What exactly is the soul?

[Aloysium]

There are a number of tests, including, as I’ve said before, that GPS just wouldn’t work if Einstein was wrong. If Einstein was wrong then the only way GPS could possibly work is by magic, and GPS engineers would be wizards and witches, casting spells to make GPS work. I suggest that most Catholics would find that a silly choice. I suggest that most Catholics would be correct. . . Either gravity is the physical reality of curved spacetime, as tested, or God is pulling the wool over our eyes, deliberately deceiving everyone except his prophet Linus. . . God is the creator of nature, not the creator of every event in nature, that would be pantheism.

Einstein was clearly not completely correct. That an explanation is incomplete, does not make it wrong. Einstein is partially right.
Although gravity can be described as a bending (I do not think that a simple curve describes the acceleration we see. It must be dynamic; but whatever.) of space, it may not actually bend. The sun appears to rise in the east and set in the rest, but that is not the best description of the motion that arises from the relationship between the earth and sun. As an explanation, it works, as does the idea of a curving space.
I see God as the Creator of every event in nature, which includes ourselves as self-determined beings having free will. He is not every event in nature. He is not our innermost Self. He is other to everything in nature as its Father.

 

[inocente]

If you want to call my notion of where memory is located or what causes a phantasm or what gravity is, that is fair. But not when you call the notion of an Immaterial, Spiritual Soul " far fetched. " Because that is exactly what the Church teaches, as I have insisted time and time again. But though the Church merely contrasts the body with the spiritual aspects of man, Aquinas actually uses the term " immaterial " in describing the nature of the human soul or of any soul. By " immaterial " he means the soul is a spiritual substance composed of no physical parts or energies, etc. and therefore incorruptable - as opposed to material substances which are subject to corruption.

I have not imposed my view, I have stated facts that are obvious, views which the Church has always held.

I have only repeated what the Church teaches.

My priest would readily agree that the human soul is an Immaterial Spiritual Substance. That is what the Church teaches and has always taught.

You keep making these claims, but the CCC says the soul is the form of the body, it doesn’t mention immaterial spiritual substances.

I’ve seen no evidence that the Church is at war with science on this. I think the soul is the form for both Church and science. I was taught, as a Baptist, that we are made of dust and return to dust until judgement day. A Wikipedia article makes an interesting comment on how some modern Christians have instead imposed a belief of the soul as a substance which can fly off to heaven on a blackbird’s wing *:

“The Catholic doctrine of the resurrection of the body states that at the second coming, the souls of the departed will be reunited with their bodies as a whole person (substance) and witness to the apocalypse. The thorough consistency between dogma and contemporary science was maintained here in part from a serious attendance to the principle that there can be only one truth. Consistency with science, logic, philosophy, and faith remained a high priority for centuries, and a university doctorate in theology generally included the entire science curriculum as a prerequisite. This doctrine is not universally accepted by Christians today. Many believe that one’s immortal soul goes directly to Heaven upon death of the body.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#From_Neoplatonism_to_scholasticism

This is, I think, what has happened on this thread - I’ve seen no evidence yet that ISS fans are holding the position of scripture, of doctrine or of science, and can hardly contain my excitement in anticipation.

• “And when he dies, he says he’ll catch some blackbird’s wing / He will fly away to heaven, come some sweet blue bonnet spring”, Gulf Coast Highway, Nanci Griffith

PS: I’ve left the other points in your post to concentrate on this one.

 

[inocente]

God is not made, God is, He is not material, physical, except in Christ, He is Pure Spirit, subsisting in Himself, needing nothing, because He is the I Am, we are who are not because of He who is. He is not made of any substance, but is the cause of all substances. God is known in His essence, and His essence is Existence, Being, Pure Act, Pure Spirit. Spirits can only be known, not felt (in their nature), intellectual knowing is a spiritual act. It is in intellectual knowing that we know we have a spiritual soul made to the image and likeness of God. We think of God existentially, that He is, and not what He is.

