The logical high ground here is yours; I'm just pointing out that the linguistics isn't always so simple. — Srap Tasmaner

What I'm trying to get at, is that there is an important ontological issue here with respect to how we look at the relationship between parts and wholes. When we talk about something, we identify an object which is referred to by the word. The object itself may be apprehended as a an independent whole, or it may be apprehended as a part of a larger whole. Whichever of these two is the case may be explicitly stated, implied, or left ambiguous. So when you say "the woodwork's lovely", it's implied by the context (the preceding question), that this object is a part of a larger whole, the chair.

The point which I would like to bring to your attention, is the act of dividing the chair, by identifying the different parts as individual objects. It's not that we actually cut the chair into pieces by identifying the different parts, but we do this in principle, logically. So when we have identified the different parts, and are speaking about the different parts, logically we no longer have a whole which is "the chair". The chair has been divided logically. This is because there is no law of logic which properly establishes the relationship between the parts and the whole. Each is identified simply as an object. But since the role of a part, in relation to a whole, varies according to the particular part, and the particular whole, there is no logical principle which states how what is true of the part relates to what is true of the whole, and vise versa.

Where in the world did I say that or anything that could be interpreted as that. I think your materialistic interpretation is a category error. — TheMadFool

You asked me "where's the contradiction", and so I answered that the contradiction is in thinking that when one is referring to the part (the leg), one is referring to the whole (the chair). I was surprised that you did not see this as a contradiction, and that you asked, "where's the contradiction".

It's exactly the opposite. Violating PB is admitting a multivalued logic that I described. Violating LEM is a contradiction. — TheMadFool

Well I think you have this backward. Violating LEM is not contradiction, that's why they have the law against contradiction as well as the LEM, it's two different things. Violating the LNC is to say that of the subject both P and ~P are applicable. That would be contradiction. Violating LEM would be to say that something else applies, which is neither P nor ~P. According to the Wikipedia article on PB, to violate PB is to violate the LNC. And this is what you said when you said that the thing is partly P and partly ~P, that it is both P and ~P. To say that it is neither P nor ~P (violate LEM) is something completely different.

If the upholstery of your chair is ugly, doesn't that make the chair ugly? — Srap Tasmaner

This is a deductive conclusion which requires the further premise that if the upholstery of a thing is ugly, then so is the thing. Otherwise you have a fallacy of composition. Would one ugly spot underneath the seat of the chair make the chair ugly?

Ok. Where's the contradiction? — TheMadFool

If you don't see the contradiction in referring to a "leg", and after this, saying that it is a "chair" you are referring to, without a premise which says a leg is equivalent to a chair, then I can't help you. A leg is not a chair. You don't seem to know what contradiction means.

I think the PB and LEM are poorly worded - they sound very similar. I'm confused too - that's why the post. — TheMadFool

If I understand the Wikipedia article correctly, exception to PB is a claim of exception to the law of non-contradiction, instead of claiming exception to the law of excluded middle. So to violate PB is to claim "both P and ~P", whereas an exception to the law of excluded middle would claim "neither P nor ~P".

You can see that it is a matter of interpretation, as one might interpret "both P and ~P" as an instance of "neither P nor ~P". And it is often claimed by those philosophers who study the three fundamental laws of logic, that they are all associated with each other, and to violate one, is to throw them all away. What I believe is that the principal law is the law of identity, and that the following two, NC and EM put restrictions, or rules on to how something is identified.

So to insist on an exception to LEM or to LNC, is to insist on a variance as to how to identify something. And once you get to the finer points of exactly what it is which is being identified, the difference between breaking the LEM and breaking the LNC become significant.

What I don't see it's contradictory to talk of the whole as parts? Take a chair. I may talk of its seat, its back or its legs without any contradiction. — TheMadFool

If you're talking about the seat, you are talking about "the seat", and not "the chair". If you are talking about "the back" you are talking about "the back", not "the chair". Once you divide the chair into parts, such that you are now referring to "the back", or "the seat", or "the legs", each referring to different identified objects, and not "the chair" as a whole, it is contradictory to claim that you are talking about "the chair" when you are referring to "the back"or any one of the other parts. You are not talking about the chair, you are talking about a specific part of the chair.

