What exactly is the soul?

[Blue_Horizon]

…Gravity is obviously a power, it is not a phantasm, it is not an abstracted immaterial representation. If you want to call it an occult power, that is fine with me, as long as you mean a power applied by angels or God. But that is only speculation. I think it is possible. Certainly no one has been able to explain it adequately and no one has found any gravitons as yet.
Linus2nd

Linus I haven’t had a lot of spare time for the forum lately but I have been reflecting on your views above during my daily peripatetic meditations in the cloisters of the local Buddhist temple.

I do not believe we can say that “gravity is obviously a (Aristotelian?) power”.
Aquinas would prob not agree either (even if he correctly understood its nature).

A power, it seems, is either active or passive, depending on whether the subject in question is causing (eg abstraction by the active intellect) or suffering the act in question (eg the senses). It cannot be both at the same time and in the same manner.

Gravity, properly understood, is in fact both active/passive at the same time and in the same manner. A mass is attracted to another mass just as it attracts the other mass to itself.

Also, if we ascribe an active power (gravity is not simply passive) to a material object - are we not essentially treating that object as at least possessing a low level spiritual principle? (Like a lesser version of the perishable soul of a plant). Alternatively if we do not like this conclusion we must hold that gravity is somehow imposed into matter as a proxy agent of some other separated, unseen moving principle.This is even less satisfactory.

So saying gravity is a “power” of inanimate matter does not seem correct.

Can gravity be considered an essential “property” of a material thing instead of a “power”.
I am not really sure how modern “property” translates into Aristotelian categories.

Is it a quality? Or is it an essential characteristic of what Aristotle calls quantity (like “extension”)?

I think it is even more primary than “extension”. It seems there can be “mass” without extension (eg a photon). And photon’s are influenced by gravity so may themselves exhert a gravitional force.

Yet Aristotle’s categories fail when discussing gravity.
There is a distinction to be made between a mass that exherts gravitational force (and is influenced by the force it receives from other masses) and the force itself.
A mass is obviously material but the effect it imposes on other objects at a distance is not mediated by material contact. The bodies involved have no mediating bodies (even very “thin” ones like air) to explain the causal linkage. This is impossible in the Aristotelian/Thomistic cosmology. All bodies must carve out a unique deliminated volume with no empty (immaterial? gaps) between them - otherwise there can be no efficient causality at play between different bodies.

Yet we know there is empty non-material “space” between bodies. And such bodies can still exhert efficient causality on each other across these empty gaps by means of the fundamental 4-5 forces.

So, if we are to keep using Aristotelian/Thomistic distinctions between material and immaterial (which are mutually contradictory) then where do we place these empty gaps and the forces that obviously traverse them as a medium of efficient causality?

Linus you would clearly want to say these forces and gaps are essentially “material” - otherwise you will have to explain the involved efficient cause linkages that traverse them as spiritual (ie immaterial) in some way.

Yet how can empty space (and the forces that traverse them) be called material when no matter or energy is involved. “Force” is not “energy” - though we do know that if such a force moves a mass any distance then energy has been transferred. But two stationary masses can certainly experience a mutual force without energy transfer.

Not does gravity involve physical “power” if you meant “gravity is obviously a (Newtonian) power”. In science power is a measure of how fast energy is being transferred from one mass to another. But, as above, gravity is a related but distinct phenomenon from power. There is no power involved when two stationary masses exhert a strong force on each other.

So how can “force” itself be classified as in any way “material” in the way that Aristotle/Aquinas defines that word? And if it cannot then, by your criteria, it must be called “immaterial” … and therefore “spiritual”??? Yet this is what drove Aristotle/Aquinas to suggest the celestial spheres had souls, or were moved by angels. Yet these suggestions are no longer plausible today because they essentially posit that normal secondary agent causalities (that are involved in the rest of material nature) are arbitrarily stated to not be at work here. And the discovery of “gravity” seems to confirm this philosophic observation of the non-plausability of medieval soul/angel explanations.

What is the solution?
I think we have to accept that things that we all agree are spiritual (souls, angels, God) are not exactly the same as things we call “immaterial”.

Aquinas/Aristotle tended to talk about the fifth element (aether) to fill this gap in difficult aspects observed (incorrectly perhaps) in the heavens. Aether is certainly material … yet though extended, can be non-sensible too.

Recent science seems to be warming to such a concept (eg the immaterial Higgs field which makes both force and mass possible for extended/material objects).

So I think you have still to reasonably explain “force” and “empty space” in your perhaps too simple an understanding of material versus immaterial/spiritual.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I only know of one, who has suddenly gone very coy.