Can we by willing it cause one strand of hair to grow? Would that be considered micromanaging? Or when an amoeba divides, we know they are animate, but are they the cause of their own activity, matter does not move itself, or capable or organizing itself with order or purpose, it is not it’s own organizer. Even intelligent beings are not their own organizers, we respond to physical and spiritual laws just as all creation does. We are not the power of our own wills, even though we experience free choice, within the realm of a reality that is not our doing, so what is it that God doesn’t micro-manage or apart from His complete control? Deism states that God created the universe, then He left it to manage itself, without Him. We understand that all things fall within His providence, so we see this as an error in their belief, because we know God is in complete control, and sustains what He created, and that includes everything, proven by Metaphysics and Faith. God causes us to do and accomplish.

In dialoguing with each other, because we are all imperfect, we sometimes are, or appear uncharitable in the heat of discussion, I don’t think this was intended, and we are sorry if it did offend you. Please forgive us. We all at times experience frustration when trying hard to make a point, and it does bring out the weakness in our personalities.

There’s an amber alert on temperature here today, and at this time of year tempers flair and people say mean things they otherwise wouldn’t.

Of course, ISS would not be affected by temperature, as heat only affects material substances, so there you go, neat little disproof of ISS provided by ISS fans’ own words.

Otherwise, I was with you for the first three sentences, then you lost me, but agreed, God is not made of any kind of substance, spiritual or otherwise.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps I should have said " constitutionally " unable to accept the metaphysical truths expounded by A & T, or any of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Which I find amazing because even the Arab and Jewish philosophers/theologians accepted much on both accounts. And certainly we don’t meet your standards of what represents Catholicism because we don’t accept your glib responses as reasonable. But you see truth is more important to us that chummy fellowship. Truth to us is the basis for every relationship, if that isn’t there, there can be no relationship worthy fo the name.

Your original post seems to have disappeared. I think you have not helped yourself with these personal comments.

I do not believe your claim that you represent Aristotle, Thomas, the Catholic Church, Islam and Judaism.

When you are raised Catholic or when one converts to the Catholic Church one agrees to abide by the teaching of the Church in faith and morals. Most of that is contained in the Catechism. I wouldn’t call that " indoctrination, " since one is not forced to accept it. And on matters not related to faith and morals there is plenty of room for differences. For example there are 24 Rites in the Catholic Church, all of whom celebrate Mass differently. There also different liturgical celebrations within the various religious orders.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Liturgical_worship

Linus: It’s tiring having to repeat over and over that I am posting to Linus, about views held by Linus. I never ever said the Church was indoctrination, I was referring to your claim that every Catholic must believe everything in the CCC. When I comment on a view posted by you, I am not criticizing the Church, I am commenting on a view posted by you. Please stop forcing me to repeat this. Please lighten up, we’re only talking here.

CCC 12 “This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.”

Note, not “required reading”, not “essential reading”, just “useful reading”. There are 2865 paragraphs in the CCC, the average Catholic may not even have read them all.

I do not agree that Catholicism is legalism. (And, just in case, that’s not a criticism of the Church either).

*You said something in post 667 which I find very curious, which touches on the general topic of this thread. You said, " …God isn’t made of immaterial spiritual substance, since if God was made of anything, the bible would explain where it came from, and what it was before it became God. "

Of course God isn’t MADE* of anything, He simply IS… But since He IS, He is something which exists. In fact when Moses asked God who he was, God answered, " I AM WHO AM. " Aquinas taught that that meant that God was an utterly simple substance, a PURE SPIRIT, or an Immaterial Being, Who simply always was, is, and will be, a Being who is beyond all categories of being, and the ultimate source of all that ever was, is, or will be. That is what the Catholic Church teaches as well.

I think you have a definite problem with the notion of " immateriality, " that some how it is tied up with your notion of materiality. You seem unable to accept that anything with a total lack of materiality could exist. Therefore you reject the concept of an immaterial, spritual soul, or immaterial, spiritual angels, or a purely immaterial, spiritual God.

Surely you see the dilemma you are in. If God exists, he must be either matter or spirit, material or immaterial. If the soul exists, it must be either matter or spirit, material or immaterial. It is going to be very difficult to explain the existence of God or the soul in material terms. It forces on to eithe abandon both or to say that God and the soul are little more that forces of nature and therefore a part of nature.

That is why the philosophy of A & T is so valuabe, that is why the teaching of the Catholic Church is so valuable. They leave no doubt about who God is and what the soul is.