No, another possibility of truth value doesn't brrak the LEM. LEM simply puts a restriction on a specific combination of truth values viz. P & ~P. — TheMadFool

No, LEM explicitly states that there is not any other possibility. It states that of any subject we can predicate either P or ~P, and there is no other possibility. If you insist that there is another possibility of truth value, you break LEM.

What do you mean by 'proves reality' and which scientific finding lays this claim? — noAxioms

It was all the rave in the media when gravitational waves were detected, this proves GR.

That's a big "if" you got there - an exaggeration and a hypothetical hardly worth considering. — Sapientia

Hey,I'm just following the conversation. I haven't a clue who Kevin or the other Kevins are, or the petty squabbles and mudslingings (which have no place here anyway). For all I know I could be the one and only "Kevin".

But if Kevin's a murderer, then Kevin's a murderer, whether he means to be a murderer or not.

Suppose we're all fictitious characters here. We put on an act, and this is who we are at tpf. MU's not the real me, who I am in real life, and Sapientia's not who you are in real life. Kevin is murdering at tpf. Is this part of Kevin's act, or is Kevin a bad actor and he's allowing his true self to show through? Either he's a bad actor or he's acting badly, what's the difference?

But waking up is not a wiping the slate clean or starting a new game, because we carry on where we left off the day before, so how does the comparison work?

We go to sleep each night without any intention and we wake up without intention. It is cyclical, and sleep can be considered a period of renewal. — Rich

I can't say that I agree with this. I determine things I need to do in the morning, before going to bed, and when I wake up those things are fresh in my mind. The power of memory is wonderfully capable of persisting right through sleep. Some times I wake up with the same song in my head as was there when I fell asleep. It may take conscious effort to remember things, but once they're there, the memories don't erase so easily.

Kevin isn't as bad as people make out. I don't think that he's a murderer, or at least, he doesn't mean to be. — Sapientia

Is that any excuse for murdering? "I don't mean to murder, it just sort of happens every time I pick up a gun". If Kevin can't go to the keyboard without typing something bad, there's a problem.

So I am assuming that "Kevin" refers to at least one actual flesh and blood member... — 0 thru 9

There are no flesh and blood members here. We are all emotionless inhuman, fictional characters, which we have created ourselves, no feelings, no sensibility, characters. This is no Facebook, we have no faces.

it's all been done before
It's all written in the book — Bob Dylan

.

I would have thought that need would have been a bigger motivator than longing for absent things. — Sir2u

How is need not a form of "longing for absent things"?

Have a kangaroo court section of tpf?

Is that what you want Agustino?

When someone says ''it is raining'' is partly true it doesn't mean raining is decomposed into parts. All it means there's another possibility in truth viz. partly true. — TheMadFool

It doesn't mean "raining" is decomposed into parts, but that the world is broken into parts, so that it is raining here, and it is not raining there. Therefore "it is raining" is partly true and partly false by virtue of dividing the world into parts.

If we take the world as a whole, then if it is raining anywhere, "it is raining" is true, and if it is raining nowhere, then "it is raining" is false. But when we divide the world into parts, and refer to one part or another, "it is raining" is both true and false depending on the part of the world being referred to.

The point I made above is that we must state what we are referring to either the whole, or the parts, because it is contradictory to refer to the whole as parts.

All it means there's another possibility in truth viz. partly true. — TheMadFool

If there is another possibility, like this, then you deny the LEM. But you wanted to keep the LEM, so we have to find an alternative meaning for "partly true". The way I describe, I believe, is how "partly true" would be commonly used..

They said that light was absorbed by the lattice, not the atoms, as evidenced by the absence of absorption lines in the refracted spectrum. — noAxioms

Absorbed by the lattice? Doesn't "lattice' just refer to the discrete model, as an alternative to the space-time continuum model? It is my understanding that since they can't tell which atoms actually absorb the light, they have to model it as if all the atoms are potentially absorbing the light.

