What exactly is the soul?

[Richca]

Soul in Aristotle is much broader than Christians make it.
Aristotle believed in some forms of “inanimate” matter having a soul - though he did not care to write much on such things because he explicitly only chose to investigate things with perishable souls

 

[Richca]

What about the way in which the four forces (magnetism, charge, gravity etc) cause effects over an empty distance?
What about the higgs field?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . **All forms even the simplest are immaterial. The elemental substances are composed of form and matter. Even these inanimate substances are composed of immaterial substantial and accidental forms. But these forms do not exist without matter as matter itself does not exist without form. **The elemental substances are the lowest grade of beings. Next we have animate substances such as plants, animals, and humans; these are living or have life properly so-called. The substantial forms of animate substances are souls. Inanimate substances do not have souls. The souls of plants and animals are not spiritual souls for a spiritual soul is one that has intelligence and will. The substantial forms of the elements, plants, and animals are called material forms because they are wholly tied to matter; they cannot subsist apart from matter. The human soul being spiritual with the spiritual powers of intellect and will can subsist apart from the body which it obviously does according to the catholic faith and divine revelation.

Thanks for “clarifying” the matter. (pun intended)
I will have to go through it a few hundred times.
Right now, I have not the slightest idea what it means.
Unless there is an actual problem with what you wrote, you don’t heve to clarify it further; the problem is with me.

 

[Richca]

What I understand as matter appears to be quite different from what you (and those philosophers) conceive. Matter is what happens in the world as pereived by the senses and their extensions. It is the physical laws in practice - subatomic interactions, electrochemical forces, gravity, mass/energy and stuff as they are manifested in the transformations that we see and can control. That’s how I understand it. It is the reality that is illuminated using the scientific method, basically.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

(a) If this highly micro-managing soul is allegedly in every part of the body - why a central nervous system for ducting sense info to the brain? Double redundancy like in aeroplanes?

Because that is the way God wanted it.

(b) If the sensible impressions from the body are passed unchanged to the brain - why are the “sense centres” so complicated. Why does the mind need them if the mind weaves all these rather simple sense impressions (which easily pass up the neck in the sense nerve fibres) into its own “image”

According to scientists who deal with the eye, these impressions are far from simple - all colors and shading, depth, intinsity, etc. That’s the way God wanted it. " ,into its own image…" ???.

This seems fairly clear evidence that corporeal organs are indeed doing a lot of work on the sensible impressions before the mind even accesses the data.

Yes

It looks to me like the brain is forming the “image” of sensible particular external things.
Of course this representation its going to be something of a different order from multiple sense impressions…ah yes, its called a phantasm.

I don’t think the brain can make an image, even a " blurred " one. I certainly am not aware of it in my own brain, or mind for that matter. I can call up an image of a triangle. But I don’t think that is the phantasm A & T talk about and I think it is my mind that calls up this image of a triangle…

(c) Why cannot a phantasm represent sensible reality in a sensible, malleable interior organ by an accidental change of that organ - ready for the light of the active intellect to shine upon it?

Yes, it is the active intellect, in my opinion, which grabs the data and produces the phantasm.

Yes, that would mean that the phantasm was “value added”, not just raw “data” but “information” as IT theory would say. A form of abstraction perhaps (OK call it cogitation or even aestimation, it need not be universalising).

Correct, the intellect abstracts ( grabs ) the data and produces the phantasm - in my opinion…

Linus2nd

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What is God for you, Inocente? and what is matter?

Saying that you can’t yourself make an analysis doesn’t seem a sufficient reason to make a claim. I mean it’s hard to see daylight between “I don’t know how the mind works so it must be an undetectable immaterial substance” and “I don’t know how the sun works so it must be an invisible undetectable sun god” or “I don’t know how metabolism works so God must breath vital force into every individual organism at conception” D).

Of course you and me can write pretentious and dogmatic statements; but I prefer to avoid it as much as it is possible to me. I was describing what I usually do. I am quite aware of my fallibility, and it is what I express when I say: “If I say that certain actions of ours are inexplicable in terms of material elements, it will mean that I cannot do the reduction responsibly”. If someone else offers another approach which contradicts mine and it seems more promising, I am willing to examine it and take advantage of it if I find that it has enough support (and please notice that “enough” will always mean “enough to me”). Such behavior is similar to the proposal of a working hypothesis which has been established responsibly and could be discarded afterwards, if it is proven wrong.

