What exactly is the soul?

[Richca]

That was funny. But I am not the one who brought up the idea of a movie, you did way back when we first started talking about this topic. I was responding to that. Of course there is no screen. There is, according to Thomas, an imagination or phantasm. I’m not sure I agree with that. And I certainly do not agree that the brain produces it. The mind itself, in my opinion, is perfectly capable of deciphering incoming electrical impulses and " seeing " or knowing the particular external reality sending the data, and of recognizing it as " this man, " " this tree, " etc.

Linus2nd

Just to clarify the teaching of St Thomas in which there seems to be some confusion and I’m not necessarily speaking of Linus. The imagination is a power of the soul which according to St Thomas who follows Aristotle uses a corporeal organ of the body in its act which corporeal organ may reside in the brain. The phantasm is a product of neither the soul’s interior sensitive powers alone or the body alone, but of the composite. So, St Thomas does not say that it is the corporeal organ alone that produces the phantasm, but a power or powers of the soul and the corporeal organ or organs. This is why science only sees electrical impulses and such, they are looking at the corporeal organ which is made out of matter, while the person sees the image because science does not see the soul or its powers.

The phantasm is immaterial in the sense that the stone is not in the soul but its image or likeness. But being that sensory knowledge is the act of a corporeal organ not excluding the soul of course for the soul animates the body, sensory knowledge including the phantasm have material conditions (our imagination can only have corporeal images) which means that sensory knowledge is about particulars since matter is the principle of individuation. Even the animals have particular sensory knowledge and imagination since their souls have the sensory powers which ours does too. But having a brain and sensory powers does not distinguish us from the brute animals. It is of course our spiritual powers of intellect and will that distinguishes our souls from the brute animals and by our intellect we have knowledge of universal concepts which the animals do not. Of course, no animal has the same kind of body we have either though there are some similarities such as among chimpanzees.

When St Thomas speaks of cognition, he may not be necessarily speaking of intellectual cognition which involves the act of the intellect and by which we have intellectual knowledge. In some places, he also speaks of sensory cognition (sensory knowledge is the lowest degree of knowledge encountered in the universe) which is an act of a sensory power of the soul (or sensory cognitive faculty, cf. ST. Pt.I, q.14, art.2, reply obj.1) and a corporeal organ which we have in common with some of the more perfect animals but which is more advanced in humans due to the intellect and will (cf. ST, Pt. I, Q. 85, art. 1, Aquinas says here that there are three grades of cognitive powers). Dogs know their masters right? The term “knowledge” or “cognition” is used equivocally here for sensory knowledge is not the same as intellectual knowledge.

A while back ago in a previous post, it was unclear to me whether, for example, the sensory memory images reside in the power of the soul, the corporeal organ, or possibly both. Some posters here have found quotes from St Thomas where he apparently says that the phantasms or sensible images reside in the corporeal organ. So, for me, this sort of clears up what St Thomas says about this. It should be noted though, the recall of such images is not done by the corporeal organ alone, but it is the composite, i.e., the soul and the body or corporeal organ that recalls the image.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Just to clarify the teaching of St Thomas in which there seems to be some confusion and I’m not necessarily speaking of Linus. The imagination is a power of the soul which according to St Thomas who follows Aristotle uses a corporeal organ of the body in its act which corporeal organ may reside in the brain. The phantasm is a product of neither the soul’s interior sensitive powers alone or the body alone, but of the composite. So, St Thomas does not say that it is the corporeal organ alone that produces the phantasm, but a power or powers of the soul and the corporeal organ or organs. This is why science only sees electrical impulses and such, they are looking at the corporeal organ which is made out of matter, while the person sees the image because science does not see the soul or its powers.

The phantasm is immaterial in the sense that the stone is not in the soul but its image or likeness. But being that sensory knowledge is the act of a corporeal organ not excluding the soul of course for the soul animates the body, sensory knowledge including the phantasm have material conditions (our imagination can only have corporeal images) which means that sensory knowledge is about particulars since matter is the principle of individuation. Even the animals have particular sensory knowledge and imagination since their souls have the sensory powers which ours does too. But having a brain and sensory powers does not distinguish us from the brute animals. It is of course our spiritual powers of intellect and will that distinguishes our souls from the brute animals and by our intellect we have knowledge of universal concepts which the animals do not. Of course, no animal has the same kind of body we have either though there are some similarities such as among chimpanzees.