The logical problem here is in the relationship between a whole and the parts which the whole is assumed to be composed of. If you talk about the parts of a whole, you have logically divided the whole into parts, such that the whole no longer exists. It cannot exist if the parts are thus separated. So to have a premise referring to the parts, and a premise referring to the whole is to have inconsistent, contradictory premises because the premise which refers to the parts assumes the parts as individual things, and these have no individual existence unless the whole has been divided. And this dissolves the whole.

Therefore it is false to assume that a whole is composed of parts. The whole is divided potentially, not actually. So to assume that the whole actually is parts is a category mistake. One may quite readily commit this mistake with the use of set theory.

Why would partly true and partly not true be contradictory? "Part" refers to less than the whole, and there is nothing to indicate which particular part is being referred to. So as long as the part which is true is not the same particular part as the part which is not true, there is no contradiction. "Partly" implies division such that true and not true are not said of the same thing, they are said of different parts, the parts being different parts of the same thing.

All descriptions I read are from light being absorbed, not just passing by if it was merely being transmitted through a material that passes light like glass. — noAxioms

Yes, that's what I meant by "photoelectric effect", the interaction between photons and electrons (maybe I misused the terminology), such as when photons are absorbed and reemitted when light passes through a medium like glass.

What does any of this have to do with relativity thought experiments that F-E is asking about? — noAxioms

It concerns the speed at which light is transmitted. It's known that the speed of light is different in different mediums, and this involves refraction. I believe the classical way of understanding this, understanding light as waves, involves the wavelength of the light. The quantum understanding of this difference in speed involves the light photons being absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the material.

The photoelectric effect concerns emission of electrons when light shines on a surface and has nothing to do with light transmission mechanism or relativity. — noAxioms

I believe that when light is transmitted through a substance, there is an interaction between the electrons of the material, and the light energy.

What is the underlying method of light transmission that relativity ultimately describes? With Newton, you had a mechanism - photons, if relativity is a description of reality, then what is the underlying reality? — FreeEmotion

It is called the photoelectric effect. But it's not well understood, and that's why there is quantum uncertainty, the creation of conceptual fields, and wave functions. The inadequacy of which demonstrates that there is no underlying reality for this conceptual structure.

Quite so. The possibility world that we all live in is the setting for each of our separate life-experience possibility-stories.
.
And it could be asked (Locks implied this question), how is it that all of our life-experience possibility-stories are set in this same possibility-world. — Michael Ossipoff

This is what happens when the reality of dualism is denied, we end up with possibility worlds. Then instead of dualism we have infinitism.

The problem with academic Western Philosophy (there are economic reasons), is that its whole premise is that there is a truth, and we have to convince others of the truth. This is the raison d'etre for academic Western Philosophy. — Rich

Philosophy is the love of knowledge, it is a manifestation of the desire to know. I do not see a necessity to convince others, like you do. But involved with the desire to know is the necessity of discourse with others. The act of considering another person's ideas, assessing them, and laying out one's own ideas for comparison and assessment is all a part of philosophy.

I believe, the idea that we have to convince others of the truth is a misrepresentation of philosophy. The desire to know indicates that one does not believe oneself to have the truth and therefore a true philosopher could not believe oneself capable of convincing another of the truth.

this is a fucking joke, right? No they can't while discussing the existence of God. — BlueBanana

John Harris makes the judgement "X does not exist because X's existence has not been scientifically proven", then proceeds to discuss the question of whether X exists by asserting this bias. I've been trying to explain to John Harris that this is nothing more than prejudice, without any progress.

And It is absolute nonsensical and hilarious that you compare the directions for finding something that someone theorized to directions to an already-physically discovered river. — John Harris

When someone gives you directions for finding the river named "X", how would you know whether that river exists or not?

Because Christ doesn't exist. And that's it, metaphysician. Your arguments have gotten so silly that I'm not going to waste my time engaging them anymore. I won't be reading any more of your posts. — John Harris

This is exactly the prejudice I am talking about. You decide "X does not exist". You have no justification for this decision. You decline and deride anyone's directions as to how to find X by referring to your prejudice "X does not exist".

