Disproving The Soul

[The Grand Nudger]

Will giving you a definition for matter help you to demonstrate the claim you made?

[Mudhammam]

Perhaps you could first tell me what 'matter' is . That would help me understand how matter alone can give rise to non-physical mental properties, i.e. things like semiotic meaning.

Without reverting to Google to offer an exact definition, I'd say matter is that substance that comprises all of nature, including our cognitive experiences of it. While it's true that the materialist hasn't definitively explained at what level of physical phenomena mental abstractions have their origin, I find this lack of knowledge insufficient for separating physical and mental into two distinct substances; rather, I see them as two different sides of the same substance (matter). And so long as the brain sciences continue to establish the explicit correlation between the tangible and the abstract, including causal mechanisms from former to latter, the Cartesian theatre will continue to shrink.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It seems kinda silly to me to say one is a materialist or that materialism is true without first having a substantive (pun) idea about what this stuff, matter is and what kinds of properties it has. Your definition of 'that substance that comprises all of nature' could just as well be the Mind of God and I don't think you had that in mind (pun again) Actually, you sound like an 'aspect dualist'. This approach can be easily integrated with the Aristotelian concept of hylomorphism that I advocate.

Also the idea of a "Cartesian theater", is a modern strawman. This modern conception of dualism makes a strict division between mental and physical properties in order to create an interaction problem.

[Mudhammam]

Well, sure, you could call it the Mind of God though I think that automatically calls to mind unfortunate associations with religious dogma. But Einstein referred to the sum-total of the Universe as such and he was in no way a believer in supernatural mechanisms obstructing the determined causes and effects of nature, the establishment of which seems to be the primary goal of those who wish to place the soul outside of material investigation.

[Welsh cake]

Paul poetically says that 'in God we have our being'. If this is right (and, of course, I accept atheists don't believe it is) then this opens up another way of thinking. Our identity becomes not dependent on our physical attributes; but exists in God's being and so can be reconstructed, 'resurrected' if you will, by and in God's will. So essentially what eventually matters most is not our consciousness, not our 'mind' (however we conceive that), but God's consciousness and mind. So long as God 'remembers', all will be well.

You construct your god as a wonderful ball and chain.

And the being that utterly hates god? The clay that replies "Why hast thou made me thus?" The person that longs for release from the agony of existence - true freedom in natural default state, not your deity, but the eternal void of oblivion. What of that being?

All you theists know is monsters, not gods.

[Mudhammam]

It seems kinda silly to me to say one is a materialist or that materialism is true without first having a substantive (pun) idea about what this stuff, matter is and what kinds of properties it has.

I should also add that any definition of matter is going to some degree be a tautology; we could define matter in terms of particles and their charges but then you might rightly ask me to define particles and charges; at some point we're forced to admit that beyond questions regarding our perception of composition, classification, and functionality, objects as they are to themselves remain elusive to complete understanding.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It seems kinda silly to me to say one is a materialist or that materialism is true without first having a substantive (pun) idea about what this stuff, matter is and what kinds of properties it has.

I should also add that any definition of matter is going to some degree be a tautology; we could define matter in terms of particles and their charges but then you might rightly ask me to define particles and charges; at some point we're forced to admit that beyond questions regarding our perception of composition, classification, and functionality, objects as they are to themselves remain elusive to complete understanding.

This is why, from the Aristotle to the Schoolmen, 'primal' matter was considered a first principle. They came to this conclusion by abstracting away all the accidental or contingent properties until all that remained was a fundamental that could not be removed. In the case of primal matter, you get a single property, the propensity to be, which is logically prior to any particular form the stuff takes.

What makes pure materialism wrong is that it lacks a fundamental principle that informs the propensity to be.

The same approach worked in the opposite direction takes you to that informing principle. If you abstract away all the material components of things and specific manifestations of forms you get to this other first principle.

This position has some affinity with aspect dualism since neither primal matter nor the informing principle occur one apart from the other.

[Mudhammam]

This is why, from the Aristotle to the Schoolmen, 'primal' matter was considered a first principle. They came to this conclusion by abstracting away all the accidental or contingent properties until all that remained was a fundamental that could not be removed. In the case of primal matter, you get a single property, the propensity to be, which is logically prior to any particular form the stuff takes.

What makes pure materialism wrong is that it lacks a fundamental principle that informs the propensity to be.

My recent reading of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason has led me to similar conclusion, though "primal matter" is to my mind another way of phrasing the materialist's position: "I don't know" ...because we cannot know. But might you call something like a quantum void primal? I'm not sure. I'm inclined to think it is not within the scope of our experience to effectively conceptualize anything that is truly "primal matter," though I'm impressed with the extent that science, especially mathematics, has allowed us some degree of rational conception. Do you think Kant's Transcendental Ideals are another expression of this Aristotlean principle?

Also, wouldn't "primal matter" include mental abstractions? And if so, how is this a dualistic view? My understanding is that Spinoza viewed matter as having dual aspects but his views are typically classified under monism.

[DramaQueen]

I need to start reading philosophy.

[Mudhammam]

I need to start reading philosophy.

Yeah, dude!

I've gotten into some Nietzsche, Hume, Kant, and look forward to eventually delving into Spinoza and Descartes, to say nothing of the Greeks and Romans (one thing; Lucretius is great!).

Lots of excellent stuff to be found. They really make much of the current theist-atheist debates appear lacking in many aspects, almost juvenile; there is a certain art to writing not often employed today--a style of elegance, respect for the arena of ideas--that flows through the pen for these guys, at least that's my take.

Also, I'm reading William James' (psychologist) Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) right now, and I feel this should be required reading for everyone interested in religious discussion!