What exactly is the soul?

[Richca]

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.

I’m not to sure what you mean here but I think you have it backwards for sure. Man is traditionally defined as a rational animal. Man’s spiritual faculties of intellect or reason and will is what principally distinguishes him from the other animals; this is a revealed truth but which can be known by the natural light of reason as well. A spirit is not quantifiable in any way as if you can write a mathematical equation for it, it is wholly devoid of matter and quantity which is the first disposition of matter. Man’s spiritual intellect pertains to knowledge for it is by this power that we gain knowledge. Now, the mode of knowing is according to the nature of the knower. Accordingly, it seems to follow that the object of the spiritual intellect is not quantity, but that which is without quantity and universal, immaterial concepts and natures of things. The intellect penetrates to the substance of things while quantity is an accident. The science of metaphysics is beyond mathematics which deals with abstract quantities and dimensions and such. Being, which is the first object of our intellect, is not quantity for quantity and quantities are kinds of beings and are in the category of accident which either exist actually outside our intellect in real things or only in our intellect such as mathematical equations which are beings of reason.
God gave us our intellects so that we can know him and God is surely not a quantity.

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
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.

I’m not to sure what you mean here but I think you have it backwards for sure. Man is traditionally defined as a rational animal. Man’s spiritual faculties of intellect or reason and will is what principally distinguishes him from the other animals; this is a revealed truth but which can be known by the natural light of reason as well. A spirit is not quantifiable in any way as if you can write a mathematical equation for it, it is wholly devoid of matter and quantity which is the first disposition of matter. Man’s spiritual intellect pertains to knowledge for it is by this power that we gain knowledge. Now, the mode of knowing is according to the nature of the knower. Accordingly, it seems to follow that the object of the spiritual intellect is not quantity, but that which is without quantity and universal, immaterial concepts and natures of things. The intellect penetrates to the substance of things while quantity is an accident. The science of metaphysics is beyond mathematics which deals with abstract quantities and dimensions and such. Being, which is the first object of our intellect, is not quantity for quantity and quantities are kinds of beings and are in the category of accident which either exist actually outside our intellect in real things or only in our intellect such as mathematical equations which are beings of reason.
God gave us our intellects so that we can know him and God is surely not a quantity.

BH, if you are referring only to sensible knowledge in your post I quote above, then my post probably does not refer specifically to that or address that issue. As I said, it is not clear to me exactly what you are trying to convey. My post refers to the nature of human knowledge as proceeding from their spiritual soul which distinguishes man from the animals.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Again in my materialistic role.

So, I am matter, nothing else, but matter. And I have memories. Sometimes it is difficult for me to remember something. When that happens, I feel the tension in my body: I feel I am about to remember, but the memory doesn’t come out. As I have said, I believe that thoughts are certain interactions taking place in my body (but mainly in my brain). So, those memories must be certain interactions as well. Those interactions must always be taking place, otherwise, what could they be? Arrangements of particles? No! They must be actions, interactions, processes…! However, they must be taking place unconsciously. I know there are processes in my brain which take place in the unconscious. But if I find a certain clue, suddenly the memory becomes conscious. What is the physical difference between an unconscious memory and a conscious memory? I don’t know yet.

How do I know that certain processes in the brain take place in the unconscious? The answer is “thanks to brain scanners and clinical observations”, because we are able to see brain activity through some imaging techniques and we can see if the patient is unconscious… But…, how many unconscious memories do I have right now? I am unable to count them, but surely I have an incredibly large quantity. Then, if memories are unconscious processes in my brain, they must be visible by means of an imaging technique. Is it the case? I have serious doubts.

Once, I was anesthetized. Some of those who do empirical research, not armchair philosophy, have reported that brain activity is reduced when the patient is anesthetized. But when I was conscious again I still remembered many, many things. It must be because those processes in my brain which account for my memories were not stopped by the anesthetic. And if I lost any memory, then that is it: as it was lost, I will never miss it.

