.

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

I accept it partially. I believe it is an image, I do not believe it is material, and I do not believe it is the product of the material organ. An image is non-material, therefore it cannot be a product of a material organ.

Linus you are welcome to have your own phil of apprehension which is also bordering on your own nat philosophy if you really do hold to this distinction between material/immaterial.
But please refrain from resting it on the authority of Aristotle or Aquinas (or even the Church’s philosophy) or use any of their principles or key words (eg phantasm/soul) because the flaw in your understanding of them here is fairly invasive and corrupting of their aligned views.

Your intuitive model of the spiritual/material seems more pagan Celtic or Victorian “spiritualist” than Aquinas and I think it keeps causing you to hold/interpret his views awkwardly in this area it seems to me.

I really think you do agree with Aquinas’s theory of mind, you just need to sort your terminology out a bit so you can truly understand what he means wrt the sensible interior senses and the images they hold.

Quote: BH
This phantasm, being “material”, is a sensible image representing external individuated material forms.

It is not material, I don’t have a material tree in my mind.

And this is the point Linus. You do, yes you do according to Aquinas. Though you put it too crudely. Aquinas would say our mental consciousness is a two-fold operation (like body and soul). It is the spiritual concept (a universal like “tree nature”) that is in the mind…but this spiritual concept, in this life, MUST always be “bound” to a material example of that concept (a particular phantasm which is a mental image of a sensible example of tree-ness). That is why he goes on about the example of triangularity.

We cannot think of triangularity (a spiritual concept) without also having a mental image of some sort of real sensible example of a triangle at the same time on which to hang this spiritual universal concept (triangularity). This is the role of the phantasm. The phantasm is to concept as body is to soul. That is why Aquinas says the phantasm is “material/particular” and why a corporeal organ (brain) is enough to explain its cause.
The concept of triangularity is of course, being spiritual, “in” the intellect.

It doesn’t mean that a miniature tree is actually growing in your brain.
I cannot believe you can be so cras as to think Aristotle/Aquinas would be saying anything like that when they say the phantasm is “material”.
It could of course mean the phantasm is drawn from a memory which is semi-permanently “embedded” into a particular brain neuronal pattern of connections formed when we first saw a tree.

If you still disagree or don’t get it there is nothing more I can say to explain Aquinas to you on this point. You probably don’t care any longer anyway.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nope, just not anxious or obsessed enough to look in on CAF everyday.
I have a life.

Glad to hear it, I was beginning to worry .

Not that you’ve really looked intently?

What in the world are you talking about?

philosophers are not known to go searching for evidence that contradicts their opinions from my experience. And if it is thrust before them … well the evidence is always weak or hasn’t been peer-reviewed, or the definitions are wrong or can be interpreted in some unlikely way as to mean something else or etc etc.

Far more likely sense images are retained in an inexplicable, non-falsifiable spiritual substance of course

I have explained my reasons. No one has to accept them…

Unsurprisingly you won’t answer a direct question that might mean you have to take an intellectual risk and commit to a definition - in this case memory

What question about memory have I neglected to answer?.

Linus you might call such “discussions” as these philosophy - I am afraid I wouldn’t.
Just too disconnected and solipsistic for me despite noise and appearances to the contrary

Well, you are welcome to your opinions…

So I won’t be engaging with you much longer on this point I am afraid .

It is a free country, do as you like.

Linus2ndr

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well that’s refreshing Linus, first time I have ever seen you publicly admit being wrong.

Well, you just haven’t been paying attention.

Mind you it took a lot of effort to get you to this point, you would have to admit, because you denied it ferociously for quite a while.

That is just not true. I admitted it just as soon as Vico pointed out to me the pertinent passage.

Sorry about that, but the alternative was for readers here to go away with a completely wrong view on Aquinas essentials.

So glad we have you to look after us, to keep us on the straight and narrow.

You appear surprised that I agree with Aquinas on this point.

I’m surprised you agree with him about anything or that you care what anyone else thinks about him.

Well doing that has never actually been my point.

Yes i know, your whole point was to beat me over the head with the error I made. Bully for you.

I am simply making sure his well known understanding and conclusions are correctly presented because the Church also holds them (though prudentially not infallibly you must understand) and so they are influential.

Good grief, if Aristotle, Aquinas, the Arabs, etc. can error, I should be allowed to make a few. The Church has no views about Thomas’ human psychology or about his philosophy in general. It uses a certain type of reasoning to reach its teaching on the human soul, but it is based on Tradition, not philosophy…

Lets keep in mind Aquinas certainly believed in “mind”. But he also gave much more weight to “brain” than many of today’s traditional Catholic philosophers give him credit for.

I disagree, but you are welcome to your opinion.

Yes I would agree with much of his conclusions regarding of memory and his views that some “cogitations” are held/done by corporeal organs … I am indifferent to how he reached these somewhat obvious conclusions.

Seems contradictory to me, and I suspect you accept them because they agree with your preconceived notions based on modern brain research.

