What exactly is the soul?

[Richca]

Originally Posted by ynotzap View Post
I can’t give any imput to the use of material form, I have to take your word for it, as my knowledge of Aquinas’s works are limited. I do have to disagree with you on the understanding of the phantasm. It is a physical representation of a physical objective reality, as any TV picture is a representation of an object. The TV image of a tree, is not the physical tree, but a representation produced by electricity, frequency of light and sound,electronic circuits and components, including optics, math principles, etc. This is my argument with Rica, and again this truths are found in Physics.

I was not aware that you had an argument with me concerning the phantasm. I have always said on this thread following St Thomas that the sensory powers of the soul whether exterior or interior act through a corporeal organ of the body and the phantasm is some sensory representation. So, I’m not quite sure what your issue is with me concerning this. Maybe you can elaborate.

 

[GEddie]

Richca;13148332:

I think we also need to keep in mind that a human being or animal or any living thing is not the same thing as a tv set or video camara. The bodies of living things are made out of cells while inanimate things do not have cells. Inanimate things do not have souls either. A tv set or video camara needs a power source, either AC or DC power, to operate. Similarly, living things are “powered” and animated by the soul and its powers.

We are also physically powered, by the breath in our lungs and the sugar in our blood.

If a chokehold were wrapped around your neck, or a massive insulin overdose injected into your body, your soul would not keep you alive but would simply depart.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Aloysium]

We are also physically powered, by the breath in our lungs and the sugar in our blood.

If a chokehold were wrapped around your neck, or a massive insulin overdose injected into your body, your soul would not keep you alive but would simply depart.

ICXC NIKA

Our bodies are a collection of physical processes that transform what is considered outside, into body. There is no distinction between matter thought of as inside or outside other than perhaps the complexity and how it interacts. We as ourselves as persons exist as separate and in relation to the rest because we possess a spiritual soul. We perceive, understand, move and do what we do as physical-spiritual beings. That we exist is ultimately the result of our being “powered” by God.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I’d imagine that to a materialist, there would be no “universal ideas,” just ideas held in common in all heads.

ICXC NIKA

Continuing in my role as a materialistic monist, I think that an idea needs to be a set of interactions in our body (for which our brain plays a central role). Inocente has stressed that he understands “thought” as a process, but interactions are processes, so I think he didn’t add something new with his assertion. Now, I guess it would be difficult to ascertain if two persons are having the same thought by looking at the images of their brains. At first sight, I would think that identical images are identical thoughts (what else?), but even as a materialist I wouldn’t rush to conclusions.

So, I would interpret the commonality of ideas (which I think would not be possible to establish) as the possibility of communication; and to determine if communication is possible, I would rely on observable results (execution of tasks, for example). Then, I would substitute “common ideas” for “similar behaviors”.

But then you could ask me: “how can you say that two behaviors are similar?”. I think it would be easy for me to forget that I am playing the role of a materialistic monist and would say “because those behaviors produce in me similar subjective experiences”. But materialists would need to get rid of “subjective experiences” as a possible answer to that kind of questions. An experiment would be needed: the brain of a person will be monitored while he observes other guys, one after the other, executing similar tasks. If the images of his brain are similar to each other, this will mean that those guys really were executing similar tasks… But you could ask, full of mercy towards me: "how can you say that those images are similar?.. Oh, my God!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . materialists would need to get rid of "subjective experiences" as a possible answer to that kind of questions. An experiment would be needed: the brain of a person will be monitored while he observes other guys . . .

This is a joke, right? Reminds me of the Vedic story about the Guru who says to his disciple, “I asked you to kill the chicken where no one will see.” To which the disciple answers, " I could not. Wherever I went, the chicken saw."