And now you're saying your parents are no more real than a non-proven soul.. — John Harris

Correct, my parents' existence as living beings is dependent on them having a soul. To prove that they exist, I must refer to the soul. "Exists" is the most general predicate. I say my father was a man. A man is an animal. An animal is a living being. I want to prove that a living being, my father, "exists", but I need to account for the gap between animate and inanimate existence. So a soul is assumed, and this allows me to say that my father exists, regardless of whether he is dead, because his existence is other than as an inanimate physical object. Does your scientism give you something better? How would you prove that your long dead ancestors are real? Please adhere to your insisted principles, that theory cannot prove existence.

What you said is strange since you didn't contact the soul, ffs, you encountered Plato's theory of it. — John Harris

No, that's not the case. As I tried to explain, Plato's writing explained how I would recognize the soul, such that I could identify it as "the soul". This is just like a description might explain to you how you would recognize the Mississippi River so you could identify it as such. I have always been in contact with my soul, all my life, except I didn't recognize it as my soul until I read Plato. Likewise, there was a time when I was very young when I didn't recognize my parents as "my parents", but I was still in contact with them at that very young age. And prior to Europeans coming to North America there were many people living near the Mississippi River, who did not recognize it as the Mississippi River.

You might as weill ask, when you come across Christ, how do you know he's Christ. Just nonsensical. — John Harris

Why do you find this to be nonsense? How would you know that it is Christ, if you came across Christ?

You are just muddling with words to prolong an argument. As is usual. — apokrisis

Oh, instead of addressing the issue which I pointed out, the fault in your described relationships between intentionality, attentional focus, and habit, this is all you can come up with? There's no argument to prolong, just prolonged ignorance on your part.

Another way of putting it is that vague intentionality becomes crisp intentionality through attentional focusing. — apokrisis

See, even here, you completely neglect the role of habit. Attentional focusing is a function of habit unless a particular crisp intention acts to focus attention rather than habit. So the issue which your model cannot deal with, is how vague, general intentionality can become a crisp particular intention without habit and attentional focusing. This is what we call creativity.

Undercover as what? — Locks

Try this:

you show you're an angry, hostile person... — John Harris

Those are physical demonstrations showing the calculations and machinery used could make something fly. — John Harris

They are demonstrations that the logic of calculations are useful, therefore they are logical demonstrations. Making cars fly is a logical demonstration, just like drawing geometrical figures on a piece of paper, or laying out the foundation of a building using the Pythagorean theorem, these are demonstrations of the validity of logic.

No he didn't. The theorized what he thought the soul was. Nobody saw the soul or detected it in any way through his theory. — John Harris

That's a strange thing for you to say, because I came into contact with the soul through reading Plato's demonstrations, so clearly you're wrong when you claim nobody did. I found the soul. And if I did, then quite likely many others did too. There was a whole school of people called Neo-Platonists, and they believed in the soul. I really don't think you ever read any Plato, or else you probably would have come into contact with the soul too. Or are you just lying when you claim that you never detected the soul in any way? I know it's untrue when you say that no one ever detected the soul in any way, so it's probably equally untrue when you say that you never detected the soul in any way.

I have a deep soul. — John Harris

Evidence that you are lying.

I answered that question. And I asked you, if you encountered your parents, how would you know they were your parents without referring to theory. You still haven't been able to answer that, showing the fallacy of your original question. — John Harris

I just answered that, I've known my parents since birth, and I recognize them. You however have not answered my question. When you come across a body of water which you do not recognize, how would you know that it is the Mississippi river without either referring to some theory, or an appeal to authority?

So when you come across a soul, how would you know it is a soul without referring to some theory of what a soul is. How would you expect that a soul would ever show itself to you as a soul, unless you referred to a theory of what a soul is, to be able to designate the thing before you as a soul?

What we do have in this world is the educated (are you?) understanding that we do not accept something exists until it has been scientifically demonstrated. — John Harris

You really should reconsider what you're saying here. Scientific experimentation is used to verify and falsify theories. It does not demonstrate whether or not things exist. That is a matter of metaphysics, ontology.

Sure it hasn't been demonstrated. What you referred to was theorizing, not demonstrating. — John Harris

I don't know of any form of demonstration other than a logical demonstration, though we often use physical objects as props. This is what is commonly referred to as justification. Theorizing is to produce a hypotheses. The usefulness of the theory still needs to be demonstrated in order to justify the theory. What Plato did was demonstrate why we needed to assume the existence of the soul. It seems quite clear that you are not familiar with these demonstrations, so you are offhandedly dismissing them as theorizing.

