|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the soul? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
smak_84 Inactive Member |
I'll look into Wittgenstein, it sounds like his philosophy has something to it.
eternal tree "form" is somehow extant outside the mind I wouldn't necessarily say eternal. If I implied that, that was a mistake. But there is an existence independant of the mind.
transferred between souls on some unidentified level I wouldn't say forms are transferred at all. They are recognized and sense impressions are created. Like when you see a color. You recognize the color, and your eye picks up on the wavelength and creates a sense impression in your mind abstracting the color (but the form for color exists independantly being the cause of the color's existence). Same as such with the form. You abstract what the form is from the sense impressions of an object. Forms work like this: Why do I fall down out of a tree?Because the effects of gravity pull me toward the earth. What is gravity?It is the attraction between two masses. What causes this attraction?...? There are theories, but nothing definite. 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? Why do opposites attract? There are theories. How about a Philosophical Moderate Dualist theory: "There is an immaterial substance (form) that causes these things to attract each other. An immaterial substance which is unmeasurable (as we only have material devices to measure things)."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
smak_84 Inactive Member |
The "form" I propose is related to the unexplainable attraction between masses - the happening called intermolecular forces.
I unfortunatly cannot continue this discussion, as I'm beginning work that's going to keep me from the internet, so don't reply to any more of my posts, because I won't be able to read them. I thank all who've helped me deepen my understanding of this subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4991 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
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: Science doesn't offer definite answers, but the current theories of gravity are backed by lots of evidence.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
OMG, not this crap again Any entity we could think up would fall into one of those two categories of mind and matter, or being and thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
This is [soul]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
This is the mind's ability to recognize immaterial forms. It is that which makes a tree to be a tree (and not something else - and there must be something that causes this, because nothing cannot effect something). Philosophy as well as brain science has made quite a few advancements in the last hundred years. These "immaterial forms" are brain functions. The brain creates these forms based on sense input, knowledge, and the way the organism functions in its environment. Form is thus a functional abstraction and a reification of a process.Tree(treeing) is a space time phenomena that is close scale to human(peopling) space time phenomena. It is a matter energy vortex and we can recognize that pattern. In brief form is immaterial because it is a concept. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
mind and matter, or being and thing. Let me see if coming at it from this directions is productive. You seem to be dividing the universe into either mind and matter, or being and thing. My question is where do you classify energy? process? or action? I don't see energy, process, or actions as being either matter, mind, being, or things. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Lfen writes: You seem to be dividing the universe into either mind and matter, or being and thing. My question is where do you classify energy? process? or action? I don't see energy, process, or actions as being either matter, mind, being, or things. Isn't the operative word "entity?"
RR writes: Any entity we could think up would fall into one of those two categories of mind and matter, or being and thing. Message 65 Ask.com writes: ENTITY: noun: pl., -ties. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law. The fact of existence; being. The existence of something considered apart from its properties. Granted that "corporation" is hard to classify as either a being or a thing, though I'd go for "thing" myself. But energy, process and actions are not entities. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 03:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
From an earlier post in this subthread Robin wrote:
"Logically, that is all there is." I haven't yet figured out a fast way to quote from multiple posts. I can quote from the post I'm replying to. I suppose I could open multiple tabs in firefox to copy from the different posts. Robin did say entity but earlier he also seemed to say that entities were logically all there is. His brevity can be ambiguous. Of course I'm trying to figure out how to explain that entities are a result of our brain's response to the world. My model is that entities don't exist out there in the universe. What exists out there are processes. We concretize aspects those processes that we relate to for some reason. Such as eating them. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm usually too lazy to quote from multiple posts myself, and there is no fast way I know of either.
Of course I'm trying to figure out how to explain that entities are a result of our brain's response to the world. My model is that entities don't exist out there in the universe. What exists out there are processes. We concretize aspects those processes that we relate to for some reason. Such as eating them. I don't know how anyone can be content with such a way of thinking. I figure our brains respond to what actually is there. It all seems academic anyway. So what if "what exists out there" are "processes" at some level? Clearly entities that are formed by those processes are no less a reality for that, and none of us has a problem recognizing that fact. I can be aware of my body as a body AND also conceptualize it as an organized bunch of organs, or an organized bunch of molecules or an organized bunch of atoms or an organized bunch of processes {abe: all "things" except maybe processes}, and of my soul {abe: a being} as something else from all of that as well while intimately connected to it all. What makes processes any more real in your mind than all those other ways of conceptualizing? This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 04:33 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2006 04:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Any entity we could think up would fall into one of those two categories of mind and matter, or being and thing. Logically, that's just not true But I don't wanna argue with you when all your gonna do is use your own definitions for words and argue them with your own form of logic. Leave your logical arguments out of it and define entity, mind and being and maybe I'll discuss it with you but otherwise, don't even bother replying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But I don't wanna argue with you when all your gonna do is use your own definitions for words and argue them with your own form of logic. Leave your logical arguments out of it and define entity, mind and being and maybe I'll discuss it with you but otherwise, don't even bother replying What's your problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What's your problem? Well, that's off topic. But, In this message Message 191 you set out an incorrect argument with false premises and refused to do anything but reiterate your premises or play the logic card (with your own weird form of logic). In this thread, you made another outlandish claim and then threw the logic card out there again. So, I'm not gonna "go through the motions" again if you're gonna pull the same crap. When I saw you say "Logically" I rolled my eyes and stopped. Like I quote: But anyways, lets not derail this thread into off-topic land, so don't reply. Open a new thread if you care to discuss any of this, I just didn't want to open a new thread to explain my problem, which it isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
What makes processes any more real in your mind than all those other ways of conceptualizing? Processes in my mind are a better modeling of what goes on and of what we are. The most important process to me is my "self process". The thing model leads to the question "who am I?". Not a bad question. The process model leads a questioning along the lines of "What am I" or "How am I functioning." This model leads to an appreciation of the universe as a higly complexly interacting system of mutually interdependent processes. So what part of the process of a human being is being referred to by the word "soul"? I believe the ancients were referring to the breathing process but later it appears some consciousness of emotion or feelings is perhaps referred to? lfen
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024