John:
3.) IOW, we really can create mental objects out of nothing?
JDaniel said:
Well before we can know what something is we have to know what it is that is being discussed; with regards to the particular.
Something our mind is entertaining. This could be a concept; such as “good”; or a particular such as “tree”.
Argumentation is one of the best ways to come to the truth; the fact is I am either correct; incorrect or partially correct. If any of these is found to be true, then I have learned; and thus I cannot object.
OK, so, our “creativeness” is really limited to only that which we have taken in, at some time or other, somatically, correct? We generate composites from our memory’s snapshots of real objects, correct? For example, in the first step, we create monsters from combining creatures that we’ve seen in nature, or from pictures.
Why? Is that because our ability to recollect what we’ve seen can be imperfect? But, under hypnosis those abilities are improved dramatically, yes?
An example of a “conceptual mental object” might be?
Does this go back to my question about human inability?
Aren’t those merely representations as opposed to “objects,” per se?
I definitely concur and look forward to your reply.
It would seem that creativeness is limited to rearranging information – although I don’t think it must be a conscious.
Well I can conceive something in my mind that is impossible in reality; an example would be an “Impossible object”; some of which we can see in artwork.
For physical examples – Kant would say a dimension; Albert the Great would say light; myself; it would seem that a thing such as “good” or “just” is a conceptual object.
Yes
“Object” in philosophy, is a more accurate way of saying “thing”.
OK. then, it is the rearranging of soma? Soma exists.
This, too, would be a rearranging of soma, would it not?
Such as?
From where did we get the (name removed by moderator)ut for “good” or “just”?
So, it’s equivocal in meaning?
Information is not soma; it is of the psyche; although information can come through sensory (name removed by moderator)uts; which should not be compartmentalised unnecessarily.
I was trying to avoid a digression into the unconscious and how that can interact with creating composite mental objects from sensory information. ie; just because we cannot necessarily understand how a composite is generated; does not mean it is not a composite.
Not really. I ask here; do you mean merely the inanimate by “soma”; for that is what my understanding (for want of a better word) is for that.
Width.
We are born with it.
It’s technically plurivocal in meaning; in that it applies to a plurality of different applications.To throw in more confusion I shall analagorically explain; in the same way as subject is to a sentance; object is to an object.
So we do not receive information via our senses?
I’m still trying to understand from where does the information come that is needed to generate a composite.
Oh, I’m sorry. By soma I mean all mental representations of corporeal objects that were received somatically, through any or all five of our senses, whether animate, or inanimate. By “corporeal” I mean sort of that which the physicists call " physical."
How do we not experience “width?”
So, we don’t “see” good and just. We don’t witness good men and just men. We don’t run comparisons. It is purely from natural law?
OK. I’l accept that.
Not necessarily only through our senses. But the majority of our information comes through senses.
Object → Perception of Object → Object exists in intellect
I believe we experience width also; I just threw Kant and St. Albert the Great to give examples from a wide variety of philosophical interpretations of the world. Kant believed that width was an a priori notion used to systematise the world.
Justice and Goodness are inherant; but because of the Primacy of the will; often we choose to ignore or abuse them; ont he other hand; many choose to live them fully.
Well we have to use a word to signify the subject of the sentance; when talking of a “thing” in reality or a “concept - thing” in the brain it is just the way all the philosophy I have read has used the word “object”. To signify the subject.
“Object,” from the Latin, ob-jectum, is that which is “thrown against something else.” I think of it is a sort of obstacle. An object, in this meaning, is that which primarily and essentially confronts any vital power. We derive other meanings from this primary meaning, don’t we?.
Ugh! I think I prefer, “composite!”
OK.
So, they are part of an “objective morality?” That won’t sit well with a bunch on this forum!
Yes. I’ve read that, too.
Thus: you believe that things are written to our minds that are not from soma? That is to say, are not merely representations (pictures, so to speak) of corporeal objects, whether physical, or non-physical?
Ugh! Me not like that Lone Ranger.
The primary adequate object of the human intellect is the being of sensible things; this is not due to the nature of the intellect; or from the union of body and soul. Our present knowlege is a product of the communication between sensible and intellectual facultires;-- but this is not the end of knowlege; and is but a preparatory stage of the fullest human nature. When we disembody our souls at death; it will be able to fully act in its natural way as a pure intellect; and when reunited with the greater body will not lost the power of spiritual communication which is the natural perogative of the intellect. It is only that presently in our impoverished condition that we cannot fully embrace the natural perogative of the intellect; and thus rely upon the being of sensible things.