… But I really have serious doubts. Imaging techniques let us see the activity of a brain when a patient remembers something, and the active regions are not so small. Where is all the activity associated with the thousands and thousands of memories of that patient?

Some friends of mine, materialists like me (we are christian materialists, you know, generous and pious people), teach that computers have memories, just like human beings (even better, because computers’ memories don’t fade. So, we had better say that we are like computers, though not as good as they are). If we are basically the same thing, then the memories kept in those computers must be processes too (all of them unconscious I think, but my colleagues are so fond of computers that they might disagree). If you turn off your computer, those processes must still be active; otherwise they would be lost. Also, after you record a song in a CD, the CD must be performing the song somehow even if you keep it stored in your drawer for a long time. No energy is required for that, or if it is required, the CD must be absorbing it from its surroundings. And no body can hear the song, of course, but the CD must be performing it; because it is absolutely clear that memories are processes, actions, interactions, not bunches of particles, nor certain material structures. Processes, processes!

Is it… logical?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Let’s accept for a moment that the development of these materialistic statements

• The mind emerges from matter
• Thoughts are physical processes

leads us into an illogical doctrine. So what? To be illogical would mean that that doctrine (as a complex set of brain interactions) does not follow certain patterns. Still, it would be as real as an hypothetical doctrine which follows strictly all those patterns. Both of them would be equally real. Why should one of them be rejected? The fact that there are in the world a variety of doctrines would just mean -for a christian materialist- that matter vibrates in many different fashions, and so, there would be no place for validity or invalidity. We christian materialists are vibrating at such frequency that our great love impulses us to produce a resonance effect in our beloved brothers and sisters: we wish intensely to expand our materialistic beliefs into the brains of our neighbors. That is pure love. Of course, non-materialists will try to do a similar thing, but is it out of pure love? Isn’t it clear that their only intention is to preserve or even resuscitate the old dogmas? I mean, those dogmas are old! Aren’t they? We all should be well tuned, vibrating at the same frequency, the frequency of that set of vibrations which is called “modern science”. Logic is old. RIP logic!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m not to sure what you mean here but I think you have it backwards for sure. Man is traditionally defined as a rational animal. Man’s spiritual faculties of intellect or reason and will is what principally distinguishes him from the other animals; this is a revealed truth but which can be known by the natural light of reason as well. A spirit is not quantifiable in any way as if you can write a mathematical equation for it, it is wholly devoid of matter and quantity which is the first disposition of matter. Man’s spiritual intellect pertains to knowledge for it is by this power that we gain knowledge. Now, the mode of knowing is according to the nature of the knower. Accordingly, it seems to follow that the object of the spiritual intellect is not quantity, but that which is without quantity and universal, immaterial concepts and natures of things. The intellect penetrates to the substance of things while quantity is an accident. The science of metaphysics is beyond mathematics which deals with abstract quantities and dimensions and such. Being, which is the first object of our intellect, is not quantity for quantity and quantities are kinds of beings and are in the category of accident which either exist actually outside our intellect in real things or only in our intellect such as mathematical equations which are beings of reason.
God gave us our intellects so that we can know him and God is surely not a quantity.

This bit…

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.*

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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?

Are you speaking of the discussion on universals and animals.

If so you’ve probably got the wrong end of the stick…
It’s about forming the most likely hypothesis for proving or falsifying so as to build more certainty in the face of multiple possible answers.

If a does b
If c does b
Then let’s hypothesise/test further if a functions much the same as c in respect of b.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Are you speaking of the discussion on universals and animals. b.

Impossible, at my age I still have good eyes and I don’t use sticks.

If so you’ve probably got the wrong end of the stick…
It’s about forming the most likely hypothesis for proving or falsifying so as to build more certainty in the face of multiple possible answers.

If a does b
If c does b
Then let’s hypothesise/test further if a functions much the same as c in respect of b.

Not about “universals”, but about recognition.

We are not dealing with black boxes here; we know what is inside animals, and what is inside your machines. Have a look at them and let me know if you find differences. If you don’t, then it is you who probably are not distinguishing between the two sides of the stick.