When St Thomas speaks of cognition, he may not be necessarily speaking of intellectual cognition which involves the act of the intellect and by which we have intellectual knowledge. In some places, he also speaks of sensory cognition (sensory knowledge is the lowest degree of knowledge encountered in the universe) which is an act of a sensory power of the soul (or sensory cognitive faculty, cf. ST. Pt.I, q.14, art.2, reply obj.1) and a corporeal organ which we have in common with some of the more perfect animals but which is more advanced in humans due to the intellect and will (cf. ST, Pt. I, Q. 85, art. 1, Aquinas says here that there are three grades of cognitive powers). Dogs know their masters right? The term “knowledge” or “cognition” is used equivocally here for sensory knowledge is not the same as intellectual knowledge.

A while back ago in a previous post, it was unclear to me whether, for example, the sensory memory images reside in the power of the soul, the corporeal organ, or possibly both. Some posters here have found quotes from St Thomas where he apparently says that the phantasms or sensible images reside in the corporeal organ. So, for me, this sort of clears up what St Thomas says about this. It should be noted though, the recall of such images is not done by the corporeal organ alone, but it is the composite, i.e., the soul and the body or corporeal organ that recalls the image.

And I am saying that if this is what A & T say about imagination, etc., then they are wrong - for all the reasons I have given. A & T have made other errors, that does not mean they do not deserve our respect, it means we do not have to fear to disagree with them.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And you said “I really don’t think that anyone here who believes that memory is “located” in an ISS will deny the reality of memory illnesses”.

I never said that, one of the other posters must have. I do agree that when one is ill, aged, or injured, one’s memory may be impared to a lesser or greater degree. Whether or not that should be called an illness, I have no idea.

Which surely means that immaterial spiritual substances can become ill, otherwise you lost me.

I think we’re getting into the finer points of different philosophical positions here. In the context of this thread, all I mean is the following:

1. Take two hypotheses. H[sub]0[/sub], that oxygen can be explained in physical terms alone, and H[sub]1[/sub], that oxygen is an inexplicable immaterial substance.
2. Oxygen is made from components. But it can’t be found in any of the components. Worse, none of its properties can be found in its components.
3. Does that mean H[sub]0[/sub] is wrong and we must conclude that oxygen can only be explained as an inexplicable immaterial substance? No, of course not. It simply means that the physical components must be organized in a specific way, otherwise they’re just a jumble. I would say oxygen emerges from that specific organization.

Now, in the above, replace “oxygen” with “mind”, and “components” with “the wet stuff between our ears”. So H[sub]0[/sub] says that mind can be explained on the same basis as all other known phenomena. It’s an hypothesis so it might be wrong of course. But you guys are telling me don’t even bother, because you somehow know a priori that H[sub]1[/sub] is right, and the mind is an inexplicable immaterial substance.

Not sure why you think they are incompatible. The basic question is: were you born knowing the laws of identity, non-contradiction, etc., or did you learn them. Learning = neuroplasticity in action.

This sounds like the reductionist’s “pile of atoms” argument - that unless we believe in immaterial spiritual substances, all that’s left to believe in are piles of atoms. Thus supposedly the physicalist cannot love her baby son, because supposedly she can only see a pile of atoms.

Presumably, to the Cartesian dualist, in the absence of immaterial spiritual substances the son really is just a pile of atoms, and the dualist can’t grasp that the physicalist doesn’t see it that way, he’s her baby son who she loves, and to her love isn’t a pile of atoms either.

So I think that argument is really about a crossed-wire in the dualist’s immaterial spiritual substances . Apologies if that wasn’t your point, which it probably wasn’t but I’ve had a long day.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If there’s no mention of non-material then clearly your claim that the “Church teaches that the NMS…” is overcooked.

If you read the paragraphs of the CCC I referred to, you will see that what is called the NMS ( non-material substance ) is a justified appallation. There the soul is described as the " spiritual principle " of man to which it contrasts the body as " made of matter. " It is also called the principle of life for man. And of course he is a rational creature because he is made in the image of God.

I said you’ve provided no argument, you just keep asserting it, and you just made another assertion. If the NMS obeyed the laws of nature then its states and thoughts would be determined by the laws of nature and it would therefore be deterministic.