Linus you are welcome to have your own phil of apprehension which is also bordering on your own nat philosophy if you really do hold to this distinction between material/immaterial.

A thing cannot be both material and non-material at the same time, according to the principle of non-contradiction.

But please refrain from resting it on the authority of Aristotle or Aquinas (or even the Church’s philosophy) or use any of their principles or key words (eg phantasm/soul) because the flaw in your understanding of them here is fairly invasive and corrupting of their aligned views.

Phui!!!

Your intuitive model of the spiritual/material seems more pagan Celtic or Victorian “spiritualist” than Aquinas and I think it keeps causing you to hold/interpret his views awkwardly in this area it seems to me.

Phui!!

I really think you do agree with Aquinas’s theory of mind, you just need to sort your terminology out a bit so you can truly understand what he means wrt the sensible interior senses and the images they hold.

I understand what he is saying, his conclusion is wrong.

And this is the point Linus. You do, yes you do according to Aquinas. Though you put it too crudely. Aquinas would say our mental consciousness is a two-fold operation (like body and soul). It is the spiritual concept (a universal like “tree nature”) that is in the mind…but this spiritual concept, in this life, MUST always be “bound” to a material example of that concept (a particular phantasm which is a mental image of a sensible example of tree-ness). That is why he goes on about the example of triangularity.

Yes, and that representation of the material, external reality is not material, it is immaterial, in my opinion. My interpretation binds it to a singular, external reality in the same way, but it escapes being bound to activities the brain cannot do.

We cannot think of triangularity (a spiritual concept) without also having a mental image of some sort of real sensible example of a triangle at the same time on which to hang this spiritual universal concept (triangularity). This is the role of the phantasm. The phantasm is to concept as body is to soul. That is why Aquinas says the phantasm is “material/particular” and why a corporeal organ (brain) is enough to explain its cause.

And I say he is wrong.

The concept of triangularity is of course, being spiritual, “in” the intellect.

Agreed

It doesn’t mean that a miniature tree is actually growing in your brain.
I cannot believe you can be so cras as to think Aristotle/Aquinas would be saying anything like that when they say the phantasm is “material”

Obviously, that is why I said this whole operation takes place in the mind. Pleas refrain from name calling .
.

It could of course mean the phantasm is drawn from a memory which is semi-permanently “embedded” into a particular brain neuronal pattern of connections formed when we first saw a tree.

And these cannot produce an image.

If you still disagree or don’t get it there is nothing more I can say to explain Aquinas to you on this point. You probably don’t care any longer anyway.

Right, I have dismissed Thomas’ thinking on this particular point.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I think the imagery of a movie is over played and it there is certainly no proof that it is the brain which is making the movie. A better explaination is that the mind, being an intellectual substance, has the power to recognize the electrical impulses when correctly received by the brain. The good and gifted doctor discovered a way to by pass the injured eye so that the correct impulses would be received by the brain. The mind sees this and provides the intellect with a " movie. "

The NMS has been given the power to observe and translate these impulses, it does it by the powers which are naturally its own, given by God at its creation. The NMS does not evolve, it is created, immediately by God. This is evident from Scripture, and is a Dogma of the Catholic Church. So the NMS does not evolve.

That’s not an explanation, all you’ve done is take everything you can’t explain and put it in a magic homunculus, your NMS (non-material substance). Neither scripture nor the CCC mention your NMS.

There is no evidence that it is the brain which does the translation and that it makes the images. Yes, and my explanation does not violate the laws of nature. What the brain does effects the soul, alerts it, makes it act. The soul then acts. All perfectly natural. God created the soul, and though it is spirtual, it is a part of nature. When God created the soul, he gave it certain powers, it uses theses powers to govern everything man does, from walking, to digesting, to making sense of the data comeing to the senses from the outside world, to thinking and praying. Obviously I am not aware of my soul doing most of these things. I am not aware of my soul or intellect translating incoming data, of collating it, and of forming intelligible images. But I am aware that I see, hear, feel, taste, smell, and that is good enough for me.

If it doesn’t violate the laws of nature then there’s no reason why it can’t all be physical.

If digesting can only be governed by a spiritual soul/NMS, then no animal could govern its digestion without God giving it an NMS, requiring God to be involved in the birth of every ant, every bivalve mollusc, every housefly. This is the same God, who, according to your version of the unmoved mover, has to continuously sustain the motion of every particle in the entire universe from microsecond to microsecond.

You just keep piling on more jobs for God to do.

You do agree that we are aware that we see, hear, feel, taste, smell don’t you? Good, let me put the shoe on the other foor. How does the brain, a physical organ, make my soul, a spiritual entity, aware of all this?

No point asking me, you’re the one making God run round like a demented plate juggler having to give every bacterium an NMS before it can digest anything.

I don’t have the faintest idea where you get these ideas, it’s a riddle wrapped in a mystery bound up in an enigma.