 

[inocente]

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.

Actually, ISS is a Dutch facilities management company formed a century ago.

Posters have been using the acronym ISS for some weeks. It stands for immaterial, spiritual and substance, three words which seem important to the various forms of dualism of mind which have been expressed - Aristotlean, Thomist, Cartesian, partial (Linus says he disagrees with some elements), and admixes.

Various posters claim all kinds of thing about Christ, and no doubt by mining appropriate verses one can make Christ a left-wing politician on weekdays and a right-wing politician on Sundays. But as the Father, Christ nor the Spirit, nor any minister, priest nor pastor have ever told me that I must believe whatever various posters claim I must believe, nor actually would it be possible as posters often contradict what other posters claim must be believed, thanks but no dice .

Let’s lose the past tense by the way. Christ is not dead, unlike those philosophies .

 

[inocente]

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.

Sure, I work in information technology, I know none of it is magic. Which is why, when I was told there’s something mystically magical about “universals”, I chose examples in both machines and non-human animals where it’s obviously not mystically magical.

 

[inocente]

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

As you seem to feel that self-reference, recursion and universals are mysterious, perhaps start with Hofstader’s Gödel, Escher, Bach.

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 the term p-zombie has been around at least 40 years. Even librarians use Google these days. Still if you’re happier with parchment, ask a friendly librarian to print off the following article for you: plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

*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!”. *

Lady Bracknell, once people started to learn facts about the stars, belief in celestial spheres faded, and outside of tabloids at least, astrology got replaced by astronomy. In the same way, as more is learned about the workings of the mind, many old beliefs will fade away.

btw Lady Bracknell, it’s said that many people look back and regret the things they didn’t dare do, more than the things they did.

*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. *

It doesn’t “turn out” as if you just uncovered me lying, I told you that earlier. When you don’t have a good hand you always make an irrelevant personal attack. I think I may have told you before, don’t play poker for money, you’re far too easy to read. Neat how you tried to make yourself an authority on both Aristotle and Descartes amongst all that arm waving though.

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.

The fact that so soon after the advent of computers we can already design machines with such capabilities, along with the abilities of non-human animals, indicates that “universals” are nowhere near as mystical as some would claim. Remembering of course that professional philosophers don’t even agree on whether “universals” (as a concept, unreified) exist.

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?

You said, and I quoted you saying: “to be a monist implies the belief that thought is material”; “What we call ideas, therefore, are material for him”; “what is called “universal ideas” should be no less material”.

Since you are speaking of materialism, in which the material is by definition matter, your statement “thought is material” is obviously equal to “thought is matter”. Which is silly, since a thought is fleeting, dynamic, not something permanent. You’re claiming that the monist must think abstractions are concrete. There goes that reification alarm again.

I’ll ask again, since you ducked the question: In your own belief, do you believe a thought is made of ISS? That ISS doesn’t just do the thinking but that thoughts themselves are made of ISS? If you do believe that, wouldn’t there have to be an infinite variety of kinds of ISS, one for every possible thought? How does that work?

If not, if you think that would be plain silly, why ascribe such a ridiculous belief to your monist?

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

I take by falsified you’re asking whether the hypothesis that immaterial spiritual substance(s) exist is open to disproof by empirical evidence.

No, obviously not. It’s therefore what’s called not even wrong, meaning unscientific, pseudoscience. Best not to use words like falsify, proof or disproof around such “hypotheses” .

 

[ynotzap]

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.

 

[inocente]

Again in my materialistic role.

So, I am matter, nothing else, but matter. And I have memories. Sometimes it is difficult for me to remember something. When that happens, I feel the tension in my body: I feel I am about to remember, but the memory doesn’t come out. As I have said, I believe that thoughts are certain interactions taking place in my body (but mainly in my brain). So, those memories must be certain interactions as well. Those interactions must always be taking place, otherwise, what could they be? Arrangements of particles? No! They must be actions, interactions, processes…! However, they must be taking place unconsciously. I know there are processes in my brain which take place in the unconscious. But if I find a certain clue, suddenly the memory becomes conscious. What is the physical difference between an unconscious memory and a conscious memory? I don’t know yet.

