Soul

[Tex]

Quantity is only what humans have invented in order to easily organize and recognize patterns in a certain way. Quantity is just one of a million methods by which human brains perceive and process patterns in nature. It doesn't exist as an ethereal concept in nature that humans magically tap into.

You keep saying this, and you keep ignoring the argument. Please tell me the material means by which we know quantity.

Perhaps pattern recognition is a better model for that part of consciousness that Tex is referring to as the soul, than numbers are. The eyes and brain see two dots and a line. The soul sees a face.

A voice of reason! Thank you for not just insulting or making some other intentionally annoying remark. However, that's not what I think =)

Pattern recognition actually comes after recognition of quantity (and quantity comes after recognition of individual). In order to know there are 4 black triangles and 3 white squares, you have to know "3" and "4". The recognition of the pattern doesn't use the soul except with numbers. White, black, and shape are fully known by the body. The case of "dot+dot+line=face" does need the soul, but only for the recognition of "2" about the eyes. The rest is approximation done by the brain.

The first step need done is the recognition of "1". For the ability to understand the "1", the brain has to comprehend the individual and isolate it. Lets take a picture of the Bohr model of an atom. To isolate electrons is the brain. To know they are electrons is the brain. To know there are "6" is not. The brain can isolate and make the group based on similar qualities, but if there are 8 electrons in the brain, there are 8 in the picture. The brain can't make up the quantity, else it isn't in reality and science goes poopoo. The brain must be using quantity, but the quantity didn't come through any of the senses.

I don't know that term. You must educate me as we go along.

Hylomorphic is Aristotle's metaphysics. You have substance, which is both form and matter together. Form here is best defined as "organized". Your form is "human". All substances have form and matter: plants, animals, humans, angels. To Aristotle, God is not a substance because God is all matter and no form (and the only thing that does that). Some Christians say God does have a form, "Trinity", but others will say "Trinity" is still part of matter. I have not done enough research to choose.

I don’t think ‘6’ is a good example. I’m just thinking out loud now because I do not have all my thoughts together on this one. Just as we recognize rough composite substances, like wood, and more pure ones, like water, they are still derived from more basic and more pure substance. Hence we have an atomic theory for substances. Science is still working on finding the Primal Matter out of which all substances are formed, i.e. “Formed”.

Form doesn't always mean Plato's version. And none of the proposed examples I use the word "substance" for. Even "6" is not a substance.

Yet, form, itself seems to be taken for granted, as if it were nothing at all, just a convenient fiction. That is a grand oversight. We do not yet have an ‘atomic’ theory for forms. It seems to me that 6 is a composite form, just like Euclidean triangles and perfect spheres. Whereas, “one” is much more pure, since it contains within itself the principle of unity required to unite six 1s as a single quantity.

Actually, its the ability to unite the six 1s I'm calling into question. We have to be able to know what "1" is, and then we can grow that. However, knowing "1" is even immaterial.

[Ryantology]

The ability to recognize a pattern presupposes a pattern to be recognized. How is it possible for us to rationally make distinctions from the seamless continuum of reality? For example, where does a corner end? The use of words and symbols to convey meaning requires more than the referent objects themselves. Foundational certainties must exist in order to identify referent objects.

Certainly, there is no objective standard for what constitutes a legitimate pattern, which is why people very frequently see patterns where none exist, such as the practice of matrixing. Cars don't have faces, but the standard layout of headlights and grille resemble the layout of a face and the brain may make the suggestion to itself that it has a face.

It doesn't have to be a strictly rational process (obviously, it isn't a lot of times). So, we don't need foundational certainties. We did not evolve in an environment which demanded precise calculation. In most practical applications (especially before the development of civilization), our brains don't need precise delineations. They need best guesses. They need the ability to make quick decisions with limited information to deal with the majority of problems they face. Calculation to precision takes time and energy, sometimes prodigious amounts of both. It's the same with symbols and language. Individual words tend to be simple and often have different meanings based on context. We convey complex information using the more complex structure of sentences, which can be as long or short as is necessary to get a point across. None of it is very precise.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm thinking of things like unity, extension, divisibility, and ratio.

[Ryantology]

Same thing? If I hand you a loaf of bread and ask you to cut it in half, are you going to get out a tape measure?

You keep saying this, and you keep ignoring the argument. Please tell me the material means by which we know quantity.

That doesn't sound like an argument to me. Tell me the magical means by which we know quantity. Tell me how one can have any concept of quantity, or of anything for that matter, without using material analogues to establish it?

Souls didn't need to be metaphysical when humanity's understanding of the physical was as pitiful as it was until very recently, just as God didn't need to be a supernatural being.