Man’s rationality is based on the fact that he can think and reason, that he can know universal ideas. Lumps of matter cannot think and reason even if living. Only man, among all living creatures of the world can do these things. This implies the existence of a something in man which is altogether different from the life principle in other creatures…

In nature there are material beings and spiritual beings ( man and angels ). As far as man’s body is concerned, he obeys the physical laws of nature. Man’s mind or intellect obeys the nature which God gave the soul. When man is thinking, reasoning, willing, he follows the law of his spiritual nature. In other things he follows the laws of the physical aspect of his nature.

You never asked.

O.K., now I am. How would you define the soul? Or perhaps you do not think man has one?

In post #512 you claimed that an NMS is created immediately by God, and that digestion can only be managed by an NMS. I pointed out that would mean God has to create immediately the NMS of every bacterium before it could digest. You then modified your claim to relieve God of the burden, by allowing Him to make digestion part of the nature of an NMS. As a consequence of your modified claim, God can always make everything part of the nature of an NMS and never has to run round creating them immediately.

I wasn’t redefining, " NMS " and " soul " are one in the same. The soul is the form of a living creature. The form and the matter of a creature are called its nature. This nature has certain powers by which the creature acts naturally, according to the kind of nature that it is. Vegetation has by nature the power to live, consume and use nutrition for its well being, to reproduce, and perhaps to respond to certain stumuli. And I am assuming that God creates these immaterial souls at conception just as he does for the soul of man.

I have no idea why you think God in his Providence created cholera NMS, meningitus NMS and tuberculosis NMS, and eagerly await the next modification to your claim.

I don’t think God creates diseases. According to Thomas and the Church every creature is created good. They teach that evil ( material and spiritual ) are caused by sin. First, that of our first parents, then our own. Some how nature revolted at sin. For God told Adam and Eve that now they would have to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow and their efforts would be made more difficult because of the presence of nettles, weeds, and thorns. " And all creation groans even to now. " And from then on the other animals would prove hostile to man.

Sure, but others question whether your authorities actually claim what you say those authorities claim, so I don’t know who to believe. In any event arguments from authority are usually fallacious since they are equivalent to “I claim that X is an authority, therefore X is correct”, which is just assertion by fiat.

Every one uses arguments based on authority. And I try to make it clear when I am just speaking of my own opinion.

Earlier in that post you said that Thomas is “all the proof I need”, now you say you’re not sure you agree with him. So once again you give me the impression that your beliefs on mind are not those of your authorities.

Yes, now I disagree with certain aspects of their teaching.

It’s good that you’ve discarded the screen, but you’ve given no reason to believe your opinion that a ‘brainless mind’ can have any capabilities at all.

The screen was never my invention, others used it or something similar. I merely asked where it was if they say there is one. The point being that the brain cannot cause images.

There’s an old cartoon with a man who has written out the steps of his complicated hypothesis on a blackboard, but right in the middle there’s a step which says “then a miracle occurs” (I’ve linked it below but am never sure if they’ll display). This, to me, is the NMS/ISS argument in a nutshell, it manages to say nothing in an exceptionally convoluted way, and is not even wrong.

Roger Ratcliff + Gail McKoon | Cognitive Psychology Laboratory
star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html

Cute but I am not inserting God anywhere without reason. Admittedly it is not an equation or a scientific proof. It is a philosophical explanation.

Linus2nd

 

[JuanFlorencio]

And you said “I really don’t think that anyone here who believes that memory is “located” in an ISS will deny the reality of memory illnesses”. Which surely means that immaterial spiritual substances can become ill, otherwise you lost me.

It means that those who believe that memory is located in an ISS will have a way to explain memory illnesses.

I think we’re getting into the finer points of different philosophical positions here. In the context of this thread, all I mean is the following:

1. Take two hypotheses. H[sub]0[/sub], that oxygen can be explained in physical terms alone, and H[sub]1[/sub], that oxygen is an inexplicable immaterial substance.
2. Oxygen is made from components. But it can’t be found in any of the components. Worse, none of its properties can be found in its components.
3. Does that mean H[sub]0[/sub] is wrong and we must conclude that oxygen can only be explained as an inexplicable immaterial substance? No, of course not. It simply means that the physical components must be organized in a specific way, otherwise they’re just a jumble. I would say oxygen emerges from that specific organization.