There’s no need to fix that a priori though. The only principle required is that all phenomena are explicable. Then as a working hypothesis, as an informed guess, we assume that phenomena can be explained from the physical world alone. Our guess may one day be proved wrong, but in the mean time it enables progress, unlike the alternatives.

First, you are using now the term “principle” in a different sense. Instead of meaning “that which other things can be reduced to”, it means a fundamental and dogmatic belief to guide your research activities.

Second, your dogmatic belief (or “guess”, as you call it) can be proven wrong only if you abandon dogmatism.

Third, what do you mean with the term “explicable”? Is it synonymous of “describable”?).

Fourth: we can resort on as many principles as we think are necessary.

In the gas phase, molecules have enough kinetic energy to overcome intermolecular forces, enabling them to move independently.

The kinetic energy depends on the mass of the molecules - lighter molecules move faster at a given temperature. That in turn depends on the mass of the atoms and how many atoms bond to form each molecule, which in turn depends on the electromagnetic forces between them and the structure of each atom.

Similarly the intermolecular forces depend on the geometry on the molecules, which in turn depends on how the atoms bond, etc.

PS I think that’s right but am not a chemist.
PPS I can’t help what conclusions certain posters jump to about other posters .

Yes, you can’t avoid interpretations. Once you write something it remains there and it becomes independent of you to be interpreted. Sometimes it even becomes against you; but you are innocent.

No problem, you are not a chemist; it is understandable that you don’t know how to explain that oxygen is a gas at Normal conditions of pressure and temperature in terms of its organization. In fact, I doubt any chemist can: that is not their business. But in the beginning, as you wrote with such self assurance, I thought you knew a secret that would make you able to do it. Is there anything at all whose properties you can explain in terms of its organization (I need to stress that to say “…and it finally depends on its organization” does not constitute an explanation).

I think there are perhaps three things going on. The first is that we are all born with some things pre-programmed, such as responding to our senses and an ability to pick up language. The second is there is some genetic variation, for instance raw intelligence.

The third is that we learn differently. For instance…

Suppose we have…

Well, considering that “to learn” seems to mean for you the formation of certain brain structures, I had assumed already (and of course you are not to be blamed for my interpretation) that for you we learn even before we are born; in other words, that our brain develops quite a lot while we are in our mother’s womb.

Second, do you think that genetic variations affect logic in such a way that there are many different logics? I did not understand your observation.

Third, if you are right, to learn differently would effectively mean that different brain structures are formed in different individuals which provide the same outputs given the same (name removed by moderator)uts. You have to acknowledge that there are some individuals who are able to follow many different procedures when faced to a problem. Perhaps you are one of them, who knows. This might mean that they have several different brain structures which process the same (name removed by moderator)uts to provide the same output. Also, they are able to compare those different procedures, which might mean they have at least another brain structure (or many, you must know), which somehow comprehends the others (a kind of structure of structures) so that a given process in any of the basic structures (the resolution of a problem) is at the same time a different process in the superstructure (the evaluation of the basic structure’s performance, for example). We could imagine nests of structures of structures of structures of…, which could allow us to hypothesize that one physical process is in reality many different processes…

Again, is this how you think?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

(a) If this highly micro-managing soul is allegedly in every part of the body - why a central nervous system for ducting sense info to the brain? Double redundancy like in aeroplanes?

Because that is the way God wanted it.

(b) If the sensible impressions from the body are passed unchanged to the brain - why are the “sense centres” so complicated. Why does the mind need them if the mind weaves all these rather simple sense impressions (which easily pass up the neck in the sense nerve fibres) into its own “image”

According to scientists who deal with the eye, these impressions are far from simple - all colors and shading, depth, intinsity, etc. That’s the way God wanted it. " ,into its own image…" ???.

This seems fairly clear evidence that corporeal organs are indeed doing a lot of work on the sensible impressions before the mind even accesses the data.