[Tex]

That doesn't sound like an argument to me. Tell me the magical means by which we know quantity. Tell me how one can have any concept of quantity, or of anything for that matter, without using material analogues to establish it?

Souls didn't need to be metaphysical when humanity's understanding of the physical was as pitiful as it was until very recently, just as God didn't need to be a supernatural being.

First, your assertion that it's magic is basically functioning as a strawman, especially since I have never used the word, "magic" in my discussion. Quit it.

Second, what you quoted isn't supposed to be an argument. You keep doing this game, even the post I am responding to is playing this game, and I'd like you to comment on the argument rather than just strawman it at every turn, regardless. Quit it.

Third, either tell me why I am wrong or tell me a more coherent solution. You didn't answer the question i gave you. You redirected with a strawman'd question that I have been answering questions/objections for the past 11 pages. Quit it.

Fourth, the pot shot at God didn't even have to do with the subject. I think you just like to hate. Quit it.

Fifth, while the understanding of the ancient philosophers of the physical was abysmal, that has nothing to do with a coherent metaphysics. Your attack is ad homenim. Quit it.

Sixth, the analogies used are for understanding, not for proving. People understand better with the analogies. Quit it.

Finally, I have given the entire argument with no analogies (Post #74) and you responded that they were all assumptions and presuppositions(post #76). When I requested your issues because you were playing this same game of "you're wrong because I say so" (post #78), you gave me a list (Post #79). When I explained (post #85) how quantities were not material (NO ANALOGIES!), you flip flopped and changed your stance to say that quantities were just concepts in the mind (post #86). I both called you out and pretended that you had just had an epiphany (Post #89) and answered your new objection. Then you waited 18 posts later, nearly 2 full pages and 5 full days to respond again, but only on a recent comment to discredit an example given by taking it too far (post #107). Now you claim I have to prove my claim without analogies, and the truth is, I already have. You even responded. Quit it.

[Silver]

You forgot to add another Quit it at the end of your rant.

[Tex]

Nuh uh!

[Cato]

Fifth, while the understanding of the ancient philosophers of the physical was abysmal, that has nothing to do with a coherent metaphysics. Your attack is ad homenim. Quit it.

Enlighten me great sage. What exactly is a coherent metaphysics?

[Tex]

Enlighten me great sage.

Finally, the title I deserve!

What exactly is a coherent metaphysics?

Aristotle did well, and then Aquinas wrapped it up.

[Ryantology]

First, your assertion that it's magic is basically functioning as a strawman, especially since I have never used the word, "magic" in my discussion. Quit it.

You used the term 'non-physical organs', which is no different from invoking dragons or faeries to make a point. Don't show me logic arguments. Show me the non-physical organ.

Second, what you quoted isn't supposed to be an argument. You keep doing this game, even the post I am responding to is playing this game, and I'd like you to comment on the argument rather than just strawman it at every turn, regardless. Quit it.

Your argument is not valid unless you show me the organ.

Third, either tell me why I am wrong or tell me a more coherent solution. You didn't answer the question i gave you. You redirected with a strawman'd question that I have been answering questions/objections for the past 11 pages. Quit it.

You have not answered the question.

Fourth, the pot shot at God didn't even have to do with the subject. I think you just like to hate. Quit it.

I added a mention of God for comparison's sake. If you feel insecure about the implications, it's not my fault.

Fifth, while the understanding of the ancient philosophers of the physical was abysmal, that has nothing to do with a coherent metaphysics. Your attack is ad homenim. Quit it.

What is a coherent metaphysics?

Sixth, the analogies used are for understanding, not for proving. People understand better with the analogies. Quit it.

Finally, I have given the entire argument with no analogies (Post #74) and you responded that they were all assumptions and presuppositions(post #76). When I requested your issues because you were playing this same game of "you're wrong because I say so" (post #78), you gave me a list (Post #79). When I explained (post #85) how quantities were not material (NO ANALOGIES!), you flip flopped and changed your stance to say that quantities were just concepts in the mind (post #86). I both called you out and pretended that you had just had an epiphany (Post #89) and answered your new objection. Then you waited 18 posts later, nearly 2 full pages and 5 full days to respond again, but only on a recent comment to discredit an example given by taking it too far (post #107). Now you claim I have to prove my claim without analogies, and the truth is, I already have. You even responded. Quit it.

You made posts to which I responded. Would you like a gold star for that? You have not yet proved a single solitary assertion you've made. Show me the organ. Show me proof that one must have that organ in order to comprehend quantity. Show me exactly how it interacts with the physical portions of our body. Show me proof that some organ besides the brain is responsible for these things. Don't waste my time with your assumption-laced logic arguments. Don't waste my time with whining about my not taking such foolishness seriously. This isn't a seminary and bullshit is not legal tender here. And don't tell me what to do. You're not my real dad.