What is the soul?

quote:

---

There's something that your mind abstracts when looking at a tree that it can tell it's a tree. This is the mind's ability to recognize immaterial forms.

---

I go along with the broad concept of a "form" (not an ideal term) so long as it stays within the realms of attempting to explain the manner in which humans digest and store the information that they receive. In other words, each human mind will create its own set of references for the world it observes. As for there being some kind of eternal "form" that is somehow passed across the universe from one soul to another - I just can't see the need for it, let alone any evidence. If someone had never seen a tree before, they wouldn't recogonize an "immaterial tree-form", they'd see a new combination of shape and colour and store that information.Think of the first time you saw an Ipod. Did it convey its "form" to you, or were you told what it was and subsequently created your own idea of it (form, if you prefer) based on that information?

quote:

---

Therefore, the breath of life described in Genesis could be the infusion of an immortal human form - that immaterial principle which makes us human and not an ape or some other animal (id est the soul).

---

Can't agree with this either. I have little time for this kind of Anthropocentrism. Humans respond to environmental stimuli just like other animals, but with a greater degree of self-awareness.Anyway, one philosopher who might be worth looking at for a more materialistic point of view would be Wittgenstein, who explores the impact of language on the way in which we communicate and understand concepts. Broadly speaking, for him language is the tool we use to convert environmental stimuli into our own "forms" or ideas.This message has been edited by rjb, 04-23-2006 07:43 AM

quote:

---

"The would have an abstraction of something wouldn't they?"

---

Agreed. I don't think we are too far apart on this. My objection centres around the idea that an eternal tree "form" is somehow extant outside the mind, and transferred between souls on some unidentified level. You seemed to be edging toward this territory.As I mentioned, work of Wittgenstein is interesting since he claims the the role of language (a human intervention, as you call it) is central to the formation of ideas. My argument would be that humans create "forms" for their own use and are in no way "intervening" in some higher metaphysical process.This message has been edited by rjb, 04-23-2006 03:00 PM

Ah well, we've obviously got some crossed wires here!But do look into Wittgenstein, his philosophy is not without its problems and contradictions but it does attempt to explain a manner in which consciousness and concepts exist in a close relationship with language. I'm sure you'd find it interesing.Cheers-This message has been edited by rjb, 04-23-2006 07:53 PM

I jusr re-read post 61 and realised that at its end you stray into very strange territory. I think after all I was right about where you were heading with your idea of forms.

quote:

---

What is gravity?
It is the attraction between two masses.
What causes this attraction?
...?
There are theories, but nothing definite.

---

Science doesn't offer definite answers, but the current theories of gravity are backed by lots of evidence.

quote:

---

The same arguement can be applied to attractions between atoms and more specifically - subatomic particles. What is the cause of the
attraction of these pieces to each other?

---

Opposing electrical charges mostly. There's plenty of info out there on this subject. It certainly isn't the mystery you paint it as.As I said before, I do tentatively believe that humans create do some kind of mental "form" for any material objects they observe, but I cannot agree with your concept of "form" as some kind of universal physical force for which there is absolutely no evidence.I would suggest reading up on the current theories and observations regarding gravity and atomic structures before deciding whether there is any need for some new physical theory of forms. Also, be advised that the high historical status of the works of Aristotle and Aquinas does not mean that their work has been immune to being surpassed by the further accumulation of knowledge thereafter. Those men tried to make sense of a world that was far less technologcally advanced than ours, so to apply their ideas to modern science is of very limited value.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-24-2006 05:04 AM