Yes

It looks to me like the brain is forming the “image” of sensible particular external things.
Of course this representation its going to be something of a different order from multiple sense impressions…ah yes, its called a phantasm.

I don’t think the brain can make an image, even a " blurred " one. I certainly am not aware of it in my own brain, or mind for that matter. I can call up an image of a triangle. But I don’t think that is the phantasm A & T talk about and I think it is my mind that calls up this image of a triangle…

(c) Why cannot a phantasm represent sensible reality in a sensible, malleable interior organ by an accidental change of that organ - ready for the light of the active intellect to shine upon it?

Yes, that would mean that the phantasm was “value added”, not just raw “data” but “information” as IT theory would say. A form of abstraction perhaps (OK call it cogitation or even aestimation, it need not be universalising).

Correct, the intellect abstracts ( grabs ) the data and produces the phantasm - in my opinion…

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;13086373:

Soul in Aristotle is much broader than Christians make it.
Aristotle believed in some forms of “inanimate” matter having a soul - though he did not care to write much on such things because he explicitly only chose to investigate things with perishable souls

Strangely he assigned immortality only to these mineral souls (the celestial bodies) … it is not clear why, probably because they were only composed of the fifth material element (aether).

These souls were not necessarily “personal beings” - he would see them more like “intelligent” impersonal calculators or clocks I suspect.

Linus also interesting, wrt your difficulties over the meaning of material and immaterial and spiritual, is that some commentators see Aristotle speaking of two types of aether.

There is sensible aethar (the celestial bodies) and insensible aether (what fills the celestial spheres and also makes its invisible crystalline surface). This explains the circular motion, the natural habit, of the visible celestial bodies…they float in an insensible “liquid” aether like a bubble in a spirit level…rolling under the outer edge of the invisible, insensible “crystal” shell.

Which raises a question for you…is insensible aether material or immaterial?
It would have to be immaterial …yet still not “spiritual” (like the First Cause).
So immaterial and spiritual may not be the sane at all…

What about the way in which the four forces (magnetism, charge, gravity etc) cause effects over an empty distance?
What about the higgs field?

On what basis would you say the “animal soul” (let alone the human soul) is of a different “immaterial” order. Or are they?

To make a long story short, when I speak of soul I mean a principle of life, which is a composite of a living being like a flower, a frog, or a man. What differentiates them is that the first two are non- intellectual, while the latter is intellectual. And only the latter is destined for a supernatural after life.

As far as aether, forces, gravity, etc are concerned, if they are real and if they can only be deduced, as opposed to measured and detected, then I think we are dealing the application power by some supernatural being. Although, it does seem we can cross off aether.

I can’t account for the views of A & T on Celestial Spheres and " eternal " motions and their " souls " except to say that even they should have seen how fare fetched such notions were…

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;13086837:

I disagree.
To transfer “explanation” to an occult, opaque and essentially unobservable, insensible substantial cause is a last resort to preserve the law of causality when there is absolutely no evidence of a material causal mechanism.

What is being objected to?. Please use straight forward language. And who are you talking to?

This is why Aristotle and Aquinas both erroneously attributed the efficient causal locomotion of the celestial bodies, ultimately, to an insensible principle (soul, intelligence, angel, God take your choice). They were wrong, the efficient cause was indeed material - other material celestial bodies.

Gee Whiz! What has that got to do with the nature of a soul? Anyway, there is always an efficient cause for motion. If we eliminate the celestail spheres and the eternal motions of the heavenly bodies, then God is the efficeint cause of motion because he always was the First Effecient Cause. .

Sure, in the past it be a good explanation because people were already superstitious and religious.

The argument does not depend on A & T’s concept of the efficient causality of the heavenly spheres or their " souls. ". God was always the ultiamte First Efficient Cause.

However I believe the link was a confusion of different orders of “immaterial” reality.

What link are you talking about?

Which is exactly what you are doing here Linus.

Phui !

There is every evidence, by reason of the extremely complex makeup of the brain, that matter is indeed “processing” raw sense impressions much more than you give matter credit for.

I have seen nothing convincing.