It would seem they are part of an objective morality. Subjective morality is a contradiction in terms; for in every speciesthere is something one and singular to that species; that unites that species to itself; therefore etc.
That has lost me completely!
Without going into the metaphysical, do you not see that what is written to our minds is nothing but soma? Is anything else written to our minds, at this less metaphysical crossroad? If there is, what might be an example?
I agree with this, but, it is a purely metaphysically conception.
Thank you.
OK. I understand.
Sorry. It’s a saying from an old black and white TV show, but, it’s not important.
Actually, you do not mean that at all. You simply mean material, which is a term which physicists and everyone else who’s read a relevant book knows to mean, “composed of matter.”
If what I’ve written about my Catholic teachers has come across as accusing them of being deficient, I deeply apologize. Like every student, I’ve had great, mediocre, and downright awful teachers. More of my great teachers were found within the six Catholic schools I’ve attended than I found in universities.You keep piling on the evidence that your school and its teachers were very deficient and lacking in what was really taught. They abused their authority, knowingly or not. It’s not an excuse for the poor formation (or lack of care) offered but it’s a shame nonetheless and it continues to happen even now in schools like Notre-Dame that seem to be “catholic” only in name.
You are right to ask question on what you were taught, though it seems many of the things you were taught were false or incomplete.
I’m curious what their response to dinosaurs were. My guess is they just told you to shut up.(I’ve seen people making inferences from Genesis that dinosaurs are mentioned by the way, though that’s interpretation rather than doctrine.)
Liraco,
Liraco,Ashamed of that? Never. I’m not here to look smart but to discuss things to the best of my abilities even if at times like these they’re lacking. I’m only ashamed of my sins.
If you point out my mistakes I can see them and learn from them, otherwise I’d go on thinking I did just fine.
Your question was legitimate, even if you didn’t understand what it implied at the time.
Just like you say a physical singularity is absurd, a rock impossible for God to lift is logically absurd.
This is the distinction with the misconception of Omnipotence meaning “anything” vs “anything possible”. JohnDamian explained it well though. It doesn’t mean that now there’s some new restriction on God that wasn’t there before, but we come to understand what it implies better.
By the act of God making a rock so heavy he couldn’t move it, He “loses” His omnipotence. If God could do absolutely anything else (including creation from nothing) but can’t make that rock so heavy then, again, He’s no longer omnipotent.
So let’s apply the law of non-contradiction which you put as “God being bound to logic”. He either is omnipotent or He isn’t, and an act isn’t going to take that away.
Man could probably move a whole planet with massive rockets if the technology allowed it (oversimplifying of course), so I don’t see why the Creator of everything couldn’t do grander things.
Simple answer is yes, by an act of will God could move a galaxies. How? We have to anthropomorphize because that’s how we understand.
Imagine looking at your desk at a pen, and you want to move it. In our case we will to move it and set about doing it through our body, presumably the hand (as we’re not telekinetic) and proceed to move it. So imagine a galaxy being similarly small and easily manipulable to God, except there’s no arm to “mediate” and His will is immediately effected. Simplified explanation but hope it illustrates the point.
By an act of will He made the universe, by an act of will you and I exist, by an act of will every single proton, neutron, etc. (however small it all ultimately goes) are maintained in existence.
People tend to think of an absent God that just set up some chain reaction and let it go off on its own when in fact every single thing is all in place by His will. If anything ever stopped being in His “mind” it would immediately cease to be.
Indeed, in that respect I think you’re quite right.
They key difference though is that you hold Him bound to laws like the conservation of energy while I hold that He is outside of those laws because He created them.
You come dangerously close to Stephen Hawkin claiming "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
I know you’ll resent that so here’s why: even if his premise is absolutely absurd, you’re both thus far not answering the same basic question:
WHY are the laws there in the first place?
Why something instead of nothing. Why order instead of chaos?
Laws are necessary to hold order but the existence of the universe or its laws are not necessary in and of themselves. They don’t HAVE to be, yet they are. Why?
Your “quote,” “Ugh! Me not like that Lone Ranger,” was never a part of any Lone Ranger show.
In general terms it is correct to say that the primary faculty of the intellect is sensible things. However; there is reason to believe that other things are not sensible (ie; from the senses); morality for example.
There is nothing wrong with critical metaphysics; the problem starts when such reasoning is not a posteriori; ie-- when people just make things up.
Our senses are physical; thus all sensible knowlege is physical knowlege. But not all our knowlege must be sensible knowlege; it might; for example be infused knowlege such as revelation; morality etc.
Greylorn:
But, I seem to remember Tonto saying “Ugh” throughout the show! I always used to wonder how Tonto was going to make in that brave new world.