Err… my point was that an explanation for your responses could be that you’ve not been differentiating between knowledge of logic and logic itself.

That implies you believe logic can be explained in terms of a substance. I guess that would mean the law of identity and law of excluded middle would be substances or somehow part of a substance. Bit too New Age for me .

That implies I believe for a monist like you there is no alternative. But I guess you would rather prefer to use the term “matter” instead of “substance”. What would be an alternative solution, while you remain a monist, Inocente?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The camera with all of its electronic circuits can only do what has been programed by a human mind.

Correct, therefore if a camera’s “material” workings can be given, in a very small way, a “faculty” found in the human mind … then to that extent the same operation (“universalising”) in man can also be regarded as “material”. A servant is not greater than its master afterall.

…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.

Why cannot we say that both computers and humans can apply logical rules, inherent in nature, to sense data and so come to a variety of logical conclusions wrt that sense data. eg a surveillance camera might tell me that 201 faces passed me today of which 9 were recognised as having done so the day before?.

Matter, a camera, a computer can not give what it doesn’t have, the capability to “intellectual rationalization”.

This is mostly tautology of course.
Try thinking this way, if a camera can identify real-world instances of a universal then this form of “thinking” in humans must be material not spiritual. That is not to say that computers will ever be able to match higher levels of human intellection.
I am simply concluding that the ability to practically deal in “universals” may be more about brain than mind if computers can also do this…which appears to be the case.

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.

You are suggesting that my camera does not really deal with universals but is just pretending to like a sort of failed “turing test”? Yet is not my camera, when it recognises different examples of ellipses (eg faces) passing that test? It “knows” when it “sees” an oval just as well as any human. Is not an ellipse an example of a universal (admittedly a very simple one)?

Why is it so unacceptable to say that matter, however “automated”, cannot be adept at recognising instances of a universal and provide statistical information on those findings?

 

[inocente]

That implies I believe for a monist like you there is no alternative. But I guess you would rather prefer to use the term “matter” instead of “substance”. What would be an alternative solution, while you remain a monist, Inocente?

The notion that logic is made of a substance, whether that substance is ISS or matter or whatever, is alien to me. Would that mean that illogical is an absence of logic-substance? Or made of a different substance? Is justice made of another substance? Love from another? Sorry, you lost me completely.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The notion that logic is made of a substance, whether that substance is ISS or matter or whatever, is alien to me. Would that mean that illogical is an absence of logic-substance? Or made of a different substance? Is justice made of another substance? Love from another? Sorry, you lost me completely.

You have your chance to put things straight: How does a monist like you explain logic, still remaining a monist?

 

[inocente]

You have your chance to put things straight: How does a monist like you explain logic, still remaining a monist?

Put what things straight? Explain what about logic? Getting ever deeper lost.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Put what things straight? Explain what about logic? Getting ever deeper lost.

Never mind, Inocente. Most probably you got lost because you have never reflected on the implications of your monism.

Good bye!

 

[inocente]

Never mind, Inocente. Most probably you got lost because you have never reflected on the implications of your monism.

Good bye!

Ah, amateur psychoanalysis again. But no, from over here your reticence to explain what you mean spoke volumes. See you around.

 

[ynotzap]

Forgive

Correct, therefore if a camera’s “material” workings can be given, in a very small way, a “faculty” found in the human mind … then to that extent the same operation (“universalising”) in man can also be regarded as “material”. A servant is not greater than its master afterall.

Could you clarify , are you assigning to a camera, as small amount of rational intelligence? Are we speaking of the brain and material universalizing- (those things common to all matter) or about the mind and intellectual universalizing- (those things common to all immaterial, conceptual universalizing)?
Blue Horizon:

Why cannot we say that both computers and humans can apply logical rules, inherent in nature, to sense data and so come to a variety of logical conclusions wrt that sense data. eg a surveillance camera might tell me that 201 faces passed me today of which 9 were recognised as having done so the day before?.

Surveillance cameras can be made to discriminate between physical differences because of material comparisons, shape, color, physical detail, all that physical sensors can detect. This can be compared to the physical phantasm that can be found in the human brain, a physical representation of what is sensed. It remains in the realm of matter. Even numbers a mental concept can be used because it represents a physical individual object, and objects can be sensed and counted. I can understand how a camera, or computer can use matter, and sensors to simulate the human mind, as long as it remains in the physical realm of reality.
Blue Horizon:

This is mostly tautology of course.
Try thinking this way, if a camera can identify real-world instances of a universal then this form of “thinking” in humans must be material not spiritual. That is not to say that computers will ever be able to match higher levels of human intellection.
I am simply concluding that the ability to practically deal in “universals” may be more about brain than mind if computers can also do this…which appears to be the case.