 

[ynotzap]

 

[ynotzap]

Since we were talking about intelligible species, and sensible species, I guess I can mention “endangered species” A game warden spotted and old man cooking up a bird over an open fire, and he asked " What kind of a bird are you cooking. Man answered “yellow tail egret” Warden answered " That’s on the endangered species list, I can take you in for that" Man answered “I didn’t know”, Warden said " I’ll let you go this time", by the way how does it taste" Old man answered " Somewhere between a Bald Eagle and a Whooping Crane" I hope this doesn’t get me fired

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Aquinas does use here and there the phrase “material form.” I don’t have time at the moment to dig some text up, but I’m absolutely sure of it from remembrance. It means what I said in the post. He probably used it to distinguish the forms of all material substances from the form or spiritual soul of humans. The substantial form of humans which is the soul can exist without the body or matter. Material forms are wholly tied to matter which means they cannot exist except with matter. When an animal or plant dies its soul ceases to exist.

I would be keen to see those refs!

I also find your definition of spiritual interesting.
Linus might disagree, if animals can have an afterlife then they would be spiritual though without intellect.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not sure if we have the same meaning for introspection. To me it means “examining one’s own conscious thoughts and feelings”. Trying to explain our mind by introspection has been the downfall of many philosophers of mind, since most of our mind is unconscious and not available to introspection.

The idea that we cannot study mind appears to presume there’s a difference between a mind and a philosophical zombie, which I think would be putting the horse before the cart.

I don’t know about materialistic monists (although I will wear every label given so generously by other posters ) but nope, thoughts are fleeting, activities, processes, not little piles of molecules.

You were previously not separating logic from knowledge of logic, and here you’re not separating universals from the concept of universals. As I understand it, even meta-physicians don’t agree on whether “universals” really exist, but an antelope recognizes a lion (all lions, any lion) as a potential threat and therefore must have some notion akin to universals. All we’re actually talking about with universals is noticing some common characteristic, which would seem basic to the survival of many animals. The trafico police have an Automatic Number Plate Recognition box in their cars which looks for vehicle registration plates (by universals) and recognizes the registration (singularity). I’m told that animals and ANPR boxes do these things without immaterial spiritual substances. I think you’re making it out to be much more mystical than reality.

Well put, my position also, at least with sensible memory and primitive “universals.”

And, as you say, if machines or animals are a posteriori observed to function in a way that admits of universals then prima facie the
only difference with man is first to be judged quantitative not qualitative surely.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Since we were talking about intelligible species, and sensible species, I guess I can mention “endangered species” A game warden spotted and old man cooking up a bird over an open fire, and he asked " What kind of a bird are you cooking. Man answered “yellow tail egret” Warden answered " That’s on the endangered species list, I can take you in for that" Man answered “I didn’t know”, Warden said " I’ll let you go this time", by the way how does it taste" Old man answered " Somewhere between a Bald Eagle and a Whooping Crane" I hope this doesn’t get me fired

Good one

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Since we were talking about intelligible species, and sensible species, I guess I can mention “endangered species” A game warden spotted and old man cooking up a bird over an open fire, and he asked " What kind of a bird are you cooking. Man answered “yellow tail egret” Warden answered " That’s on the endangered species list, I can take you in for that" Man answered “I didn’t know”, Warden said " I’ll let you go this time", by the way how does it taste" Old man answered " Somewhere between a Bald Eagle and a Whooping Crane" I hope this doesn’t get me fired

Good one

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Linus - tried to send you a PM but the system says you switched them off. You suddenly stopped posting two weeks ago, hope you’re OK and just on vacation or something.

I was wondering the same thing.
Linus hasn’t been logged online at all since July 8th.

ARE YOU THERE LINUS AND OK?

 

[ynotzap]

Me too Linus, I need my reference back-up buddy!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Me too Linus. Where have you been?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

This is a joke, right? Reminds me of the Vedic story about the Guru who says to his disciple, “I asked you to kill the chicken where no one will see.” To which the disciple answers, " I could not. Wherever I went, the chicken saw."

I couldn’t avoid it. Aloysium! I guess pretending to be a materialistic monist is too hard for me. Reality becomes incredibly poor.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

If the results are similar, are then the causes similar? Some guys think so, which shows that logic doesn’t rule over every reasoning.

It is known by many that

If A then B, and
No B, then
No A.