Using your faulty logic, many people have demonstrated God, so you better head to Church..or a synagogue. — John Harris

Yes, that is correct, many people have demonstrated the need to assume the existence of God. Some people accept these demonstrations, other people do not. I would say with a fair degree of certainty, that the majority of people who reject the demonstrations do so without even taking the time to understand them. This is what you do. It is evident that it is what you do because you refer to it as theorizing rather than as demonstrating. If you had taken time to understand the demonstrations you would be referring to them as demonstrations, and addressing the logic of the demonstrations rather than misrepresenting the demonstrations as theorizing.

I said it because you said I couldn't know the existence of the Mississipi river, which is as physically real as your parents, and as "names" as a river as your parents are named your "parents". So, If I can't know the Mississipi River is the Mississipi River, you can't know your parents are your parents, and you don't know they are for a fact. So, I projected nothing, and the only confused one is you, as I clearly used your own faulty logic against you. — John Harris

I didn't say that you couldn't know the existence of the Mississippi River. I asked, if you encountered a river, how would you know that it is the Mississippi River without referring to theory. You replied that you'd refer to science (theory), or else appeal to authority.

So I wasn't talking about how you could know that the Mississippi River is the Mississippi River, that would be kind of pointless. I was asking how, if you came across a body of water, you would know whether or not it is the Mississippi River. I know my parents as my parents because I've known them all my life, and I recognize them when I encounter them, so this is an unrelated example. The question is, when you find a body of water which you've never seen before, and therefore do not recognize, how would you know that it is the Mississippi River except through the use of some theory?

Likewise, if you came across something which is a soul, how would you recognize it as a soul without reference to some theory? If you refuse to consult that theory you would never apprehend it as a soul, just like you wouldn't apprehend the body of water as the Mississippi River if you refuse to consult the theory.

Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities. — John Harris

Again, you demonstrate your selfish bias. For you perhaps, scientific verification is necessary, but this is not necessary for many people, and that is demonstrated by religion. So we clearly have consensual agreement on the existence of entities without scientific verification. The fact that you exclude yourself from that consensual agreement in no way negates it. It just excludes you from it.

The same goes for you too. If you have a theory of soul then present it. — charleton

Understanding the existence of the soul requires a lot of study, and all I'm trying to do is stress this point to those who offhandedly dismiss the concept of soul without putting in the required effort to understand it. If I presented a "theory of soul" right here in this thread, it would require a lot of effort, and be so long that very few if any would read it, therefore wasted effort. I believe you would dismiss it without even trying to understand it because it would require numerous demonstrations of the need to assume the existence of the soul, to get that point across, followed by theory as to what exactly the soul is. If you are really interested you could read some of the material I referenced earlier in the thread. Plato offers the demonstrations of the need to assume the existence of the soul, and Aristotle offers theory of exactly what the soul is. There is a vast amount of philosophical material on this subject if you take the time to read it. I can't do your reading for you.

Wasting time using strawman arguments is only going to make you look like you are floundering.
If you do not know what one is, then please consult your comments to me above. — charleton

You are telling me to consult my explanations of Johnny's straw man argument, to inform myself of what a straw man argument is, if I do not know? How could I learn from my own descriptions of what that is, if I didn't already know?

Please run along and consult the term "strawman". — charleton

Strawman? It is my position, that there is such a thing as the soul, which is being attacked. Are you starting to realize that Johnny H is projecting his own understanding of "soul", (a misunderstanding I might add) onto my claims, and attacking it? Johnny H clearly demonstrated that misunderstanding when it was insisted that we should be able to find the soul as a physical object if it really exists. To think of the soul, or represent the soul, as being a physical object is most obviously a straw man attack.

I didn't say "demonstrated to me;" I correctly said it hasn't been demonstrated, period, and it hasn't. — John Harris

Sure it has been demonstrated. Didn't I refer to Plato's demonstrations earlier in the thread. As I said, the fact that you haven't paid any attention to these demonstrations does not mean that the demonstrations have not been made. It's a very self-centered world in which you live in.