Above, you say of God “He is something which exists”, but God is not a thing. You say “If God exists, he must be either matter or spirit, material or immaterial”, but no, God doesn’t have to follow your rules, God doesn’t have to be a substance or whatever you decide.

 

[ynotzap]

Ther

Sure, but God is the creator of nature, not the creator of every event in nature, that would be pantheism.

Pantheism; A doctrine which consists essentially in drawing together the world and God to the point of identifying them. God is the Creator of all things, and causes every event in nature to happen, even those against His will, such as sin(in reference to man’s free will). We can do nothing (including the world) without Him. The influence of the First Cause on creature activity is called Divine Concourse. The finite being, dependent on God in its being must consequently depend on Him also in its operations. God as the first efficient and final cause of the universe has absolute dominion over all things. God is the cause of every action of the creature (including man) in as much as He creates it, in as much as He conserves it, in as much as He moves it to act, and uses it as an instrument. This truth although not one of defined faith has its foundation in revelation in union also withThomistic Metaphysics. Lord…thou hast wrought all our works for us (Isa:26-12): In Him we live, and move, and are (Acts l7:28)Although we have our being in God, we are not part of God.

 

[inocente]

You are right, I wasn’t clear enough in my first question. And though besides “O2” there are other forms in which oxygen exists, including the atomic form “O”, I wasn’t thinking on this highly reactive form when I proposed the question. I just was thinking that oxygen is O, independently of the fact that the most common species in our atmosphere is the molecular “O2”. Besides what I studied of chemistry in the high school, I continued studying it at the University, during the bachelor’s and the master’s courses. You studied informatics, and it seems natural that you base your judgement regarding chemistry only on your high school training.

Coming back to the point: there is a great variety of gases which are stable under normal conditions, and all of them have different organizations. There is no specific organization of elementary particles which explains why a given substance is a gas at certain pressure and temperature. Without changing its organization, a substance can be liquified, or solidified, of fused, or evaporated, or gasified by changing pressure and temperature. The right answer to my question is that to be a gas is not a property which depends on the way a substance is organized, but on pressure and temperature.

Certainly there are certain properties which depend on how a particle is organized, like in the case of enantiomers. But not all the properties of the enantiomers of a given substance are different; even with different structures, they have common properties.

At some moment in our discussion you thought that besides “matter”, “organization” is necessary to explain phenomena, and you compared “organization” to the aristotelian notion of “form”. However, for Aristotle “form” and “matter” are different principles. Do you think similarly?

I also wouldn’t agree that there’s any “specific organization of elementary particles which explains why a given substance is a gas at certain pressure and temperature”. If there were then the organization would have a specific property, the value of which would determine the solid/liquid/gas state irrespective of temperature or pressure. But instead, the state depends on a balance of forces. If we keep the pressure constant and reduce the temperature, at some point oxygen condenses to a liquid, which depends on kinetic energy losing out to intermolecular forces, which depends on the organization of the substance (mass, etc.).

As far as matter and form, an atom is virtually all space, with a little bit of mass in the electrons but virtually all the mass in the nucleons. And most of the mass of a nucleon comes, apparently, in the relativistic jiggling of its constituent quarks. This may be telling us a story - the harder we look for substance, the harder it is to find. Perhaps there is no substance, perhaps just spacetime folded in different ways, as string theorists would like. Don’t know, that’s speculation and as Linus reminds us, Newton said “I contrive no hypotheses”.

Why not? Karl Marx was a very clever man, and his ideas could be rediscovered under certain conditions. But I don’t think the Greeks who elected a leftist party are knowledgeable about Marxist doctrines.

There is a chart here, from a US senator, which says that after the debt crisis in 2012, each American owed a lot more in foreign debt than Greeks. There is a clock here, which says the national debt of the US is now 18,155,581,193,880 dollars, or 12000 dollars per person more than when that chart was made. Who knows, it’s all Greek to me.

Who knows, Inocente? It might be, it might be not. I can see that those guys were really fond of knowledge (they produced knowledge!), and it could be that the new scientific discoveries could serve them to further support their positions; or it could be that they would find it necessary to modify their ideas, I really don’t know; but I think that they would be quite joyful with the relatively new discoveries of neurobiology; specially Descartes, the dualist. I don’t think he would be opposed to them at all.

Agreed, after all what they wrote was new, it would be a long time before it got set in stone.