How do I know that certain processes in the brain take place in the unconscious? The answer is “thanks to brain scanners and clinical observations”, because we are able to see brain activity through some imaging techniques and we can see if the patient is unconscious… But…, how many unconscious memories do I have right now? I am unable to count them, but surely I have an incredibly large quantity. Then, if memories are unconscious processes in my brain, they must be visible by means of an imaging technique. Is it the case? I have serious doubts.

Once, I was anesthetized. Some of those who do empirical research, not armchair philosophy, have reported that brain activity is reduced when the patient is anesthetized. But when I was conscious again I still remembered many, many things. It must be because those processes in my brain which account for my memories were not stopped by the anesthetic. And if I lost any memory, then that is it: as it was lost, I will never miss it.

… But I really have serious doubts. Imaging techniques let us see the activity of a brain when a patient remembers something, and the active regions are not so small. Where is all the activity associated with the thousands and thousands of memories of that patient?

Some friends of mine, materialists like me (we are christian materialists, you know, generous and pious people), teach that computers have memories, just like human beings (even better, because computers’ memories don’t fade. So, we had better say that we are like computers, though not as good as they are). If we are basically the same thing, then the memories kept in those computers must be processes too (all of them unconscious I think, but my colleagues are so fond of computers that they might disagree). If you turn off your computer, those processes must still be active; otherwise they would be lost. Also, after you record a song in a CD, the CD must be performing the song somehow even if you keep it stored in your drawer for a long time. No energy is required for that, or if it is required, the CD must be absorbing it from its surroundings. And no body can hear the song, of course, but the CD must be performing it; because it is absolutely clear that memories are processes, actions, interactions, not bunches of particles, nor certain material structures. Processes, processes!

Is it… logical?

< sigh >

You saw earlier, because I remember posting it, how human memory works.

neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s4/chapter07.html
extremetech.com/extreme/123485-mit-discovers-the-location-of-memories-individual-neurons

Vast quantities of research all over the world, yet you now deny all of that, and instead put facetious words into my mouth and pretend I made it up all by myself.

Did you forget? You can’t see any difference between a fleeting thought and a stable memory? Really?

< sigh >

As I’ve said, I don’t go in for occult notions and am not interested in speculating, what I think about mind is dead easy to see, just look at the research, go with the science, truth cannot contradict truth. Everything out in the open, out in the light. Whereas for all I know, you are the only person who has ever lived, and the only person who will ever live, who believes exactly what you believe about the mind.

 

[ynotzap]

continuation: You said that you didn’t know why I was referring to Physics, it is because I saw the answer to secondary causes there. You kept treating things “Metaphysically”
I didn’t think you explained the " material soul" sufficiently. Aquinas made a distinction saying that the material soul was the source of the immanent activity (coming from within) of the animal body. That the material soul was intrinsically dependent upon the material body, ( this is where I mixed matter and material, meaning the same thing) The fuller explanation, to me would have to deal with motion, and how is is conduct in a “composition” which the body is. I was aware of the of the three kinds of activities,and their difference, caused by the sentient, vegitative and rational soul. So the quest for the living element in the animal body narrowed down to the source of its motion begins with animal semen united to the ovum.

Life is attributed to that special immanent activity(coming from within) that manifests its real presence by the physical effects it is causing in the human and animal bodies In the human body because of “rational intelligence” which is of a spiritual nature,it is different, but in the body of an animal, (not human animality) is caused by a " material cause", in the secondary cause of motion found in the sperm united to the ovum, called the conceptus. All the potentials by the activity of this physical source of motion causes the body to mature (the fulfillment of all it’s potential) (act and potency) Any show of change in an animal, or human is one of “degree” and not one of kind (nature) Giving a metaphysical answer, doesn’t necessarily clarify the problem, it is one of “particulars”
Decomposition of a composite is what happens to a material body (can I use the word “matter” containing “the implicit meaning of form” maybe not in Metaphysics as you stated, but have you understood the meaning of “Matter” I mean really understand it, I’m still mulling over it.) Decomposition is death to the sentient and vegitative soul, and to the human body which is effected by both, but not to the soul of man, which subsists in itself,like God, who is Subsistence,but needs an external cause , the external source of motion . Motion is synonymous with life.