Why do you refer to this statement as mostly tautology? As I understand tautology means “needless repetition” I believe this statement " intellectual rationalization" should be used to avoid confusion- promoting the idea that computer can think, this is all that materialists and materialistic empiricalists need to hear to reinforce their ideology, especially in a very sensual society. As I already stated as long as we remain with the brain and senses, and material universals, I can agree.
Blue Horizon:

You are suggesting that my camera does not really deal with universals but is just pretending to like a sort of failed “turing test”? Yet is not my camera, when it recognises different examples of ellipses (eg faces) passing that test? It “knows” when it “sees” an oval just as well as any human. Is not an ellipse an example of a universal (admittedly a very simple one)?

your camera is responding to physical stimuli- it might be compared to “sense knowledge” found in animals. There are universals that are matter based such as dimension, temperature, shape, color, size, movement etc. - those things common to all matter. I can understand a camera being programed to utilize all of those elements.
Blue Horizon:

Why is it so unacceptable to say that matter, however “automated”, cannot be adept at recognising instances of a universal and provide statistical information on those findings?

I think the distinction between material universal, and intellectual universals is not understood by many, and the implication or idea that computers and cameras can think does not help.
Forgive me for not knowing but what does WRT mean?

 

[ynotzap]

Blue Horizon: I also wanted to add to my post, the inherent danger that the confusion that matter can think, especially rationalize will question the truth that the spiritual soul exists, and that truth will become obsolete,supplanted by a material soul.

 

[Richca]

Blue Horizon: I also wanted to add to my post, the inherent danger that the confusion that matter can think, especially rationalize will question the truth that the spiritual soul exists, and that truth will become obsolete,supplanted by a material soul.

This is a good point. Blue horizon in some respects would appear to want to reduce human beings, their souls and spiritual powers of intellect and will, knowledge and love to electrons, protons, and neutrons, to quarks and leptons, bosons and fermions, to electric charges and electromagnetic fields, to gravity and the strong and weak forces, all of which are non-thinking and non-loving phenomena.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Ah, amateur psychoanalysis again. But no, from over here your reticence to explain what you mean spoke volumes. See you around.

Ah, if my “reticence” has spoken volumes it is because you have the ears of an amateur psychoanalyst yourself, Inocente.

So, I would need to answer this question first: “what is exactly a monist?”. But as there are many varieties of monism, I would need your help to define yours; because what I can read in your posts is not enough to develop a round idea of it:

• You have said you admit the existence of God.
• You have said you are not pantheistic.
• You have said God is the creator of the world.
• You have said God is not a substance.
• You have said that mind emerges from matter.
• Though you have not said it explicitly, it seems to me that, in your opinion, mind does not emerge from any matter, but from an organized matter.
• Still, it is not very clear to me if in your opinion the organization that matter has reached before the emergence of mind has been the result of a random process.
• It is not clear to me either if you think about “organization” as the sign of another principle besides matter or if your implicit distinction between matter and organized matter is accidental.
• It is not clear to me if in your opinion we human beings are the result of the properties of matter or if -besides creating matter-, God had efficient specific plans about us.

Your answer to my question “in your opinion, what is the origin of logic?”, would help me understand (just a little, I guess) your position; because it does not resemble any monism that I know, Inocente (for instance, I haven’t known of any monism which acknowledges the existence of God but is not a pantheism).

 

[Hunho]

ISS is a highfaluting metaphysical concoction. It does nothing to feed anyone’s family, nothing to make anyone a better person, and contributes nothing to salvation.

On the contrary, based on what Fr. Nathan Castle, O.P., pointed out in a workshop he gave today in my parish (St. Christopher’s in Dickson, TN), possessing an immortal spiritual soul is exactly what guarantees that I will still be me when I am resurrected on the Last Day. I find that a comforting, valuable and thoroughly unmetaphysical function for the ISS! :extrahappy:

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Why do you refer to this statement as mostly tautology?

I was keeping things colloquial.
Technically I suppose I am referring to analytic propositions a la Kant.

As I already stated as long as we remain with the brain and senses, and material universals, I can agree.
I think the distinction between material universal, and intellectual universals is not understood by many, and the implication or idea that computers and cameras can think does not help.
Forgive me for not knowing but what does WRT mean?/

Yes I like the sound of “material universals” - though most people who go on about human intellection seem to think all universals are “spiritual.”
Who/where in the Aristotelian/Scholastic tradition do you go to for this understanding of material universals?