I had no intention to bother you when I capitalized “logic”.

Ok, may be in the future, if there is a research about how the brain works “logically” (when it does, of course, because sometimes it doesn’t) you will be able to respond to my question. For the moment you have no answer, but strange questions (and I am unable to answer them, honestly; especially the one about the jumbo jet. That is a difficult one!).

Nope, the argument is there for all who have ears to hear. Consider: if I was to write out an intricate set of logic rules, and then give you some (name removed by moderator)uts and ask you to derive the outputs, we both know you might make a mistake while a computer wouldn’t. Same with math problems. The evidence then, is that we don’t have a built-in logic unit, we follow learned rules. That’s why we’re quite slow and inaccurate at logic and math compared to even the cheapest computer.

At a higher functional level, some people believe in sun gods and little green men and all manner of things. Others don’t. Some vote for Marxists, others don’t. Even with the same evidence, people don’t have the same beliefs. Reasoning appears to be learned, by trail and error, there are no standard pathways in the mind. We are imperfect and messy. Is immaterial substance imperfect and messy?

 

[ynotzap]

Th
Of course, ISS would not be affected by temperature, as heat only affects material substances, so there you go, neat little disproof of ISS provided by ISS fans’ own words.

Cool!!

 

[GEddie]

Thermal effects on the human soma in no way disprove the human soul, or “ISS”, as some of you say.

It is undisputed that the human body, which is thermally dependent due to its materials, is necessary for the soul to carry out its functions.

ICXC NIKA

 

[ynotzap]

Thermal effects on the human soma in no way disprove the human soul, or “ISS”, as some of you say.

It is undisputed that the human body, which is thermally dependent due to its materials, is necessary for the soul to carry out its functions.

ICXC NIKA

Geddie: I wasn’ t agreeing with inocente , since we were talking about the heat of passion in arguing that sometimes we become uncharitable unintentionally. I thought it was clever and amusing how she responded, a light moment. And we can sympathize with her because the heat is high here also.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JF I think you miss the main Phil thrust of the non IIS position.

Nobody denies that a consistent IIS model of explanation cannot be proposed.
The point is the strength of its necessity.

It is an axiom of non superstitious thinking, which includes the philosophers of Buddhism, Greece, Arabia and Christians that we do not ex plain the effects of occult causes from immaterial substances without first ruling out any possibility of material substances being the immediate cause.

Given that reasonable models of material agency is at hand for explaining the retention of sensible experiences, ie brain based memory, then it strains philosophy to think further abroad rather than engaging in more deeply walking the tracks of more conclusive empirical science.

Time and time again we see this practical reasoning proven over history with the cause of the movements of the planets, the evolutionary origin of Life etc etc.

The ISS model is certainly plausible, but it’s absolute necessity is no longer convincing enough to rule out material competition.

That being so axioms of practical philosophy suggest energy is best spent looking into material world explanations for sensible memory rather than spiritual substances.

Blue, it is a fact that some individuals rule out the ISS model; and it is a fact as well that other individuals rule out the materialistic interpretation. This has been so for centuries; and I think it will continue as long as there are human beings in this world. Divergence is nothing new, and I don’t see any sign indicating that it will disappear one day.

It is very understandable to me if any person, having shared one of those positions for a while, becomes hesitant at a given moment in view of the arguments of the other side (Because this is a matter of argumentation, not a matter of “facts”. Facts are the same for everybody, but interpretations differ). It is understandable to me even if such person finally changes his mind completely. This has to do with “the strength of the necessity of a model”. It depends on your experiences and on what relations you have established among the mass of “facts” available to you. So, when you say that “The ISS model is certainly plausible, but it’s absolute necessity is no longer convincing enough to rule out material competition”, I understand that you are describing your own personal experience. And as it is clear to me that such experience must be quite complex (not because it is yours, but because human experience is so), I feel the necessity to ask the questions I would need responded to become hesitant first and then to change my mind. If JapanesseKappa, Inocente and you were able to present the facts and your basic interpretations of them concerning “mind” in such a way that I could share your feeling of “the strength of a materialistic or positivist approach” and “it’s necessity”, could I resist it? How could I, if such necessity becomes manifest instead of remaining in your subjectivity?

What is the best material world explanation that you have found so far for memory?