 

[ynotzap]

continuation: You said that you didn’t know why I was referring to Physics, it is because I saw the answer to secondary causes there. You kept treating things “Metaphysically”
I didn’t think you explained the " material soul" sufficiently. Aquinas made a distinction saying that the material soul was the source of the immanent activity (coming from within) of the animal body. That the material soul was intrinsically dependent upon the material body, ( this is where I mixed matter and material, meaning the same thing) The fuller explanation, to me would have to deal with motion, and how is is conduct in a “composition” which the body is. I was aware of the of the three kinds of activities,and their difference, caused by the sentient, vegitative and rational soul. So the quest for the living element in the animal body narrowed down to the source of its motion begins with animal semen united to the ovum.

Life is attributed to that special immanent activity(coming from within) that manifests its real presence by the physical effects it is causing in the human and animal bodies In the human body because of “rational intelligence” which is of a spiritual nature,it is different, but in the body of an animal, (not human animality) is caused by a " material cause", in the secondary cause of motion found in the sperm united to the ovum, called the conceptus. All the potentials by the activity of this physical source of motion causes the body to mature (the fulfillment of all it’s potential) (act and potency) Any show of change in an animal, or human is one of “degree” and not one of kind (nature) Giving a metaphysical answer, doesn’t necessarily clarify the problem, it is one of “particulars”
Decomposition of a composite is what happens to a material body (can I use the word “matter” containing “the implicit meaning of form” maybe not in Metaphysics as you stated, but have you understood the meaning of “Matter” I mean really understand it, I’m still mulling over it.) Decomposition is death to the sentient and vegitative soul, and to the human body which is effected by both, but not to the soul of man, which subsists in itself,like God, who is Subsistence,but needs an external cause , the external source of motion . Motion is synonymous with life.

I would like to add to the above: What ever has existence per se, can not be generated or corrupted, while things which do not subsist, such as accidents and material form acquire existence or lose it through generation or corruption of composite things Anything subsistent is form alone (without matter) it is impossible for a form to be separated from itself, therefore impossible for subsistent forms to cease to exist. This post is the continuation to my preceeding post to Richca.

 

[ynotzap]

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.

I see electricity as a very animating power in the material, physical body. The experiment with frog legs being made to contract with an electrical charge is a good example. The ability of electric fish being able to produce a shock. The ability of a man being electrocuted to withstand the shock and live, to be electrocuted again. It seems the body is able with it’s own electricity to counter other electrical imput. We talk about electrolytes in the human body Certain chemical and material mixtures produce electricity such as acid, and lead, the body produces hydrochloric acid, some strong stuff. The senses send electrical messages to the brain. And I would say there is plenty electrical activity going on in the brain. When one is hurt, there is possibly a strong electrical reaction causing pain signaling that something is wrong, and the soul, maintaining order in the physical body initiates a healing response and starts a healing process. Healing is one of the signs of an immaterial soul, so is generation. Although I see that the beginning of the sentient animating power is passed on from sperm of one animal, to the sperm of another by generation, procreation by biological means.(secondary causes)

 

[ynotzap]

Richca;13149409:

I see electricity as a very animating power in the material, physical body. The experiment with frog legs being made to contract with an electrical charge is a good example. The ability of electric fish being able to produce a shock. The ability of a man being electrocuted to withstand the shock and live, to be electrocuted again. It seems the body is able with it’s own electricity to counter other electrical imput. We talk about electrolytes in the human body Certain chemical and material mixtures produce electricity such as acid, and lead, the body produces hydrochloric acid, some strong stuff. The senses send electrical messages to the brain. And I would say there is plenty electrical activity going on in the brain. When one is hurt, there is possibly a strong electrical reaction causing pain signaling that something is wrong, and the soul, maintaining order in the physical body initiates a healing response and starts a healing process. Healing is one of the signs of an immaterial soul, so is generation. Although I see that the beginning of the sentient animating power is passed on from sperm of one animal, to the sperm of another by generation, procreation by biological means.(secondary causes)