Therfore there is no convincing reason for your celerity in jumping to occult “spiritual causes”…which seem really over micro-managing of every effect in the body beyond sensible impressions.

So you are picking up Inocent’s view that the soul is an " occult " spiritual cause. According to A & T, the soul is the cause of all the body’s actions.

There is a sense in which matter can simulate “spiritual causality” but is in fact is mundane “immaterial” material causality - such is the “immateriality” of gravity which the ancients never recognised. I do not say there is some such force in the brain. But “representations” or symbols serve can serve this purpose - mathematical algorithms, boolean logic, comparisions etc are in a sense “immaterial” yet can be symbolised in matter and so process raw data. Even Aquinas says similar and calls this “cogitation”.

If you want to think that, go ahead. I’m not going there.

I do not deny the possibility of substantial spiritual causality but lets not confuse it with the legitimate “immaterial” potentialities inherent in matter whose operation we often do not see or understand at first pass.

Matter has no " legitimate ’ immaterial ’ potentialities. " Matter is matter, it cannot produce anything that is immaterial, including phantasms.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . In general, matter is the “stuff” or material that material things are made out of, for example, our bodies. Modern physics would probably agree to this but this might be the only similarity between what modern physics thinks of matter and what Aristotle/Aquinas think of matter. Aristotle/Aquinas conceive of matter not only on a sensible level but also on a metaphysical level. On the metaphysical level, matter is potentiality and form is actuality. Actuality and potentiality are the primordial and intrinsic principles of every created being. In Aristotle’s doctrine of hylemorphism, the two fundamental principles or parts that every material substance is composed out of are form and matter. A substance is one being but it has a composition of form and matter just as the CCC says that human beings are composed out of a soul and body or spirit and matter. Matter and form is another application of act and potency since form is act and matter is potency.

Aristotle developed the concepts of act and potency in his analysis of the problem of change which we observe in the world . . .

Thanks for your reply.

Once we begin to speak of human beings things become far more complex.

If we think of our bodies, we think of organ systems and how they work together. Each organ is composed of cells of different kinds, each having its particular function. Each cell is a collection of components and processes contained within a defining membrane. These intracellular processes are chemical in nature involving quite complex interactions, strictly controlled. The molecules involved are constructed of atoms, which are formed by subatomic particles. We have structure upon structure resulting in the final entity, the human body.

Is there any way to translate any of this into the Aristotelian concept of matter?

Would matter as potency refer to energy, or whatever science will find to be the basic ground of all this stuff, that which becomes oxygen in one instance, hydrogen in another? Each element having a different form, but the same potency?
So in human beings, would this potency (matter) be organized according to the potency and actuality of every system and subsystem that is included in the hierarchy of the body, from the smallest constituents, the subatomic, to the organs, to the complete body?

Sorry to trouble you. I have serious trouble getting through philosophy texts, so it is appreciated. If I weren’t so cheap and busy I would take a course. I am hoping you will get something out of writing your replies.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
If this highly micro-managing soul is allegedly in every part of the body - why a central nervous system for ducting sense info to the brain? Double redundancy like in aeroplanes?

It seems you have got to the point that you want to maintain you are correct without having to answer reasonable questions with reasoned answers .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon;13088732:

As far as aether, forces, gravity, etc are concerned, if they are real and if they can only be deduced, as opposed to measured and detected, then I think we are dealing the application power by some supernatural being.Linus2nd

Let me get this right - in the face of gravity you jump immediately to the existence of God as the immediate efficient cause of every apple falling to the ground rather than admit, according to your view, that gravity would have to be some sort of immaterial substance?

You don’t believe in secondary causality then?
Why believe in souls then … its just God or a common active intellect .

Do you really believe such throw away responses are a mature way of doing apologetics or maintaining your credibility in the face of reasonable critiques of your views?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;13091274:

Let me get this right - in the face of gravity you jump immediately to the existence of God as the immediate efficient cause of every apple falling to the ground rather than admit, according to your view, that gravity would have to be some sort of immaterial substance?