Sorry, according to your flawed logic, you don't know your parents are your parents. — John Harris

Why would you say this? We haven't even discussed what is meant by the word "know". It appears like you are using it in a way completely different from how I would use it, and projecting this onto me. You seem very confused and getting more and more so Should I try not to use any more big words, like "soul", so that you can stay abreast of the conversation?.

This requires all contradictory intentions to be suppressed. Some particular attentional focus and state of intentionality emerges.

Then this in turn becomes the general constraint that places limits on habit-level performance. — apokrisis

You appear to take a step backward here, in your description of the process, and that is what throws me off. A particular intentional focus with a particular state of intentionality emerges. This can be nothing other than a particular set of constraints, unless we go back to a general state of intentionality. But in doing this the particular state of intentionality would necessarily be negated.

So I see no logical way for us to say that a particular attentional focus becomes the "general constraint". If the constraint is general rather than particular, we are right back at the level of general intentionality, which has the capacity to produce many different particular states of attentional focus. Then we have a vicious circle, and there is no explanation for the existence of the habit, which is the inclination toward one particular state of attentional focus.

Therefore the habit must be placed between the general intentionality, and the particular attentional focus, which emerges. The habit is prior to attentional focus, as constraining the general intentionality in particular ways, to produce a particular intention. The act of the habit constraining intentionality is manifested as attentional focus. Since the habit is at, or close to the sub-conscious level, this provides the appropriate representation of general intentionality as being within the subconscious.

It is the common language use, which associates intentions with conscious thought, which leads us astray when discussing general intentionality, which is of the subconscious.

Attentionally-focused intentionality is the generalised constraint on the freedom of learnt habits and automaticisms that arise to fill in the many particular sub-goals necessary for achieving that greater general goal. — apokrisis

So this is precisely where I see the problem with this representation. In actuality, habits place constraints on the general intentionality of the mind, not vise versa. This limits the freedom of the general intentionality, producing attentional focus, and particular intentions. It is not intentionality which puts constraints on habits, because intentionality being the more general, is the more free, and habits constrain this general intentionality in particular ways.

If we represent the relation between habit and intention in this way, we have a platform from which we can address the question of habit formation, and habit breaking. To do this, we must consider the relationship between habit and intentionality, free from the influence of attention. This is necessary in order to understand these issues, because attentional focus is what comes about, is created from, this relationship between intention and habit.

This is the importance of meditation. By focusing our attention on one very specific thing, we release ourselves from all other habits of attentional focus. Then we allow our mind to be released from this one particular attentional focus which has brought us to this state, to be as free as possible from all attentional focus. Now we may approach the level of having just intentionality and habits, demonstrating to ourselves, that we have the freedom to choose our habits. .

None of that has been demonstrated. And, sorry, but there is no evidence that any of those things, including the soul, are real and you havent' provided any. — John Harris

Just because it hasn't been demonstrated to you doesn't mean that it hasn't been demonstrated. Do I need to mention that word, "prejudice" again?

And I ask again, how do you know your parents are your parents? — John Harris

I trust my parents, I've known them all my life. I admit that it could be a big hoax, but I don't think so. How do you know that there is no such thing as the soul? Did your parents tell you that?

I thought we already went through this all, and had agreement. There is intentionality in the general sense, and there are particular intentions. We agreed that what attention forms is particular intentions, not general intentionality. And so it is incorrect to say "that attention produces some general state of intentionality", as you just said.

The real question is on what principle do you say the soul was discovered and named. Using your logic, God, the angels, and the demons were discovered because someone conceptualized and named them, like Aristotle conceptualized and named "soul. You must be quite the believer in God and the angels then. — John Harris

If it is demonstrated what type of existence these things have, how they exist, and how they are encountered, such that I can actually encounter them, then I am not accepting their existence simply because someone conceptualized and named them. I accept their existence because there is evidence that they are real, just like there is evidence that the number two is real.