At any rate, I would put it this way:

1. Oxygen is a material substance.
2. It is assumed that oxygen is made up only of material components.
3. None of its properties can be found in its components.
4. Therefore, if 3 is true, then oxygen’s properties are not reducible to its components’ properties.
5. Therefore, oxygen’s properties are inexplicable in terms of its components’ properties.
6. Therefore, it is not true that oxygen is made up only of material components Or
7. Oxygen is an inexplicable material substance.

You would have to say that a miracle occurs, but you don’t like miracles; you will prefer to say then that the new properties emerge from where they were not. However, your “emergence” would be a miracle.

Now, in the above, replace “oxygen” with “mind”, and “components” with “the wet stuff between our ears”. So H[sub]0[/sub] says that mind can be explained on the same basis as all other known phenomena. It’s an hypothesis so it might be wrong of course. But you guys are telling me don’t even bother, because you somehow know a priori that H[sub]1[/sub] is right, and the mind is an inexplicable immaterial substance.

Before I do the replacement you are suggesting, you will need to repair your argument above. It doesn’t work.

Not sure why you think they are incompatible. The basic question is: were you born knowing the laws of identity, non-contradiction, etc., or did you learn them. Learning = neuroplasticity in action.

I have a more basic question: What does it mean that you learn logic?

This sounds like the reductionist’s “pile of atoms” argument - that unless we believe in immaterial spiritual substances, all that’s left to believe in are piles of atoms. Thus supposedly the physicalist cannot love her baby son, because supposedly she can only see a pile of atoms.

Presumably, to the Cartesian dualist, in the absence of immaterial spiritual substances the son really is just a pile of atoms, and the dualist can’t grasp that the physicalist doesn’t see it that way, he’s her baby son who she loves, and to her love isn’t a pile of atoms either.

So I think that argument is really about a crossed-wire in the dualist’s immaterial spiritual substances . Apologies if that wasn’t your point, which it probably wasn’t but I’ve had a long day.

You have said you are a monist, and that mind emerges from matter. I have inferred from that that you are a materialist. Are you not?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Quote:
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.

Linus below I was saying your intellectual arguments re materiality of Aquinas’s phantasm are somewhat cras, not you personally.
Loving you doesn’t mean we have to love your dog .
We’ve had this conversation before about not taking rebuff of your “reasons” as personal rebuffs…

Wrt above, the problem is you seem to find analogical use of words destabilising of your logic. So instead of realising that “material” may be being used in different ways in different sentences or context you say the logic is faulty .

You must hate poetry or other ambiguous arts then?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Excise the tissue from that brain so that the particular neuronal pattern of connections is maintained.
Place the collection of cells in a chamber with a oxygenated fluid to keep them viable.
Use a small current to stimulate the cells, producing a pattern of neuronal communication.
While in a living person there may be an image, there will be no such phenomenon in vitro.
The image is an aspect of the person in the world.
If one is to explain how the image is produced, clearly an appeal to matter is insufficient.

I am not sure what this is about?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Taking a wad of neurons out of a head cannot produce the image in vitro because the rest of the mind is not there to see the image, whether it forms or not.

ICXC NIKA

Is that what Al was on about?
Pretty obvious I would have thought too.

I don’t see why the ISS guys have a problem with the brain (memory or even imagination)possibly being able to do exactly what the senses do temporarily…

Namely the senses via their impressions and the unifying “common sense” eventually present a single, unified and fleeting representation to the mind which “spiritualises” it (we may differ on what “spiritualises” means but that prob makes no diff at this stage).

Surely brain matter (eg imagination) is therefore potentially able to do the same as the interior “common sense” (but without need of external senses) in a fleeting manner too?

And if that is possible then we seem to have the same as what Aquinas means by a “phantasm”. i.e. the same result as a the “common sense” impression but without the need for the external senses.

And if it can … why is it such a leap to say that brain matter can not only present a fleeting, interior “common sense” impression to the mind (without engagement of the external senses) … but the brain can also keep “looping” such interior impressions as well and so reflect on its storehouse of them at will?

Isn’t this exactly what a sensible memory would be - an interior, continuously looping “sense impression” which arises only once from the external senses and is held continuously in brain matter.

