Where is the soul before birth? Why don't I remember anything?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
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?Please don't be dense. — The Great Whatever
Where is the soul before birth? Why don't I remember anything? — Agustino
Then in what sense did I exist before birth? No experience means no existence, except as a potential maybe, which doesn't say much.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? — Agustino
No experience means no existence, — Agustino
>:O Then what's the mumbo jumbo of soul existing? In what sense does it exist if it has no experience?"I" refers to a combination of body and soul, so in no sense did "I" exist prior to that combination. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, from its point of view it doesn't.A rock doesn't experience, does that mean it doesn't exist? — Metaphysician Undercover
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
I'm still waiting for you to show me a thought kicking a physical stone. — Agustino
Which means very little in practical terms.They are embedded in the holographic field as Memory. — 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?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
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
Can you specify what this difference is concretely?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
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
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.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
I may be dumb, but at least I'm honest 8-)Then I guess you're too dumb to have this conversation. — The Great Whatever
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.