I changed no subject, and you have no more idea you encounter a soul every time you meet a living thing than you know Santa Claus or God exists. And if you believe someone could have encountered a soul with no scientific evidence of it, you must believe the people who claimed to meet Santa Clause or God are being truthful too. — John Harris

So how do you know that the river you encounter is the Mississippi River?

No, not likewise, as when one encounters the Mississippi River they encounter a body of water science and other people can second as being true. — John Harris

Because some scientist says "that is the Mississippi river", you know it's true? That's a known fallacy called "appeal to authority". It's not an acceptable argument. How do you really know that it's the Mississippi River? You don't believe everything other people tell you do you?

Where's the problem with one thing's general being another's particular. — apokrisis

Category mistake, that's what the problem is. A particular is an individual thing. We might use a word to refer to that particular. If that same word is used to refer to a general in relation to something else, then we have a different sense of that word. So the word "cat" may be used to refer to a particular cat, or it may be used to refer to cats in general, but to confuse these two is category error, or equivocation. The particular cat is never a cat in general. And cat in general is never a particular cat.

No, you're missing the point Meta. A rock is still a physical object that was discovered and named, a soul isn't. — John Harris

Of course a soul isn't a physical object. But on what principle do you say that it wasn't discovered and named. The number two isn't a physical object but it was discovered and named, "two".

According to your flawed logic, someone coming up with the concept of Santa Claus and naming it would be the same as discovering the Mississippi river and naming it. I hope you see the problem in that. — John Harris

You're changing the subject now. We were talking about whether theory is required in order that the thing encountered is known by it's named. And clearly this is the case with the named river. Santa Clause doesn't fit the example because we do not ever encounter Santa Clause. We do encounter a soul though every time we meet a living thing. The problem is that you do not understand the theory, by which the thing encountered is called a soul, so when you encounter a soul, you do not recognize it as a soul. Likewise, if you encountered the Mississippi River and you did not understand that this thing is called the Mississippi River, you would not recognize it as the Mississippi River. So you might insistently argue that there is no such thing as the Mississippi River, and no one has ever encountered the Mississippi River, simply because you refuse to acknowledge that the thing you are looking at is the thing which many people call the Mississippi River.

Ah, sorry, by "authority" I didn't mean someone in a position to order me to climb, but someone I considered an expert, whose opinion I trusted. — Srap Tasmaner

Oh, well I consider the boss on my job to be the expert, whose opinion I should trust. Isn't that the case for you?

One other thought on bosses and ladders: his ordering me up is in itself interesting. Giving a command based on a belief -- we can suppose he honestly believes the ladder is safe -- is another way of acting, just like making an assertion that the ladder is safe. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think the boss would order you up the ladder if he didn't think it was safe, unless he's practising some form of deception. Safety is the boss's responsibility.

And as I have also explained, the actually important relation between attention and habit is that attention produces some general state of intentionality ahead of every moment of action. — apokrisis

There you go again. Remember, you agreed with me that the general state of intentionality directs the attention, not vise versa. The general state of intentionality directs the attention, producing particular intentions. Attention does not produce a general state of intentionality. You agreed with me that this general state of intentionality is prior to, and active in the directing of atttention. And I told you that I'd correct you whenever I saw you slipping back into these old habits. You need to learn how to break these bad habits, that's why I will continue to bring them to your attention.

Today people with little thought can communicate with far more efficiency using the Internet, and there is a dissipation of that knowledge, and not all in a good way. — charleton

... and here we are.

For the same reason that other idiotic ideas such as astrology, fairies and angels are still firmly believed in. — charleton

So do you think that numbers, and mathematical ideas like addition and subtraction, which have been firmly believed in for thousands of years are idiotic as well?

The idea of gremlins, fairies and angels are also useful concepts ... — charleton

What, other than usefulness can remove the label of "idiotic" from a concept, for you? Or is it only the concepts that are useful to you which are not idiotic? We have a concept for people like you, it's "prejudice".

Why wouldn't one believe in angles? We believe in souls don't we?