Correction: healing is one of the powers of both, immaterial, and material souls Electricity itself is not the animating principle, but perhaps a tool or power used by the animating principle. It seems maybe God initiated the first movement in the material soul, and by cause and effect passed on the motion to other sentient souls. He also maintains the movement, as matter does not move itself I posted this post, not Richca, I must be getting tired and messing up, forgive me.

 

[Richca]

continuation: You said that you didn’t know why I was referring to Physics, it is because I saw the answer to secondary causes there. You kept treating things “Metaphysically”

I didn’t think you explained the " material soul" sufficiently. Aquinas made a distinction saying that the material soul was the source of the immanent activity (coming from within) of the animal body. That the material soul was intrinsically dependent upon the material body, ( this is where I mixed matter and material, meaning the same thing) The fuller explanation, to me would have to deal with motion, and how is is conduct in a “composition” which the body is. I was aware of the of the three kinds of activities,and their difference, caused by the sentient, vegitative and rational soul. So the quest for the living element in the animal body narrowed down to the source of its motion begins with animal semen united to the ovum.

 

[Richca]

I read your previous post, thanks. I’m moving on to here. You may be confusing the concepts of form and matter. Form, and more specifically the substantial form, and matter are the two fundamental principles every material substance are composed of. A soul, is a kind of substantial form found in living things. It is the first principle of life in those things which live. Form is act, matter is potentiality. Form is the act of matter. The soul is the act of the body which is made out of matter. The soul, or any form, is not matter. The body of a lion is made out of the same matter and elements as the earth or soil it walks on and sleeps. When a lion dies, its body decomposes into soil or earth. A living lion though is clearly not the same thing as soil even though they have the same kind of matter or elements. There is another principle in the lion besides matter that makes it a living animal as well as what makes it to be a lion. This principle is the substantial form or soul of the lion. Since this principle is not matter, it is immaterial and so is called a form. We cannot use our imagination to try and imagine the soul or substantial form of the lion or try to prove it by using an electron microscope, atom smasher, or physics. It is beyond the realm of the senses and beyond physics but our reason or intellect tells us that this principle of the soul (substantial form) must be in the lion and a part of it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not about “universals”, but about recognition.

We are not dealing with black boxes here; we know what is inside animals, and what is inside your machines. Have a look at them and let me know if you find differences. If you don’t, then it is you who probably are not distinguishing between the two sides of the stick.

That’s just it, we are dealing with “black boxes”.

We observe change, behaviour, functions, accidents, particulars … but never substances or essences. These are inferred through the above accidents, and therefore cannot ever be understood in their fullness.

To that extent we do not fully know what is “inside” animals or ourselves.
And to that extent, yes, we are speaking “black-boxes” from what I can see.

“Inference” of substance seems to necessitate “substance” is in many ways opaque and a “black box.”

Just as this thread demonstrates.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sure, I work in information technology, I know none of it is magic. Which is why, when I was told there’s something mystically magical about “universals”, I chose examples in both machines and non-human animals where it’s obviously not mystically magical.

Agreed.

Quote:

From JF:
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.

The fact that so soon after the advent of computers we can already design machines with such capabilities, along with the abilities of non-human animals, indicates that “universals” are nowhere near as mystical as some would claim. Remembering of course that professional philosophers don’t even agree on whether “universals” (as a concept, unreified) exist.

Also agreed.

Re primitive universals I always did find Occam’s nominalism a more cogent approach.
Like those little sheaf’s of paper we used to painstakingly cartoon with a little extra static movement each page - eventually flicking the lot with our thumb’s to make a “movie” - so too universals from material particulars if you will excuse the mixed metaphor.