Why is it it so hard to assign this activity to a corporeal organ in the “brain” which might be called “sensible memory”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

O.K. but I think that is wrong. The way I look at it is that animals, plants have souls suited to their natures. Since they are immaterial souls, they are just as spiritual in form as mine, except they may not be immortal. But there is no teaching on that. I prefer to think they are immortal and that God will give them a natural after life, where they will suffer no pain and be happy forever. Why not?

Linus2nd .

Linus your flawed view of materiality is leading you to disagree more and more with standard Catholic teaching both philosophic and theologic.

Aristotle clearly taught that the souls of deceased organisms are a non-issue.
What is no longer “animated” no longer needs a principle to explain them.
He did not differentiate between animal and human souls when it came to death.
(Though some Christian philosophers would like to interpret his ambiguous texts otherwise).

Aquinas did distinguish between animals and humans in his philosophy, based on the necessity (in his mind at least) of the intellectual human soul being a spiritual substance.

(That is why some commentators say the souls of animals are “material” while those of humans is “spiritual”. I have never understood that strange terminology until now.)

But Linus has now blurred that line by saying animal souls are just as immortal as humans simply because they have souls not because they have intellectual souls.

This is new.
Aquinas argued, I believe, that we know human souls are immaterial substances (and hence immortal) only because they exhibit acts of intellect.

Now Linus, if you posit that animals are immortal then you must posit this as well (at least if you are to be consistent with Aquinas on this point).

If you do not, which seems likely, on what basis do you regard animal souls as immortal?
It seems to be simply because they are “immaterial” (ie spiritual) souls.

If this is so then we have completely parted company with Aristotle’s “soul” and Aquinas’s as well.

And how is one then to interpret Genesis where only man is made in God’s image and likeness by means of a substantial spirit being breathed into our natures?

For it seems God has breathed substantial spirit into animals as well if their souls are immortal.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Just to clarify the teaching of St Thomas in which there seems to be some confusion and I’m not necessarily speaking of Linus. The imagination is a power of the soul which according to St Thomas who follows Aristotle uses a corporeal organ of the body in its act which corporeal organ may reside in the brain. The phantasm is a product of neither the soul’s interior sensitive powers alone or the body alone, but of the composite. So, St Thomas does not say that it is the corporeal organ alone that produces the phantasm, but a power or powers of the soul and the corporeal organ or organs. This is why science only sees electrical impulses and such, they are looking at the corporeal organ which is made out of matter, while the person sees the image because science does not see the soul or its powers.

The phantasm is immaterial in the sense that the stone is not in the soul but its image or likeness. But being that sensory knowledge is the act of a corporeal organ not excluding the soul of course for the soul animates the body, sensory knowledge including the phantasm have material conditions (our imagination can only have corporeal images) which means that sensory knowledge is about particulars since matter is the principle of individuation. Even the animals have particular sensory knowledge and imagination since their souls have the sensory powers which ours does too. But having a brain and sensory powers does not distinguish us from the brute animals. It is of course our spiritual powers of intellect and will that distinguishes our souls from the brute animals and by our intellect we have knowledge of universal concepts which the animals do not. Of course, no animal has the same kind of body we have either though there are some similarities such as among chimpanzees.

When St Thomas speaks of cognition, he may not be necessarily speaking of intellectual cognition which involves the act of the intellect and by which we have intellectual knowledge. In some places, he also speaks of sensory cognition (sensory knowledge is the lowest degree of knowledge encountered in the universe) which is an act of a sensory power of the soul (or sensory cognitive faculty, cf. ST. Pt.I, q.14, art.2, reply obj.1) and a corporeal organ which we have in common with some of the more perfect animals but which is more advanced in humans due to the intellect and will (cf. ST, Pt. I, Q. 85, art. 1, Aquinas says here that there are three grades of cognitive powers). Dogs know their masters right? The term “knowledge” or “cognition” is used equivocally here for sensory knowledge is not the same as intellectual knowledge.

A while back ago in a previous post, it was unclear to me whether, for example, the sensory memory images reside in the power of the soul, the corporeal organ, or possibly both. Some posters here have found quotes from St Thomas where he apparently says that the phantasms or sensible images reside in the corporeal organ. So, for me, this sort of clears up what St Thomas says about this. It should be noted though, the recall of such images is not done by the corporeal organ alone, but it is the composite, i.e., the soul and the body or corporeal organ that recalls the image.