 

[inocente]

Einstein was clearly not completely correct. That an explanation is incomplete, does not make it wrong. Einstein is partially right.
Although gravity can be described as a bending (I do not think that a simple curve describes the acceleration we see. It must be dynamic; but whatever.) of space, it may not actually bend. The sun appears to rise in the east and set in the rest, but that is not the best description of the motion that arises from the relationship between the earth and sun. As an explanation, it works, as does the idea of a curving space.

What do you mean by “Einstein was clearly not completely correct”? Do you mean you can link standard textbooks stating that Einstein was clearly not completely correct, or just that it’s your opinion?

The fact is that GPS has to continuously take relativity into account from microsecond to microsecond or it just wouldn’t work. If Einstein’s equations were even slightly wrong, GPS would not work. So it’s not just an analogy. Every time you use GPS, you are proving that spacetime curves. See, for example, here.

It would be good if those who claim that spacetime doesn’t really curve post their alternative explanation of how GPS could possibly work when it is based on wrong math, and ditto for all the other tests of GR.

I see God as the Creator of every event in nature, which includes ourselves as self-determined beings having free will. He is not every event in nature. He is not our innermost Self. He is other to everything in nature as its Father.

Agreed. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God commands, He says the word and it is done. He is not the phenomena nor does He have to work the phenomena, He stands back and sees the phenomena.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue, it is a fact that some individuals rule out the ISS model; and it is a fact as well that other individuals rule out the materialistic interpretation. This has been so for centuries; and I think it will continue as long as there are human beings in this world. Divergence is nothing new, and I don’t see any sign indicating that it will disappear one day.

It is very understandable to me if any person, having shared one of those positions for a while, becomes hesitant at a given moment in view of the arguments of the other side (Because this is a matter of argumentation, not a matter of “facts”. Facts are the same for everybody, but interpretations differ). It is understandable to me even if such person finally changes his mind completely. This has to do with “the strength of the necessity of a model”. It depends on your experiences and on what relations you have established among the mass of “facts” available to you. So, when you say that “The ISS model is certainly plausible, but it’s absolute necessity is no longer convincing enough to rule out material competition”, I understand that you are describing your own personal experience. And as it is clear to me that such experience must be quite complex (not because it is yours, but because human experience is so), I feel the necessity to ask the questions I would need responded to become hesitant first and then to change my mind. If JapanesseKappa, Inocente and you were able to present the facts and your basic interpretations of them concerning “mind” in such a way that I could share your feeling of “the strength of a materialistic or positivist approach” and “it’s necessity”, could I resist it? How could I, if such necessity becomes manifest instead of remaining in your subjectivity?

What is the best material world explanation that you have found so far for memory?

** Because this is a matter of argumentation, not a matter of “facts”. Facts are the same for everybody, but interpretations differ. **

Not sure what you mean by “argumentation”?
Anyways I don’t think I can agree re your “facts” approach above.
Interpretation and facts inter-penetrate far deeper than most of us realise.

Take Linus’s approach for example, he started out stating he was open to empirical research being able to demonstrate that sensible memories could be imprinted in the brain.

Then when this was teased out he advised that he had come across no such “credible” research (peer review etc etc). This statement is clearly evidence of how a subjective apriori position is an “interpretation” which essentially denies the existence of purely objective “facts” as you would appear to define them.

And indeed, it turns out that Linus in fact does have an apriori opposition to the above proposition - so his own position is non-falsifiable, so no “facts”, however strong, will ever be recognised or discoverable by him. He will always see them as saying something else.

Hence we do not really seem to all see the same “facts” … as “interpretations” get in the way!

Nevertheless such mythical brute “facts” are not the basis of my philosophic observations to you below. Quite the opposite.

I am basing my way of reasoning on an epistemology not of facts but of different “models” for understanding a reality neither side has enough effect-cause information on. So we are talking degrees of probability for each model.

So if we have two models for explaining effects due to “hidden” causes do we go for the one that is natural or the one that is supernatural?

Well, all things being equal a non-superstitious person (ie a philosopher) will surely for a natural model first. A clear case of Ochkams razor.