If we are arguing that God exists and we eliminate the supposed causality of the eternal motion of the Celestial Spheres, then we are left with the possible efficient causality of angels. If we eliminate that efficient causality, we are left with God as the First Efficient causality of God. The proofs of God’s existence based on the arguments of A & T always depend on reducing motion or efficient effects from potency to act. But this necessity always boils down to a First, Uncaused, Efficient Cause, or First Moving Csuse which is not itself Moved, a Pure Act, which is God. If you eliminate every Secondary Caused Cause, then you reach the Pure Act of God, the First Efficient, First Uncaused, Unmoved Act, which is God.

You don’t believe in secondary causality then?

Of course I believe in secondary causality. See the comment above.

Why believe in souls then … its just God or a common active intellect :shrug

I not only believe in souls ( The existence of human souls is a matter not only of reason but also of Faith). We don’t go immediately to the direct causality of God precisely because of the secondary cauality of the human soul in the acts of man. We could interpose the secondary causality of angels but there is no reasonable argument we could present for that. It would be pure speculation. However, I do think God has appointed angels to move the world and all its systems - but that is pure speculation…
:.

Do you really believe such throw away responses are a mature way of doing apologetics or maintaining your credibility in the face of reasonable critiques of your views?

Blue, you shouldn’t let my views bother you, they are only my private opinions. I think I have answered your objections resonably.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

I not only believe in souls ( The existence of human souls is a matter not only of reason but also of Faith). We don’t go immediately to the direct causality of God precisely because of the secondary cauality of the human soul in the acts of man. We could interpose the secondary causality of angels but there is no reasonable argument we could present for that. It would be pure speculation. However, I do think God has appointed angels to move the world and all its systems - but that is pure speculation…

 

[Richca]

Thanks for your reply.

Once we begin to speak of human beings things become far more complex.

If we think of our bodies, we think of organ systems and how they work together. Each organ is composed of cells of different kinds, each having its particular function. Each cell is a collection of components and processes contained within a defining membrane. These intracellular processes are chemical in nature involving quite complex interactions, strictly controlled. The molecules involved are constructed of atoms, which are formed by subatomic particles. We have structure upon structure resulting in the final entity, the human body.

Is there any way to translate any of this into the Aristotelian concept of matter?

Would matter as potency refer to energy, or whatever science will find to be the basic ground of all this stuff, that which becomes oxygen in one instance, hydrogen in another? Each element having a different form, but the same potency?
So in human beings, would this potency (matter) be organized according to the potency and actuality of every system and subsystem that is included in the hierarchy of the body, from the smallest constituents, the subatomic, to the organs, to the complete body?

Sorry to trouble you. I have serious trouble getting through philosophy texts, so it is appreciated. If I weren’t so cheap and busy I would take a course. I am hoping you will get something out of writing your replies.

Aloysium, it is no trouble. I have to get going for now though and will be out of town for the rest of the week and weekend. I will get back to you, God willing, when I get back sometime next week. Have a great rest of the week and 4th of July!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the view of St Thomas, the existence of the angels or intelligences and their presidence over the material creation is not pure speculation. In Etienne Gilson’s “The Christian Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas,” he says that the existence of the angels can be demonstrated. In St Thomas’ view, the existence of the angels are necessary for the perfection of the universe and omitting an entire order of creatures from the universe, namely, the angels amounts philosophically to upsetting the equilibrium of the whole system.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

BH:
Which raises a question for you…is insensible aether material or immaterial?
It would have to be immaterial …yet still not “spiritual” (like the First Cause).
So immaterial and spiritual may not be the same at all…

You’ve gone off on a tangent Linus.
I am asking you to explain why, from the effects of causal action at a distance without material intermediary, you would think it more reasonable to jump to the existence of a subsisting spiritual being rather than an occult (ie hidden) cause stemming from material agency (eg gravity).

What does “detected” have to do with the difference between material and immaterial?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Matter has no " legitimate ’ immaterial ’ potentialities. "
Linus2nd

And these assertions are justified on what reasoned basis or first principles of philosophy?

Gravity looks like a perfectly clear case of an immaterial potentiality somehow linked to matter by most people .

Matter is matter, it cannot produce anything that is immaterial, including phantasms.