WRT means with respect to.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

On the contrary, based on what Fr. Nathan Castle, O.P., pointed out in a workshop he gave today in my parish (St. Christopher’s in Dickson, TN), possessing an immortal spiritual soul is exactly what guarantees that I will still be me when I am resurrected on the Last Day. I find that a comforting, valuable and thoroughly unmetaphysical function for the ISS! :extrahappy:

Well good for you if the concepts of Greek philosophy assist your Christian faith.

But remember that the Jews (Pharisees) and Early Christians believed exactly what Innocente and all Christians hold without any need for enlisting the assistance Greek soul/philosophy.

 

[inocente]

On the contrary, based on what Fr. Nathan Castle, O.P., pointed out in a workshop he gave today in my parish (St. Christopher’s in Dickson, TN), possessing an immortal spiritual soul is exactly what guarantees that I will still be me when I am resurrected on the Last Day. I find that a comforting, valuable and thoroughly unmetaphysical function for the ISS! :extrahappy:

As it was me who coined the acronym ISS, it’s worth pointing out that that the ‘I’ stands not for immortal but for immaterial.

Perhaps it’s how you explained it, but “possessing” a soul sounds as if you believe you are separate from your soul, which goes even further than substance dualism in its divisions. Also, I believe it’s Christ who makes the immortal guarantee, not what you possess.

 

[inocente]

Ah, if my “reticence” has spoken volumes it is because you have the ears of an amateur psychoanalyst yourself, Inocente.

So, I would need to answer this question first: “what is exactly a monist?”. But as there are many varieties of monism, I would need your help to define yours; because what I can read in your posts is not enough to develop a round idea of it:

• You have said you admit the existence of God.
• You have said you are not pantheistic.
• You have said God is the creator of the world.
• You have said God is not a substance.
• You have said that mind emerges from matter.
• Though you have not said it explicitly, it seems to me that, in your opinion, mind does not emerge from any matter, but from an organized matter.
• Still, it is not very clear to me if in your opinion the organization that matter has reached before the emergence of mind has been the result of a random process.
• It is not clear to me either if you think about “organization” as the sign of another principle besides matter or if your implicit distinction between matter and organized matter is accidental.
• It is not clear to me if in your opinion we human beings are the result of the properties of matter or if -besides creating matter-, God had efficient specific plans about us.

Your answer to my question “in your opinion, what is the origin of logic?”, would help me understand (just a little, I guess) your position; because it does not resemble any monism that I know, Inocente (for instance, I haven’t known of any monism which acknowledges the existence of God but is not a pantheism).

Talking about me personally in the guise that it helps you avoid talking about me personally is not exactly a subtle gambit. I mean it’s all very flattering but I’m not interested thanks all the same :compcoff:.

In terms of debating technique, some posters try to make out that all good Christians must believe the Gospel of The Poster / Descartes / Aquinas and/or Aristotle (well, except for all the most obviously wrong bits), but nope, Christians follow Christ, the clue’s in the name.

Anyway, back to the subject.

You’ve said a few things which triggered my reification-fallacy alarm, and off it went again when you asked how does a monist explain the origin of logic. Presumably you mean monism in the context of philosophy of mind, as opposed to the subset of substance dualism which believes in ISS.

I’m still at a loss as to why different positions on the philosophy of mind would affect the origin of an abstraction such as logic. Perhaps if you explain what in your opinion is the origin of logic, I might get a handle on what you’re asking and silence that pesky reification-fallacy alarm.

 

[Hunho]

As it was me who coined the acronym ISS, it’s worth pointing out that that the ‘I’ stands not for immortal but for immaterial.

Perhaps it’s how you explained it, but “possessing” a soul sounds as if you believe you are separate from your soul, which goes even further than substance dualism in its divisions. Also, I believe it’s Christ who makes the immortal guarantee, not what you possess.

1. Apologies for misusing “ISS,” but I couldn’t locate an explanation so I guessed. On the other hand, spirit, at least in Catholic doctrine, is a immaterial substance (i.e., “stuff” of which an existent consists) so I went with the other meaning for “I”. And, according to Catholic doctrine to human soul is immortal.
2. It’s not that we “possess” a soul, it’s that we are a soul with a material body. The material body “wears out” eventually, but the spiritual soul continues to exist.
3. Jesus Christ makes the guarantee of the resurrection of the body (and the body’s reunion with its soul) and where the human person will spend his/her existence—with God or without God.
   

 

[ynotzap]

I was keeping things colloquial.
Technically I suppose I am referring to analytic propositions a la Kant.

Yes I like the sound of “material universals” - though most people who go on about human intellection seem to think all universals are “spiritual.”
Who/where in the Aristotelian/Scholastic tradition do you go to for this understanding of material universals?