The real question then becomes, are all things equal?
In times past all things were not equal.
The ancients had little empirical understanding or biological science as we have it today.
For them much of life was explained by the spiritual, a “god of the gaps” approach.
That is why the celestial bodies were considered to be moved by immaterial substances - there was no material agent known or discoverable to be capable of these effects.

Nowadays (even from Aquinas’s time) “all things are more equal” than they were in past ages.
we have a greater respect for the agency of sophisticated material and biological systems/organs.

While we may argue over whether or not the material causal mechanism of sensible memories has been convincingly proven…no sane person denies the theoretic possibility that matter could store sensible memories.

And if
(a) the theoretic possibility is allowed that matter could store sensible memories
(b) we hold that explanations based on natural agent causality are always pref to supernatural causality, all things being equal
(c) there is no absolute evidence convincingly proving either model
(d) there is a minimum of evidence pointing to the natural

then…I submit the natural, non IIS model is the more reasonable interim model to go with and should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The reverse position would be at risk of being called “superstitious” … unless it could demonstrate there is next to no evidence that brain matter can store sensible memories.
This however is not the case, there is a lot of smoke around re the non IIS position.

Of course, as neither model is 100% proven we must remember that the IIS position could be right. We are talking probable knowledge afterall.

However it strikes me the reasonable approach is that we can only “prove” the supernatural position by ruling out the material position on empirical grounds.
The present tide in this regard has been the reverse for the last 300 years it seems.

 

[inocente]

If JapanesseKappa, Inocente and you were able to present the facts and your basic interpretations of them concerning “mind” in such a way that I could share your feeling of “the strength of a materialistic or positivist approach” and “it’s necessity”, could I resist it? How could I, if such necessity becomes manifest instead of remaining in your subjectivity?

What is the best material world explanation that you have found so far for memory?

There are lots of resources online about how the brain remembers and recalls, explanations which feed into others, such as how memory recall trigger addictions, why loss of function occurs in illnesses, etc. Whereas ISS appears to explain little, it’s a closed box.

But explanation is not justification, and obviously there are those on this thread who feel their belief in ISS is justified. Some have voiced negative reasons, along the lines that all True Christians must believe or else, but Christ never speaks of ISS, let alone making salvation depend on such beliefs.

But to get away from negatives, do you have positive justifications for belief in ISS? Not sure what they might be, but for instance, perhaps some might say it’s important for moral reasons, the idea being that it might be easier to view each other as sacred.

What say you?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

**
I am basing my way of reasoning** on an epistemology not of facts but of different “models” for understanding a reality neither side has enough effect-cause information on. So we are talking degrees of probability for each model.

Blue, let’s first try to understand each other about what we mean by “facts” or “brute facts”, whatever, if you please. Perhaps we say the same thing.

Your way of reasoning is based on “models” of what? What is being modeled with those models?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

There are lots of resources online about how the brain remembers and recalls, explanations which feed into others, such as how memory recall trigger addictions, why loss of function occurs in illnesses, etc. Whereas ISS appears to explain little, it’s a closed box.

But explanation is not justification, and obviously there are those on this thread who feel their belief in ISS is justified. Some have voiced negative reasons, along the lines that all True Christians must believe or else, but Christ never speaks of ISS, let alone making salvation depend on such beliefs.

But to get away from negatives, do you have positive justifications for belief in ISS? Not sure what they might be, but for instance, perhaps some might say it’s important for moral reasons, the idea being that it might be easier to view each other as sacred.

What say you?

This question and the other you asked me in your previous post as well are good questions:

• “do you have positive justifications for belief in ISS?”
• “Is immaterial substance imperfect and messy?”

My own experience indicates me that I am what is called imperfect and messy, certainly. Sometimes I am very efficient and effective, but not always. I make mistakes sometimes, I forget things… So, this is what I would have to explain, and the principles that I must conceive must be such that the explanation becomes possible; otherwise, what kind of principles would them be? But besides that, I must try to comprehend this activity which is associated to terms like “knowledge”, “understanding”, “explanation”, “comprehension”, “demonstration”, “reasoning” and the Iike. And when I do that, it seems to me that such activity and the meaning of all the terms associated to it in our language consist on “establishing relations”; for example, on comparing one thing with another, or on thinking on A and B together (in a very specific way, like when I think simultaneously on “the internal angles of a triangle” and “two right angles”, conceiving them as quantitatively identical). Eventually I come to realize that what I call “human knowledge” is necessarily imperfect (and sometimes messy, if you wish)… Etcetera.

