So your solutions are that there is either a unconscious functioning of soul or we have three souls? I have a thread on the second solution in here: Does each human/animal/plant have many souls?. I however don’t believe on unconscious functioning.We don’t have two separate souls, but we don’t literally have two separate brains either — the brain has multiple parts/functions, some conscious and some unconscious. The soul doesn’t have parts, but it does have distinct functions (intellect and will, to name two). It doesn’t seem offensive to reason that it has other functions that don’t usually engage the intellect or the will (and therefore happen without conscious awareness or decision-making).
How does the vegetative-sensitive-rational soul setup work for humans? Presumably we either have all three (the first two being material aspects of the body, rather than immaterial like the rational soul) or else the functions of the first two in lower creatures are subsumed by the rational soul — which would be those unconscious soul functions I mention above.
Soul according to hylemorphic dualism is form of body. Soul is affected when brain is affected.Forgive me if I bring a dumb contribution to this thread. These discussions beg a couple of questions that I have often pondered. Is the memory a function of the soul or the physical brain? Clearly, trauma to the brain can affect memory, which implies that that is where the memories lie.
Yes. There is no memory, no experience, etc. upon to death according to hylemorphic dualism.Does this mean we have no memory after death?
Sleeping is a challenge to hylemorphic dualism. The same for anaestheic.Also, given that our consciousness can be interrupted, e.g. by sleep, is that an example of our intellect operating without the memory function? I just had a minor operation with general anaesthetic, and of course have no recollection of the time spent under. Was my intellect working normally during that time but without my memory to prove to me later that I was aware?
There is of course some (name removed by moderator)ut to the brain in some body functioning. Moreover brain is only one part that soul is involved in. Soul is in each part of a person body acting accordingly.The silence of bodily functions results from there being no (name removed by moderator)ut and area of the brain to register the unnecessary information. Our conscious minds are designed to know and act, to ultimately express the capacity to love, the reason why we are here. It all exists, but the visualization of our body in the mind is just that.
It doesn’t equate to conscious awareness.So soul doesn’t fully animate the body?
Soul in hylomorphic dualism is supposed to provide an answer to existence of consciousness and other functions of a alive being. We are simply conscious because we have soul. We have intellect because we have soul. Etc. I am not sure about Aristotle or Aquinas but modern thinker in case of anesthesia for example argue that the person who is soul+matter changes therefore the consciousness of the person is disrupted. That is it. They don’t provide any explanation for why the person goes unconscious. What really happen? The same when the intellect of the person is disrupted due to brain damage. Etc.The people who devised theories like hylemorphic dualism were aware that people sleep, and also that we have autonomic functions (not exactly how they work, but certainly that our bodies do things that we don’t need to think about). Did they really miss or ignore things that obvious?
So soul does more than conscious awareness?It doesn’t equate to conscious awareness.
The soul lives on after the death of the body.So soul does more than conscious awareness?
Few points: (1) Brain receive (name removed by moderator)uts during anesthesia but it doesn’t construct any memory since its function is disrupted. (2) Soul according to hylemorphic dualism is form of matter therefore it is affected by drug. What is form? Form is configuration of matter/atoms in the body.I would think that the soul, being spirit, is unaffected by any physical drug. The physical brain, however, when under anaesthetic, ceases to receive any (name removed by moderator)ut from the senses and therefore remembers nothing. Is it possible then that the intellect, being a property of the soul, continues to function normally during this period, and we are simply unaware of this later because of there being no memory to retrieve from the brain?
Don’t worry about being novice. I have studied philosophy of mind for for about 4 years and I consider myself as novice. We simply don’t know what mind is.I guess I would like to know how this gels with everyone’s understanding of dualism. I am writing this as a novice in the subject of philosophy and theology but am I on the right track?
Great.Upon further research, it seems that in Thomistic thinking the higher soul includes the functions of lower kinds of souls, so in humans the rational soul performs all the functions that a vegetative soul performs in plants and a sensitive soul performs in animals in addition to the functions unique to the rational soul.
To me a mind and awareness attached to it are involved in any change within a system. I have an argument for that: Consider a system which undergoes a change, S1 to S2. S1 and S2 cannot lay at the same point therefore S1 has to vanishes before S2 appears. We however cannot have S2 out of nothing therefore there should be a mind which is aware of S1 and causes S2.What is the basis for your belief that a soul cannot have functions that operate below the level of conscious awareness? So far you seem to be arguing that we have to be conscious of all the soul’s operations because … we have to be conscious of all the soul’s operations. That is circular.
No. The main question related to this thread is that why we don’t experience all changes which happen in our body?The soul lives on after the death of the body.
Does that answer the question?
No. The argument says that the reality that we experience is caused by minds. My mind, essence of me, does also contribute in forming reality.Okay, I see. Isn’t that an argument against reality as we experience it, rather than against the soul specifically, though?
That is correct. We experience the reality that other minds create for us. We contribute in creation of other reality that other minds experience too.Even if we don’t posit the soul as a distinct thing, our minds are obviously not conscious of every change in our bodies.
It is not you. It is another being in which control changes.Something is “aware” enough to control the changes, as you say, but it’s not our conscious minds.
A thermostat is conscious too considering my argument. What it experiences is however very limited.The mechanism may only need to be as “aware” as, say, a thermostat is.
The question is that why we don’t experience all changes if soul which is form of body is in charge of changes?Oh.
Because information overload.
Why would you need to know every little chemical reaction that occurred in every cell at every little moment?
Why would you even want to?
It’s hard enough keeping track of my shopping list.
Okay, why do you think the soul is in charge of bodily changes?The question is that why we don’t experience all changes if soul which is form of body is in charge of changes?
Because soul is form of body.Okay, why do you think the soul is in charge of bodily changes?
I’ve been reading theology and philosophy for a long time and quite frankly this is the first time I’ve ever heard that theory posited.