(June 15, 2019 at 1:58 pm)ColdComfort Wrote: I haven't mentioned or at least argued for an immaterial soul yet on this forum.
Well then, please take a position so I can attack it.
Quote:Just the existence of conscious experiences distinct from brain activity and possessing causal power over behavior.
That suggests that you are some kind of substance dualist. If something has causal power over material things, it must be some kind of substance. Period.
Quote:Your point about Aristotle being a materialist: He would not be a materialist in any sense in which we use the word today. Universals exist only in the mind it is true but they correspond to that within a physical object that makes it intelligible. The form of an object is ontologically distinct from it's matter. Further the form determines the behavior we see in physical things.
I think hylomorphism has to do with intelligibility as I understand it. But (admittedly) I'm not all that familiar with Aristotle. I'm more of a Plato guy. But I'm familiar enough with hylomorphism and intelligibility to discuss this with you. Feel free to correct any of my errors.
Here is how I see it: The tiger's "tiger-ness" determines its behavior. But (at the same time) the "tiger-ness" is not a causal force. It's an intelligible pattern of matter. Think of something inanimate like water. The water "behaves" like ice when the temperature reaches 31 degrees because that is an intelligible feature of water. This sounds like materialism to me. Can you point out any misunderstandings/errors I have here?
Quote:If someone wants to call him a materialist that's fine. It might also open a good discussion on what contemporary philosophy means by matter. The word is often used as if it's meaning is self-evident.
That could be an interesting conversation. I think most people use the definition furnished by science. How do you define matter?