Some guys think that

If A then B, and
B, then
A.

Is a valid form: “same results imply same causes”. They request to be disproven.

If you died an hour ago, you didn’t buy a plane ticket half an hour ago.
You didn’t buy a plane ticket half an hour ago,
Therefore, you died an hour ago.

Is that enough?

 

[inocente]

It wouldn’t be strange if we understand “introspection” differently. I think there is no common agreement on its definition. Besides, there are different levels or degrees of introspection. To say “I think” or “I have such or such feeling” is already the result of an introspective act. I know philosophers who have resorted on introspection to develop interesting descriptions of their minds, but I don’t know anyone who has tried to “explain” our mind using this method. Could you give me the names of some of those philosophers and the works in which they tried to do it?

Every philosopher of mind who uses armchair philosophy rather than doing empirical research.

I know nothing about “philosophical zombies”, Inocente. If you could clarify your objection I would appreciate it.

That’s a bit surprising, it’s a standard concept in the philosophy of mind, google it or “p-zombie”.

The discussion about universals is an old one. On the other hand, as I said before, “I have no doubt that to be a materialistic monist is not an impediment to be able to recognize objects, or characteristics of objects”. I agree with you that an antelope is able to recognize a lion (and a lion an antelope too!). Those are the phenomena that need to be explained (acts of recognition). “Universals” are a plausible model, but not one that is consistent with your materialistic position. Perhaps you would like to present your “non-mystical concept of universals” and clarify why you think that it is evident. That might help me understand what you are trying to convey.

I think you need to learn a bit more about the philosophy of mind and much more about me before calling me materialistic. I answer to Christ, not Facebook .

In information processing, instead of universals we’d probably speak of patterns and pattern recogintion, and call the types of universals, classes, properties and relationships. It’s not my area but here’s a cool paper on Face hallucination based on sparse local-pixel structure, which uses knowledge of what you might call “facial universals” in enhancing low resolution images to speed up facial recognition. ISS not required. Now that comparatively simple machines can recognize classes of objects, it’s time to move beyond claims that it’s a phenomenon or that it needs to be explained.

I also have said that “it is not necessary to believe in “universals” to have the notion of them”, but perhaps you didn’t pay attention and somehow you got the strange impression that I didn’t distinguish between “universals” and the “concept of universals”. That was a funny observation.

Now now, temper temper. You had said that:

(1) “to be a monist implies the belief that thought is material”. Nope.
(2) “What we call ideas, therefore, are material for him”. Nope.
(3) “what is called “universal ideas” should be no less material”. Nope.

Then you came to a conclusion you thought absurd. Yes, you got that right, absurd because of those three strange claims.

I don’t see how it’s even coherent to say that a thought is a little pile of molecules. Does it mean that in your own beliefs, a thought is made of a little pile of ISS?

Also, it appears as if you were equating the functionality of an ANPR box and the ability of an animal to recognize things. No doubt that animals are as material as ANPR boxes, but do you pretend that what they can do is the same? In the role I am playing now as a materialistic monist, I wouldn’t have any basis to defend that.

Materialism is by definition a monist school, so calling it monist is redundant, and in normal speech “materialistic” means valuing possessions above spiritual values. In reality, we’re only talking about minds, and a lack of belief in ISS, so “physicalism” is more usual and more neutral.

Anyway, I think you from your recent comments you don’t have a handle on your role play. Machines can recognize things without ISS, and non-human animals can recognize things without (I’m told) ISS. So there seems no good reason why humans need ISS to recognize things either.

RIP ISS.

 

[GEddie]

Facebook is a plot from Hades. That’s a given.

But if you answer to Christ, you then must explain away that He definitely held to what you call an “ISS.”

Let’s lose the unofficial acronyms by the way. ISS is not a mind, life, or soul or permutation thereof; it is a space station.

Shalom and ICXC NIKA.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . comparatively simple machines can recognize classes of objects, it’s time to move beyond claims that it’s a phenomenon or that it needs to be explained . . .

