Why "goes out... into some other realm"? It already is in that other realm. That's what dualism's all about. At death it has lost its influence over the material body. — Metaphysician Undercover

Where is the soul before birth? Why don't I remember anything?

Please don't be dense. — The Great Whatever

No it's quite serious actually, because I don't understand what you're seeking to say. I don't see instances of thoughts kicking stones. I only see instances of feet interacting with stones and footballs and whatever other physical object. I see thoughts on the other hand interacting only with other thoughts. Where the hell do I see thought interacting with matter?

Where is the soul before birth? Why don't I remember anything? — Agustino

You didn't have any memory before birth therefore you don't remember anything before birth. In fact, your memory was just developing at birth and that's why you can't remember things from a very young age.

You didn't have any memory before birth therefore you don't remember anything before birth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then in what sense did I exist before birth? No experience means no existence, except as a potential maybe, which doesn't say much.

Then in what sense did I exist before birth? — Agustino

"I" refers to a combination of body and soul, so in no sense did "I" exist prior to that combination.

No experience means no existence, — Agustino

I don't see any reason to accept this principle. What do you mean by "experience"? A rock doesn't experience, does that mean it doesn't exist?

"I" refers to a combination of body and soul, so in no sense did "I" exist prior to that combination. — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O Then what's the mumbo jumbo of soul existing? In what sense does it exist if it has no experience?

A rock doesn't experience, does that mean it doesn't exist? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, from its point of view it doesn't.

Do you mean before birth my soul exists like a stone exists? Well one can certainly find a stone, but I doubt they can find my soul before I am born.

However, there is an important difference which Aristotle points to. Matter is understood to be passive, while the soul is an active form. This becomes relevant in the cosmological argument. If we adhere to this difference, it is impossible that they are the same. This is evident from what you say as well. Mind is "evolving in Time" (active), while Matter is not (passive). That one is passive and the other is active makes it impossible that they are one and the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

In my thought process I view matter as relatively passive, remembering that all matter is decaying (half-lives), thus there is no absolute passivity (everything is changing albeit in different directions) but we can say that matter is a continuation in the spectrum of death. What happens below total decay is probably best addressed by Bohm's notion of an implicate order. I don't believe Bohm ever referenced Bergson directly but there may have been some indirect influence arrive their interpretations of quanta are very similar as are their references to a holographic explanation of the universe.

I'm still waiting for you to show me a thought kicking a physical stone. — Agustino

The thought is the initial impulse conveyed through the energetic, substantial field which we call bodily matter. There is no hardline between the two, just differences in substantiality. It is a continuum as electricity moves a train.

The thought is the initial impulse conveyed through the energetic, substantial field which we call bodily matter. There is no hardline between the two, just differences in substantiality. — Rich

I'm asking dualists, not you. You're not a dualist. So be quiet :P

I consider Bergson's a mode of dualism that has dissolved the line between the two.

I consider Bergson's a mode of dualism that has dissolved the line between the two. — Rich

That's a form of monism if it has dissolved the line between the two.

Where is the soul before birth? Why don't I remember anything? — Agustino

You do. It is called instincts, inherited traits inborn skills.

Bergson resolved the clumsiness of both monism and dualism. If anything, it may be considered a more process oriented philosophy though he called it a resolution of dualism.

You do. It is called instincts, inherited traits inborn skills. — Rich

Right... where do instincts go after death? Instincts apart from the body make little sense for me.

They are embedded in the holographic field as Memory.

They are embedded in the holographic field as Memory. — Rich

Which means very little in practical terms.

Bergson resolved the clumsiness of both monism and dualism. If anything, it may be considered a more process oriented philosophy though he called it a resolution of dualism. — Rich

I have almost 0 knowledge of Bergson, so forgive me, but why does he call it dualism if the two don't have a boundary between each other, but are instead more like a gradation?

They are embedded in the holographic field as Memory.
— Rich
Which means very little in practical terms.

Bergson resolved the clumsiness of both monism and dualism. If anything, it may be considered a more process oriented philosophy though he called it a resolution of dualism.
— Rich
I have almost 0 knowledge of Bergson, so forgive me, but why does he call it dualism if the two don't have a boundary between each other, but are instead more like a gradation?
seconds ago ReplyShareFlag — Agustino

In practical terms it makes all the difference in the world in the way we view and treat life, for those who are exploring the quality of who they are.

This is how Bergson begins his first major work Matter and Memory:

"THIS book affirms the reality of spirit and the reality of matter, and tries to determine the relation of the one to the other by the study of a definite example, that of memory. It is, then, frankly dualistic. But, on the other hand, it deals with body and mind in such a way as, we hope, to lessen greatly, if not to overcome, the theoretical difficulties which have always beset dualism, and which cause it, though suggested by the immediate verdict of consciousness and adopted by common sense, to be held, in small honour among philosophers."

His ideas were greatly refined in subsequent writings.

In practical terms it makes all the difference in the world in the way we view and treat life, for those who are exploring the quality of who they are. — Rich

Can you specify what this difference is concretely?

Hmm Bergson seems interesting. Is there anyone who explores Bergsonian ideas in a modern context that I could read as an introduction to his thought?

For me, it provides an extraordinary path for exploring the nature of life and death, the purpose of life, and a spirituality that provides some meaning and ethical path in life. If we are persistent Memory then time (duration) gathers a totally new feeling and meaning. It provides context for my life.

Deleuze is said to be a modern scholar of Bergson, but for my taste he wondered too far away. The original is always the best. I began by reading some of his works, then some scholarly papers which are easily googled, and then I fell upon Stephen Robbins, who does a masterful job of explaining Bergson's ideas in modern holographic terms. Interestingly, and I emailed him directly on this issue, is that he avoids Bergson's concept of the Elan Vital, which is of course vital to understanding Bergson.

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

So like everything in life, Bergson is an endless exploration of deeper understanding. De Broglie wrote an excellent essay on Bergson if you can find it in the library: (I purchased the book a while ago).


http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-3096-0_38

Okay thanks!

No it's quite serious actually, because I don't understand what you're seeking to say. I don't see instances of thoughts kicking stones. I only see instances of feet interacting with stones and footballs and whatever other physical object. I see thoughts on the other hand interacting only with other thoughts. Where the hell do I see thought interacting with matter? — Agustino

I'm not responding until you stop pretending to be stupid. If you actually are that stupid, then there's also no point in responding, right?

You are quite welcome. I am looking forward to hearing what you may discover.

The question Augustino is asking is reasonable. He is also questioning where is the bridge in dualism? It is not only reasonable, it begs to be asked. So much so, that Nobel Prize winner Bergson spent his life trying to formulate a possible answer. For Bryson, the answer lies in the nature of Duration and Memory.

I'm not responding until you stop pretending to be stupid. If you actually are that stupid, then there's also no point in responding, right? — The Great Whatever

There is no pretending here. I can imagine how a ball interacts with a foot, and to imagine that I make appeal to their common nature - that they are both made of atoms. I cannot imagine how a thought interacts with a physical object though. All I know is that there are correlations between the two. These correlations are explained by thought and extension being two attributes of the same substance, which grounds the parallelism between the two.

Then I guess you're too dumb to have this conversation.

I don't really want to play this game.

Then I guess you're too dumb to have this conversation. — The Great Whatever

I may be dumb, but at least I'm honest 8-)

Unfortunately not, but maybe you'll learn someday!

Your questions are quite on target. I think you may find some insights with Bergson and if you wish Bohm.

Your questions are quite on target. I think you may find some insights with Bergson and if you wish Bohm. — Rich

Yes I will be looking into Bergson, thanks! :)