Well put I think Richca.
Though I am not quite so sure wrt the phantasm needing mind to exist in its own right in both imagination and memory. It may require the mind for “retrieval” of memories and imaginations though these do seem to be spontaneous at times due to the body alone “compelling” the mind.
Then again, if phantasm and active intellect are like body and soul you cannot really have one without the other. Nevertheless phantasms are still generated and held in the body regardless.

I am unclear as to whether Aquinas has clearly stated that animals have phantasms.
The thrust of his principles of apprehension would suggest they do (at least the higher ones with the required sophisticated brains anyhow).

The point is though that Aquinas’s philosophy provides no apriori reason why an animal soul alone is not capable of forming in matter the organs required to match the interior senses of man.

I accept that Aquinas states that mans corporeal, interior sensible faculties are more sophisticated than those of animals - but that is only an indirect result of having a more powerful intellectual soul. The difference appears only quantative not qualitative wrt the interior sensitive faculties of animals.

Therefore there seems no apriori reason at all why higher primates may not actually have interior images of sensible reality on a par with human “phantasms” and even possess the lower levels of “cogitation” (no universals) even without intellectual souls.

Aquinas’s philosophy of apprehension shows that the sensitive, non-intellectual functions of the human soul ((ie qualitatively the same function as in animals though obviously quantitatively different) can realise very high functioning in brain matter alone before the “mind” needs to be invoked.

Personally I believe “universals” signifying the dividing line between animal and man is flawed - just as was the use of tools and language.

But that is another discussion.

At least sensible memory and imagination can be explained by “brain” (supported by the soul’s “animal” or sensitive functionality alone) and if that is so Ochkam’s razor would say that is, philosophically, the best model to go with until proved otherwise.

 

[Richca]

Aristotle clearly taught that the souls of deceased organisms are a non-issue.
What is no longer “animated” no longer needs a principle to explain them.
He did not differentiate between animal and human souls when it came to death.
(Though some Christian philosophers would like to interpret his ambiguous texts otherwise).

 

[Aloysium]

Is that what Al was on about?
Pretty obvious I would have thought too. . . Surely brain matter (eg imagination) is therefore potentially able to do the same as the interior “common sense” (but without need of external senses) in a fleeting manner too . . .

I am glad to be stating the obvious about what is obvious. Especially when what is being otherwise presented are a contorted mishmash of obfuscation and pretension. What you wrote makes no sense at all. If you focussed less on criticizing others and tried to clarify your understanding and writing, you might begin to make some sense. I am taking it out of context and thereby accentuating the matter, but what does this mean!!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus below I was saying your intellectual arguments re materiality of Aquinas’s phantasm are somewhat cras, not you personally.
Loving you doesn’t mean we have to love your dog .
We’ve had this conversation before about not taking rebuff of your “reasons” as personal rebuffs…

Wrt above, the problem is you seem to find analogical use of words destabilising of your logic. So instead of realising that “material” may be being used in different ways in different sentences or context you say the logic is faulty .

You must hate poetry or other ambiguous arts then?

The trick is to disagree without being disagrable.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus your flawed view of materiality is leading you to disagree more and more with standard Catholic teaching both philosophic and theologic.

Aristotle clearly taught that the souls of deceased organisms are a non-issue.
What is no longer “animated” no longer needs a principle to explain them.
He did not differentiate between animal and human souls when it came to death.
(Though some Christian philosophers would like to interpret his ambiguous texts otherwise).

I never said I agreed with Aristotle on the souls of non-human beings. And I said I disagreed with Thomas.

Aquinas did distinguish between animals and humans in his philosophy, based on the necessity (in his mind at least) of the intellectual human soul being a spiritual substance.

This issue is off topic. But I think Thomas is wrong. He says that vegetative and sentient souls are immaterial ( spiritual substances ) since they are the principle of life in these living substances and the principle of their activities. An immaterial substance, by that fact is not subject to corruption because it has no material parts which can be corrupted. Therefore, I see no reason to say that they cease to exist when their material bodies die.

(That is why some commentators say the souls of animals are “material” while those of humans is “spiritual”. I have never understood that strange terminology until now.)

Yes, but they clearly are not material and if spiritual, then they are incorruptible - in my view.