So, I want to become aware of my own activity and then explain it.

As I form part of a complex community (perhaps I should say “I am member of many communities”, or “I am a member of a community to be”), lots of discourses are available to me (because normally I am not the only one -and most of the times I am not the first one- who has asked the questions. Usually, I am just a continuation or a repeater of a process) and I try to ponder them, to see which one is “preferable” given my current intellectual circumstances.

So far, I think that a model which proposes more than one principle to explain human activity is intellectually preferable over one which is based on only one principle. Such is my justification. Very humble.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue, let’s first try to understand each other about what we mean by “facts” …

I just did JF.
If you don’t get it never mind.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

" All Catholics must believe that " … the human being has an intellectual soul …that the soul is the essential form of man… that each human being possesses an individual soul…that the individual human soul was created immediately, out of nothing. This is all Dogma. The Catechism explains it all in paragraphs 355-368, which I have mentioned several times here. See Vico’s posts 75 & 82

They are infallible teachings of the Church, they are not my personal view of anything.

As it can be debated whether the statements of the above Councils, when speaking of an Aristotelian definition of natural philosophy (“soul”), were talking directly about an object contained in the Deposit of Faith…to that extent your above conclusions re infallibility are personal, just the views of Linus.

For myself I consider that teachings involving “the soul” are only “virtually” or indirectly revealed. Jesus gave no teaching on the Greek soul as far as I know. The Greek soul is a vehicle for making other objects of the Deposit of Faith understandable while likely not a primary object itself of that Deposit.

Sure the Magisterium often issues doctrines involving such indirect objects of faith.
I don’t personally believe the Church has infallible authority over these indirect doctrines of faith, though I accept a theologian, by these anathematised statements, can expect political trouble if he obstinately and publicly denies them.

Rest assured I am neither denying (nor affirming) the above statements re the soul.
I am simply observing there are reasonable grounds for observing they may not be infallibly defined.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I just did JF.
If you don’t get it never mind.

Blue, I said:

*“Because this is a matter of argumentation, not a matter of “facts”. Facts are the same for everybody, but interpretations differ.” *

You responded:

“Not sure what you mean by “argumentation”?
Anyways I don’t think I can agree re your “facts” approach above.
Interpretation and facts inter-penetrate far deeper than most of us realise.”

Then, as you call “facts” mythical, and you say that you base your way of reasoning on “models” (I assume this applies for you in general, not only for “memory”), my question follows:

“What is being modeled with those models?”

But if you don’t get the meaning of the question, never mind.

 

[ynotzap]

I

Many traditionalists say that the extraction and identification of universals from/in the sensible world (which is a form of reasoning) requires a higher soul, animals cannot do this. Universals are “spiritual” (not material) and for some reason must therefore be powered by a purely spiritual intellect.

I disagree. My camera can “know” what a universal is by reason of mathematic formulae which in fact represents the universal (eg the equation for an ellipse) and is stored in, yes, physical electronic memory

To attribute to a physical, material object the ability to rationalize using universal concepts is an erroneous statement. The camera with all of its electronic circuits can only do what has been programed by a human mind that was capable of using those universal concepts in the design of the camera, or computer. The design incorporated logic ciruits which consisted of transistors (which are electronic switches) and diodes ( which allow electricity to flow in one direction. Logic circuits consisted of nand circuits, switching circuits call gates, Not gate, and gate, or gate, and flip-flop. Logic programing is a method of writing computer programing based on mathematical study of logical reasoning. Logic programing is used in computer modeling of human thinking. by applying human logical thinking, math principles, these simple circuits can be made to act in a certain logical sequence utilized by the programer to model human thinking… These electrical effects can be stored in electronic memory which consist of capacitors, transistors, diodes, and resistors, and a power supply (analogously, a material soul) Matter, a camera, a computer can not give what it doesn’t have, the capability to "intellectual rationalization’ It is human intelligence that designed, and programed the computer to react as it does. It responds to electrical imput resulting in electrical output which symbolizes rational logic programed by “a rational intelligence” found in humans. Senses, and matter do not “rationalize” I used a universal concept “you can not give what you do not have” as applied to matter.
Blue Horizon:

Even Aquinas recognises that maths is spiritual in nature. He never realised that matter was capable of doing maths unfortunately. If he stumbled on a calculator I am sure he would want to accord it a soul of some sorts.