Sorry, I thought I had explained. I have explained the best I can. First of all some of what I have said is purely my opinion, but I think it is justified. The main thing to keep in mind is that the brain is a physical organ, it is recording the outside world as a camera would, but it does not " develope the negatives, " indeed, one can ask whether or not there are any " negatives. " Where are they if they exist? And how does the brain play them back, if it does? Where is the "screen " on which the images are played? The fact is we are attributing to the brain things requiring intelligence, which means that the soul is the thing which is doing all that.

There is no screen, since if there was then a homunculus would be looking at it, and then there would be a screen inside his head with a smaller homunculus looking at it, in an infinite regress. That seems to be the basic issue here - you’ve made your NMS into a little version of you, which explains nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s not an explanation, all you’ve done is take everything you can’t explain and put it in a magic homunculus, your NMS (non-material substance). Neither scripture nor the CCC mention your NMS.

No more magical than what you suggest. The Catholic Church teaches that the NMS is based on the Tradition of the Revelation God has handed on through the history of his dealing with humanity before Christ and through Christ since his coming. That’s good enough for me. Thomas Aquinas then comes along and uses reason to prove the existence of the NMS.

If it doesn’t violate the laws of nature then there’s no reason why it can’t all be physical.

Because reason is opposed to it.

If digesting can only be governed by a spiritual soul/NMS, then no animal could govern its digestion without God giving it an NMS, requiring God to be involved in the birth of every ant, every bivalve mollusc, every housefly. This is the same God, who, according to your version of the unmoved mover, has to continuously sustain the motion of every particle in the entire universe from microsecond to microsecond.

Yes, every living thing has an immaterial soul, even every housefly. God governs all of creation. He rules by his Eternal unmoved will.

You just keep piling on more jobs for God to do.;

He has large shoulders, no problem.

No point asking me, you’re the one making God run round like a demented plate juggler having to give every bacterium an NMS before it can digest anything.

Very colorful. But you know he also governs through secondary causes. It is the nature of each bacterium, which God created, which causes it to act naturally in what it does.

I don’t have the faintest idea where you get these ideas, it’s a riddle wrapped in a mystery bound up in an enigma.

From the fertile minds of A & T and the teaching of Revelation and the Church.

There is no screen, since if there was then a homunculus would be looking at it, and then there would be a screen inside his head with a smaller homunculus looking at it, in an infinite regress. That seems to be the basic issue here - you’ve made your NMS into a little version of you, which explains nothing.

If there is no screen, then where does the " movie " play.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I really don’t think that anyone here who believes that memory is “located” in an ISS will deny the reality of memory illnesses. Guys: do any of you deny the existence of memory illnesses?

Linus says the ISS doesn’t break any laws of nature, you say the ISS can become ill. It might as well be physical then, since it brings nothing to the party.

Inocente, I would be very surprised if someone found your response compelling. You seem to believe that you have explained elephant’s behaviors in terms of elementary particles by saying that elephants are made of elementary particles. How many papers would be necessary to explain, in terms of elementary particle properties, why cells die?

No. The idea of emergence seems to be new to you, but is mainstream. If we lived in a world where new properties didn’t emerge at different levels of organization, there would be no need for any branch of science except physics.

You have good practice evading questions.

It’s a shame you keep making these personal attacks.

On my side, I am not afraid of saying openly that I cannot explain memory, nor reasoning, nor feeling, nor desire, etcetera. I just am aware that they are real and I am very interested on everything about them. The efforts to explain something consist in trying to reduce it to something else which is understood to be more basic. But the exposition of such efforts needs to follow the rigid norms of logic. It doesn’t matter if they aren’t very interesting. I was assuming that you considered logical (that is to say, “rigid”, “compelling”, “inevitable”, “rational”…) all what you have been saying here. But it is not, and you know it, right?

You made the claim that “to produce a determined output you need to provide a very specific (name removed by moderator)ut, or modify the arrangement”, and I asked “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 you’ve responded by saying you can’t.

Fair enough, but there was no need to slip back into your amateur psychoanalysis. Let’s try again to discuss the subject and not each other, please. You’ll know that there are physical causes for aggressive behavior of course. Yet another thing unexplained by ISS.

I have no doubt that there have been important results in the study of brain; but it is an exaggeration to say that “there’s evidence that our brains are in part wired according to our individually unique histories”.

scholar.google.es/scholar?hl=en&q=neuroplasticity&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Perhaps if you read Aristotle’s “On the soul” you might change your mind concerning your belief that there was never a rational case for ISS. On the other hand, if you are a materialistic monist you should think that history (and with it the historical fact that Christians believe in ISS) is simply the result of elemental particle interactions. If in a few generations this belief disappears it will be the results of those same elemental interactions. So, why should you worry?

I’m only shooting the breeze here. Your claim that nothing can possibly have any meaning unless we first believe in your immaterial spiritual substances is, how shall I put this, a bit on the weak side. Sure, there is a happy clappy Christianity, where there’s never any mention of illness or crime or suffering to spoil the constant feel-good mood in church on Sunday. Then there’s the real world.