But Linus has now blurred that line by saying animal souls are just as immortal as humans simply because they have souls not because they have intellectual souls.

This is new

I don’t think it is new, but it is non-Aristotelian, non-Thomistic. I think the difference is that the intellectual soul is destined for eternity in heaven or hell whereas the non-rational soul is destined to an eternity of natural bliss on the new earth. And why not, they served God well in this life and pleased him by their service.
.

Aquinas argued, I believe, that we know human souls are immaterial substances (and hence immortal) only because they exhibit acts of intellect.

Yes.

Now Linus, if you posit that animals are immortal then you must posit this as well (at least if you are to be consistent with Aquinas on this point).

Yes, I disagree with Thomas as I explained above.

If you do not, which seems likely, on what basis do you regard animal souls as immortal?
It seems to be simply because they are “immaterial” (ie spiritual) souls.

If this is so then we have completely parted company with Aristotle’s “soul” and Aquinas’s as well.

Only in the way I have described above.

And how is one then to interpret Genesis where only man is made in God’s image and likeness by means of a substantial spirit being breathed into our natures?

Yes, man was created with an intellect and a free will. Non-intellectual creatures were not, so they would have a different eternal destiny.

For it seems God has breathed substantial spirit into animals as well if their souls are immortal.

I think the language of Genesis illustrates the special status of the human soul. This does not mean that God " breathed life " into animals. However God did it, he did not place any emphasis on their life. But he certainly regarded them more highly than inanimate beings.

P.S. Re-your comment to Al. Brain matter is not imagination, nor is it a phantasm. That is the reason I disagree with A & T on this important point. Further. Man has no sentient soul, which both these worthy gentlemen refer to. Man has only one soul, the intellectual soul. Therefore it does all the things common to sentient soul and the vegetative soul. The greater soul does the work of all three.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

I came across an article that I thought would be interesting to this post, and why we need to sharpen our minds in order to handle the future problems that are arising.

It called “Mind Transfer” It’s a new movie “Self/less” about a dying man who pays to have his consciousness transferred to a new body, only to discover that it belonged to an Iraq war veteran, whose memories are mixed with his own. Which is less crazy than it sounds. the idea of transferring consciousness has intrigued scientists for generations, and it may not be science fiction much longer (quote Tim Greirson)

Listen to his take: It’s definitely going to take a lot of neuroscientists and computer science to do says Anders Sandberg of the Future of Humanity Institute at the Univerity of Oxford. “But from our prespective, it’s not that crazy”. How would that work: It helps to think of a person’s soul as a collection of info, Sandbergs says. The challenge is that our brains aren’t as organized as computers. “By the midcentury we may have a way to copy information from our brains but putting it into a biological is going to be pretty tough. In a computer, you would store data according as it arrives. In the brain, it’s kind of mixed up.”

Memories are created by neurons, and those are connected by synapses. But memories move after they are formed. As we sleep, events from the day shift to long term memory. Retrieving them, or even tracking them down will prove far trickier than simply double- clicking on a file name. Sergio Canavero, director of the Turin Avanced Neuomodulation Group in Italy, plans to conduct a human head transplant in late 20l7. He already has a patient: Valery Spiridonov, a 30 year old Russian who has Werdnig-Hoffmann disease, a debilitating spinal condition that confined him to a wheel chair. (continued next post)

 

[ynotzap]

continuation: The procedure he believes will take 36 hours to complete. He will fuse Spiridonov’s spinal cord to the spinal cord of a donor’s body. Many in his field and the world in general find the proposed surgery horrifying, Canavero remains unfazed.
Canavero acknowledges that, as in Self/Less, some crossover between the new consciousness and the old will occur. “The brain filters consciousness, but it also interacts with other parts of the body,” he says, citing research that suggests the memories and other behavioral programs could also be located in the heart and the microbiome. " So there will be an interaction in the new body," he says. There is no question about it. there will be interference. He believes that new consciousness will be able to sift through unwanted memories. “The self who you believe you are can easily adjust, is very flexible.” According to Canavero, it will require a world power like China or thle U.S. to decide that this type of procedure is a priority, he compares it to the space race, and himself to JFK. As for the risks: "You have to concider that I am a scientist. I am curious. I have anwers, I am on a quest for “This is going to be huge.” Especially if it works.