Just to clarify: When the xBox says “hi” to you by name, it does not recognize you - neither as a human being nor as a specific person. It is just processing the light that strikes its sensor to eventually cause the diaphragm on the the speaker to vibrate at certain frequencies that can be understood by us. We rearrange matter to create machines that extend our senses and computational abilities. You need a person to build and utilize them. If you actually believe that a person recognizing classes of objects is the same as a machine “recognizing” the same thing, well I’m not sure where to begin other than to say it is obviously not.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Every philosopher of mind who uses armchair philosophy rather than doing empirical research.

Strange names! Where are those guys from?

Can you give me the names of some of their books which you have read and analyzed?

That’s a bit surprising, it’s a standard concept in the philosophy of mind, google it or “p-zombie”.

Is Google your only source of knowledge? I would rather prefer something more… solid. Have you read something which you can recommend? We never covered anything about those philosophical zombies in our classes on the philosophy of mind.

I think you need to learn a bit more about the philosophy of mind and much more about me before calling me materialistic. I answer to Christ, not Facebook .

Absolutely, there is still a lot to learn for me, including topics about philosophy of mind. That is why I don’t dare to proclaim things as pretentious as “the belief on ISS is destined to disappear!”.

In information processing, instead of universals we’d probably speak of patterns and pattern recogintion, and call the types of universals, classes, properties and relationships. It’s not my area but here’s a cool paper on Face hallucination based on sparse local-pixel structure, which uses knowledge of what you might call “facial universals” in enhancing low resolution images to speed up facial recognition. ISS not required. Now that comparatively simple machines can recognize classes of objects, it’s time to move beyond claims that it’s a phenomenon or that it needs to be explained.

I think you need to study philosophy before you engage on discussions about philosophical topics. It turns out that you have just read “bits of Aristotle” and “bits of Descartes”; still, you are convinced that they must be wrong. “Universals” is not a term invented by engineers on information processing, but by medieval philosophers.

I don’t deny that some machines react in a certain way that would resemble the phenomenon of recognition; but that fact is not enough to claim that our recognition abilities are the same as the abilities of those machines.

Now now, temper temper. You had said that:

(1) “to be a monist implies the belief that thought is material”. Nope.
(2) “What we call ideas, therefore, are material for him”. Nope.
(3) “what is called “universal ideas” should be no less material”. Nope.

Then you came to a conclusion you thought absurd. Yes, you got that right, absurd because of those three strange claims.

I don’t see how it’s even coherent to say that a thought is a little pile of molecules. Does it mean that in your own beliefs, a thought is made of a little pile of ISS?

Yes, to say that thought is a little pile of molecules is absurd (it could be coherent!, but absurd). That is why I have never said it. You can go back to my previous posts and you will not find that assertion under my name (please remember, I am JuanFlorencio, and you are Inocente). What I have said is that for someone who says that there are no immaterial spiritual substances (materialist or physicalist, whatever you prefer to be named), but only matter, thought must be material… Or is it immaterial, Inocente?

Materialism is by definition a monist school, so calling it monist is redundant, and in normal speech “materialistic” means valuing possessions above spiritual values. In reality, we’re only talking about minds, and a lack of belief in ISS, so “physicalism” is more usual and more neutral.
Anyway, I think you from your recent comments you don’t have a handle on your role play. Machines can recognize things without ISS, and non-human animals can recognize things without (I’m told) ISS. So there seems no good reason why humans need ISS to recognize things either.

As I said before, saying that you are a “materialistic monist” only means that you believe mind emerges from matter, and that you have affirmed you are a monist; nothing else. I have no basis to add anything else to the meaning of “materialistic monist” as applied to you. Idealists can also be monists (by the way, idealists might not believe in “universals” either, like George Berkeley). And it is true that in normal speech “materialistic” means valuing possessions above spiritual values. I don’t have any basis to think that this meaning applies to you; but anyway you are technically a materialistic monist, by the reasons given.

RIP ISS.

Do you know a stronger “argument”? One which can be falsified, as BH likes to request?