Aristotle never found the soul in nature. You're just being ridiculous now, comparing finding plants and animals to theorizing a soul. — Thanatos Sand

Your missing the point Thanatos. What differentiates theorizing something, from something being found in nature? Suppose you find something in nature, you think it's a rock. Well isn't it a theory which says that it's a "rock"? The point is, that things are named, and there is theory as to how to apply the names to declare that the thing found is best called by that name. So you don't really find a thing with the name "rock" on it, and say "hey look I found a rock", you actually must refer to a theory to back up your claim that the thing you found is a rock. You don't find names in nature, you find nameless things, and use theory to put names to those things.

Consider living things now. Do you agree that there is something called "life"? But have you ever found life? We find all sorts of different living plants, and animals, but we do not find life. It is only theory which tells us that there is something which is called "life", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead. It is the same with "soul", just a different word for the same thing. In theory there is something which is called "the soul", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead.

It is highly unlikely that a concept of "soul" which we have inherited from the infancy of human thinking, is a valuable concept nor is it likely to be true. Such an idea comes from a time when the whole world was thought of as being inhabited by spirits, malicious, benign, and beneficial. — charleton

If there is a concept such as "soul", which has persisted since the infancy of human thinking, why would you think that it is highly unlikely that it is a valuable concept? If a concept comes and goes in a very short period of time, like a flash in the pan, it is obviously not a valuable concept. But if a concept is held by human beings for thousands of years, then quite clearly it is a valuable concept.

Aristotle found nothing. He theorized a concept of the soul. Big difference. — Thanatos Sand

OK, so we don't find anything in nature then. We don't find different species, we don't find a difference between animals and plants, it's all theory, just like Aristotle's difference between living and non-living is just theorized. Where's the big difference? Is gravity just theory?

I think it's mistaken to speak in terms of the soul as being something you have. It is not an appendage or add-on, but the totality of the being. That is my reading of it. — Wayfarer

It would be more accurate to say that the soul has a body. This is one ancient perspective, analyzed by Plato, that the body is a vessel for the soul. This was dismissed by Plato though (the exact argument I can't recall), as not completely adequate for describing the relationship between soul and body. I believe it has to do with the reasons why he developed the concept of a tripartite person.

Judging by human experience, he concluded that there needs to be a medium between soul and body. I do not know the Greek word he used to refer to this medium. but it's commonly translated as spirit, or passion, and related to ambition. In Plato's description, the soul controls the body through the means of spirit, but also the constraints of the body act upon the soul through the same medium. One's disposition is a description of this relationship. So the soul of the well-mannered, ambitious individual, has effective control over the body through the means of spirit, but this spirit must remain balanced with the constraints which the body places on the soul. And this why virtue, for Plato is a type of knowledge. It involves knowing and maintaining this balance so that it does not tip toward the wrong side, and the soul remains in control.

Aristotle's understanding was, as I understand it, more along the lines of 'the unitive principle'; he was not a dualist, in that he didn't believe it made sense to say the soul exists separately from the body. It is more like the person is an 'embodied soul', or 'an ensouled body'. — Wayfarer

His first definition of "soul" is "the first grade of actuality of a body having life potentially in it". It is important to notice that there is no actual body, which is "ensouled", but the body, which has no actuality prior to having soul, is given actual existence by the soul. The soul is the first actuality of that body

The body which will be the living body, only potentially exists prior to having a soul. So it is the soul which gives actual existence to the material body, by actualizing what only exists potentially, prior to that actualization. Therefore the actual soul must exist prior to the actual body as that which actualizes the potential of a body, giving actual existence to the body

I worried after I posted that maybe it should be flattened a bit, instead of being so dramatic, but I wonder if the dramatic shift isn't better after all ... — Srap Tasmaner

I think the dramatic middle zone is called for. When an issue attracts our attention, and becomes important, there develops a sense of urgency for resolution. Prior to, and posterior to that urgency, the issue just kind of hangs around. The time when we're paying attention to it is a short slice of its overall temporal existence.

And since nobody has found the soul in nature or through natural means, it's either supernatural or nonexistent. — Thanatos Sand

Aristotle found the soul through natural means, and his entire biology is centred around the existence of the soul. You should read it, it's called "On the Soul", and it is very comprehensive, covering the different life forms and their various different activities.

Do you understand that a living thing is different from a non-living thing, and that there is a difference between being alive and being dead? What is this difference, if not the soul?