Then the camera looks for sensible examples of these immaterial ellipses in the image (ie individual faces) and boxes them.

Matter is not capable of doing math, which is a mental process dealing with math principles which are intellectual abstraction of ideas. The design of the camera, or computer incorporates electrical circuits as described above to work in logical sequences, these sequences are given a logical interpretation by the programer who writes the program. By using sensors that respond to physical stimulation eg. light, electrical signals they can simulate human senses, and send electrical signals to motor devices, electro-magnets, transistors etc.
Blue Horizon:

OK, these are the most basic of universals, but it certainly is detection of particular sensible material world examples of a non-material universal held in “memory.”

Personally I think abstraction of universals and discovery of new material examples based on that abstraction…is not a very high example of “reasoning” at all.

Time to put this one into the philosophic rubbish bin of history along with Wizard of Oz assertions that animals have no language or tool using abilities.

As for the model of the brain as but a passive instrument played by the totally active immaterial intellectual soul…that terrain is slowly succumbing to global warming sorry.

Are you a thinker, or a knower, ?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I also wouldn’t agree that there’s any “specific organization of elementary particles which explains why a given substance is a gas at certain pressure and temperature”. If there were then the organization would have a specific property, the value of which would determine the solid/liquid/gas state irrespective of temperature or pressure. But instead, the state depends on a balance of forces. If we keep the pressure constant and reduce the temperature, at some point oxygen condenses to a liquid, which depends on kinetic energy losing out to intermolecular forces, which depends on the organization of the substance (mass, etc.).

As I mentioned before, enantiomers are an example of chemical substances which differ in organization, but not on every physical property (same state equation applies to them, for instance). So, no, intermolecular forces do not depend on the organization of the molecules.

It seems that somehow you see the necessity of an additional principle, besides matter, but you haven’t thought how it has to work.

As far as matter and form, an atom is virtually all space, with a little bit of mass in the electrons but virtually all the mass in the nucleons. And most of the mass of a nucleon comes, apparently, in the relativistic jiggling of its constituent quarks. This may be telling us a story - the harder we look for substance, the harder it is to find. Perhaps there is no substance, perhaps just spacetime folded in different ways, as string theorists would like. Don’t know, that’s speculation and as Linus reminds us, Newton said “I contrive no hypotheses”.

What is the limit between reasoning and “speculation”? There are some phenomena which can be explained by means of **a model **in which the atom is almost empty space. Other phenomena has required physicists to propose “jiggling quarks”. Are physicists looking for the “arché” of the universe? What is space-time? Is string theory an speculation? Does “mind” emerge from space-time?

Where does “speculation” start? Or which speculation is allowed and which is not? Or on which subjects is speculation allowed and on which it is not? Or who is allowed to speculate and who is not?

Nope, the argument is there for all who have ears to hear. Consider: if I was to write out an intricate set of logic rules, and then give you some (name removed by moderator)uts and ask you to derive the outputs, we both know you might make a mistake while a computer wouldn’t. Same with math problems. The evidence then, is that we don’t have a built-in logic unit, we follow learned rules. That’s why we’re quite slow and inaccurate at logic and math compared to even the cheapest computer.

Yes! We are much more slower than the cheapest computer! And we forget things as well: we forget, for example, that we designed those computers, and that we programmed them. It is strange, isn’t it?

While we have to read the (name removed by moderator)uts, interpret them, compare what we have gotten at each step against the rules, look for possible relations among the elements to simplify our intermediate results and proceed further, etcetera (in the same lapse of time we remember our girlfriend, other pending activities, judge the quality of the surrounding music, worry about the tax increases…) , the cheap computer does nothing. It just serves as a set of channels for the (name removed by moderator)uts which follow a determined set of paths to give a determined set of outputs. You would probably say that the computer features circuits which are able, for example, to execute comparisons. I would respond that those are nothing else but electric paths, which I have already mentioned.

There is also a difference between a response, and the feeling that one has responded.

So, I will restate the question: considering the whole human species -which could not learn logic from another species- is logic originally a set of brain structures?