My opinion: Canavero, an Italian better talk to another Italian, named St. Thomas Aquinas, and pray that China and the U.S treats it for what it is “Science fiction” Poor Valery Spiridonov, he needs our prayers as well as Canavero.

 

[ynotzap]

I came across an article that I thought would be interesting to this post, and why we need to sharpen our minds in order to handle the future problems that are arising.

It called “Mind Transfer” It’s a new movie “Self/less” about a dying man who pays to have his consciousness transferred to a new body, only to discover that it belonged to an Iraq war veteran, whose memories are mixed with his own. Which is less crazy than it sounds. the idea of transferring consciousness has intrigued scientists for generations, and it may not be science fiction much longer (quote Tim Greirson)

Listen to his take: It’s definitely going to take a lot of neuroscientists and computer science to do says Anders Sandberg of the Future of Humanity Institute at the Univerity of Oxford. “But from our prespective, it’s not that crazy”. How would that work: It helps to think of a person’s soul as a collection of info, Sandbergs says. The challenge is that our brains aren’t as organized as computers. “By the midcentury we may have a way to copy information from our brains but putting it into a biological is going to be pretty tough. In a computer, you would store data according as it arrives. In the brain, it’s kind of mixed up.”

Memories are created by neurons, and those are connected by synapses. But memories move after they are formed. As we sleep, events from the day shift to long term memory. Retrieving them, or even tracking them down will prove far trickier than simply double- clicking on a file name. Sergio Canavero, director of the Turin Avanced Neuomodulation Group in Italy, plans to conduct a human head transplant in late 20l7. He already has a patient: Valery Spiridonov, a 30 year old Russian who has Werdnig-Hoffmann disease, a debilitating spinal condition that confined him to a wheel chair. (continued next post)

correction: put into a biological brain…

 

[GEddie]

Head (actually body) transplantation is a whole new issue, one that I don’t think will happen, certainly not in 2017.

We can’t heal people with broken necks, or repair concussion injury, or even transplant lower limbs; and some Russians say they are going to reattach an entire neck so as to give someone a “new body”?

Methinks this poor fellow is SOL, sorry out of luck.

Until it in fact does happen, there is no reason to try to puzzle out any implications concerning the human soul. IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Aquinas thinks that Aristotle taught that the intellectual soul in humans is incorruptible. In your comment “though some christian philosophers would like to interpret his ambiguous texts otherwise,” you may be thinking of Aquinas here and possibly others. Aquinas, though, in my opinion, is the best interpreter and commentator of Aristotle we have. Aristotle did not outright say as some commentators would like to think he did, that the intellectual power in human souls perishes at death unlike the souls of animals which do not have intellect. Aristotle also taught that the intellect in man is immaterial and that it does not use a corporeal organ of the body in its operation in which case the corruption of the body does not necessitate the corruption of the intellect. This is probably why Aristotle did not hold that the intellectual power in humans perishes at death. Consequently, Aristotle does differentiate between animal and human souls when it comes to death.

There’s probably not much more that can be said re the authority of Aristotle on this one as there are two well established and opposed schools of Aristotelian “disciples” on this point.

Being “not wrong” doesn’t actually make one correct. In this case it simply means we will never know. However it does seem strange that Aristotle would not have more clearly enunciated such a stupendous, purely philosophic discovery (well before immortality of the human spirit was mainstream in Judaism or Christianity).

As for Aquinas/Scholastics/Christians being the best interpreter of Aristotle…hmmmn.
I don’t mean he wasn’t, but who exactly is the all knowing judge to decide on this matter when there is divergence amongst his followers? Muslim commentators twist the fine/ambiguous points to suit Muslim theology, Christians to suit Christian teaching and Atheists to suit atheist beliefs. If they are each internally consistent who is the arbiter to say the best rep of each is right or wrong on points Aristotle was never clear on to start with .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The trick is to disagree without being disagrable.

Linus2nd

Perhaps the even more spiritually mature “trick” is to resist subjective paranoia in one-self and assume good faith in the other party especially when they are polite enough on other occasions.

As the Buddhist saying goes, “Its easier to wear shoes than carpet the world in leather.”

But I am intrigued Linus, do you actually like poetry or anything with ambiguity?
Personally as I get older I find philosophy is more inexact art than accurate science.
Words keep getting in the way of ideas .