You’ve confused yourself haven’t you Linus ?
Phantasms, by definition, are material according to Aquinas.
That is why he says they are produced and held in the sensible interior organs (eg the brain).
They are coded, “intelligible” representations of sensible reality.
That doesn’t mean they are “images” as you seem to understand that word.
They could be simply temporary neuronal pathway patterns held in “malleable” brain matter, a form of interior “impression.”
I don’t understand what apriori grounds you have against such.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I know modern science theorizes that light, for example, can travel through empty space. Whether or not this space is actually empty is another question. It may be filled with an undetectable kind of aether.

 

[inocente]

What is God for you, Inocente? and what is matter?

Of course you and me can write pretentious and dogmatic statements; but I prefer to avoid it as much as it is possible to me.

“Many researchers focus on the brain to explain aggression. Numerous circuits within both neocortical and subcortical structures play a central role in controlling aggressive behavior, depending on the species, and the exact role of pathways may vary depending on the type of trigger or intention. …] Hormones are chemicals that circulate in the body to affect cells and the nervous system, including the brain. Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group, which is most linked to the prenatal and postnatal development of the male gender and physique, which in turn has been linked on average to more physical aggression in many species.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression

I was describing what I usually do. I am quite aware of my fallibility, and it is what I express when I say: "If I say that certain actions of ours are inexplicable in terms of material elements, it will mean that I cannot do the reduction responsibly". If someone else offers another approach which contradicts mine and it seems more promising, I am willing to examine it and take advantage of it if I find that it has enough support (and please notice that “enough” will always mean “enough to me”). Such behavior is similar to the proposal of a working hypothesis which has been established responsibly and could be discarded afterwards, if it is proven wrong.

I imagine that should one of your family start talking of suicide, you would responsibly get them to a doctor who might responsibly diagnose major depressive disorder and prescribe antidepressants as part of the treatment, which are available because researchers responsibly were more concerned with the survival of people than the survival of beliefs in immaterial substances.

You previously said that “to explain something …] is to reduce it to something which is considered more basic”, but immaterial spiritual substance doesn’t do that, it merely replaces “I cannot explain mind” with “Mind is ISS and I cannot explain ISS”.

First, you are using now the term “principle” in a different sense. Instead of meaning “that which other things can be reduced to”, it means a fundamental and dogmatic belief to guide your research activities.

I just quoted your definition of “explain”, which seems to be the same as your definition of “principle”.

OED: “principle = a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning”.

The proposition that mind can be explained serves as just such a foundation for a chain of reasoning.

Second, your dogmatic belief (or “guess”, as you call it) can be proven wrong only if you abandon dogmatism.

OED: “dogmatism = the tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others”.

Science is making guesses and testing them, whereas belief in ISS is by definition dogmatic since for thousands of years no one ever bothered to test it, no one ever considered any evidence, they simply believed Aristotle unquestioningly.

Third, what do you mean with the term “explicable”? Is it synonymous of “describable”?).

OED: “explicable = able to be accounted for or understood”. “describe = give an account in words of (someone or something), including all the relevant characteristics, qualities, or events”.

Fourth: we can resort on as many principles as we think are necessary.

OED: “principle = a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning”.

And these, you say, are things you resort to.

*Yes, you can’t avoid interpretations. Once you write something it remains there and it becomes independent of you to be interpreted. Sometimes it even becomes against you; but you are innocent.

No problem, you are not a chemist; it is understandable that you don’t know how to explain that oxygen is a gas at Normal conditions of pressure and temperature in terms of its organization. In fact, I doubt any chemist can: that is not their business. But in the beginning, as you wrote with such self assurance, I thought you knew a secret that would make you able to do it. Is there anything at all whose properties you can explain in terms of its organization (I need to stress that to say “…and it finally depends on its organization” does not constitute an explanation).*

That’s a bit bizarre. I said, and you even quoted me saying “In the gas phase, molecules have enough kinetic energy to overcome intermolecular forces, enabling them to move independently.”

I looked it up and here, for instance is Wikipedia: “In a gas, the molecules have enough kinetic energy so that the effect of intermolecular forces is small (or zero for an ideal gas)…”

Could we try to have a conversation where I don’t have to spend time posting definitions and explanations which anyone can google? Thanks.