WRT means with respect to.

IMHO: Since I am not knowledgable of all of St.Thomas’s works I don’t know. I can make an educated guess. Since it was determined that our knowledge started with our exposure to the objective world of matter, that these material universals were obvious. Then there was a distinction made between animate, and inanimate matter, and a distinction between material soul, and immaterial soul. This is were we find ourselves in our present debates.
We came to the problems concerning the phantasm. It was verified that ST.Thomas indeed acknowledged this truth in his teachings. And it is the point of departure from the sensible species, and entering into the realm of the intelligible species by the power of the souls ability to abstract the immaterial idea. It is through the nature of visible things (matter) that we arise to a certain knowledge of invisible things (soul)
There are in animals certain actions that appear to be the product of intelligent reasoning, eg. the use of tools, and this seems to present a problem of how an animal knows this without “spiritual intellection” St.Thomas would call this sense-knowledge. My take on this is that the animal is programed to seek food and that instinct can manifest itself in what appears to be the result of thinking by the intricacies of the programing, just as one would think a computer is thinking especially if the programer is a good programer. Even in the design of some bird’s beak it is obvious that it was designed to hold a stick to get food. I often refer to animals as biological computers, and it’s all matter.

Science has come a long way, and works with these material universals, that which is common to all matter. But in the process some ideas have cause conflict with our faith. eg. Materialistic evolution, abortions, origin of life, the origin of the universe,stem cell research etc. The Church finds itself with the moral obligation to confront these issues to guide the faithful in truth The existence of man’s spiritual soul and salvation are her main concerns, and anything that threatens these truths like the Mother she is, she will protect her children with God to back her.

 

[Richca]

IMHO: Since I am not knowledgable of all of St.Thomas’s works I don’t know. I can make an educated guess. Since it was determined that our knowledge started with our exposure to the objective world of matter, that these material universals were obvious. Then there was a distinction made between animate, and inanimate matter, and a distinction between material soul, and immaterial soul. This is were we find ourselves in our present debates.
We came to the problems concerning the phantasm. It was verified that ST.Thomas indeed acknowledged this truth in his teachings. And it is the point of departure from the sensible species, and entering into the realm of the intelligible species by the power of the souls ability to abstract the immaterial idea. It is through the nature of visible things (matter) that we arise to a certain knowledge of invisible things (soul)
There are in animals certain actions that appear to be the product of intelligent reasoning, eg. the use of tools, and this seems to present a problem of how an animal knows this without “spiritual intellection” St.Thomas would call this sense-knowledge. My take on this is that the animal is programed to seek food and that instinct can manifest itself in what appears to be the result of thinking by the intricacies of the programing, just as one would think a computer is thinking especially if the programer is a good programer. Even in the design of some bird’s beak it is obvious that it was designed to hold a stick to get food. I often refer to animals as biological computers, and it’s all matter.

Science has come a long way, and works with these material universals, that which is common to all matter. But in the process some ideas have cause conflict with our faith. eg. Materialistic evolution, abortions, origin of life, the origin of the universe,stem cell research etc. The Church finds itself with the moral obligation to confront these issues to guide the faithful in truth The existence of man’s spiritual soul and salvation are her main concerns, and anything that threatens these truths like the Mother she is, she will protect her children with God to back her.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean or trying to convey by the phrase “material universals”, but I believe this phrase would be foreign to the scholastics and I don’t believe I’ve come across it in Aquinas’ works. In Aquinas’ doctrine, a 'material universal" would in a sense be a contradiction. For matter is the principle of individuation and whatever is composed out of matter is some particular material thing such as a particular atom, rock, plant, or horse.

A universal concept comes not from the matter of some thing but from its form. It is the form which places some thing into a class of things, for example lions, and through which a thing has some specific nature. The form determines the matter. The form is also a principle of knowledge. Matter in and of itself, prime matter, is unintelligible. The intellect abstracts the form of some thing from all the material individuating characteristics and thus we can understand the essence and substance of a thing. This abstraction gives us the idea of the essences and natures of things such as humanity, horseness, etc. This is the universal which is the object of scientific knowledge. The essence of a material substance considered as a universal includes matter, however, not individual matter such as these bones and this flesh, but common matter as Aquinas calls it. For man cannot be conceived without flesh and bones but the universal “humanity” does not include individual flesh and bones such as the flesh and bones of Socrates, but flesh and bones in general. The universal concept known by the intellect is immaterial even though it may include common matter because you can’t imagine it, if you tried to imagine it you would be imagining some particular thing such as a particular man, it is something known only by the intellect. The universal cannot be imagined.