soul???

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Huh?

Paint = properties.
Canvass = essence.

Is this going above your head?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Paint = properties.
Canvass = essence.

Is this going above your head?

Only in so far as the analogy is wrong (or, as no1 might like to nitpick, inappropriate).

A more accurate analogy (actually, it's not an analogy*):

Paint + Canvas + (other physical instantiation factors) = matter => provides for existence

The design of the painting, the colour scheme chosen, the properties of the painting = form or essence

* Essence and existence are such basic features of reality that it's nearly impossible to draw an analogy without pointing out the concepts themselves!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I said earlier, the Thomistic conception of the soul (to the best of my knowledge) does not require a supernatural connotation. Aquinas himself probably goes to it on the strength of Revelation -- but I'll need to check.

[b]... when our ability to think is merely a function of our physical body?

I didn't say it was "merely" that.[/b]

As I said earlier, the Thomistic conception of the soul (to the best of my knowledge) does not require a supernatural connotation. Aquinas himself probably goes to it on the strength of Revelation -- but I'll need to check.

Ok...given that you choose (for now) that it has no supernatural connotation...what happens to it when we die? or more specifically, what happens to *me* when I die?...does it suddenly *become* supernatural such that it can enter an afterlife/go to heaven/hell etc...if so wouldn't you say that this is a convenient and somewhat poorly formed theory?...if it doesn't then is it not accurate to say that as we die our, ahem... *soul* dies also and we simply cease to exist?.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The soul is not an entity in the Thomistic view. It is not a "continuous essence" (whatever that means) permeating all life. Each distinct living being has a soul.

You can count souls just as you count living creatures.

That is exactly my problem. You cannot count living creatures.
Plants are the obvious case but to give a more complex example, take a sperm and egg bank. Each sperm is a living creature capable of life. Each egg is a living creature capable of life. At fertilization a new living creature is formed which is unique and distinct from the two cells that formed it.
Chop off a human hand and keep it alive. It is a living creature capable of life. Does it have a soul?

The question of whether twins "share" a soul (soul is not just DNA) is still being debated. My personal view is -- yes, they do share a soul in the pre-twinning phase.

If you get an organ transplant then, in general, you don't acquire "part of the soul" of the donor. Neither the donor nor the recepient has undergone any change that fundamentally defines them as a whole new being.
Actually it does fundamentally define them as a whole new being. What happens when their whole body is transplanted? Are you going to say the soul is confined to the brain? Is the 'essence' of who you are your brain? Why that distinction? What happens if half a brain is put in one body and the other half in another?

EDIT: A thought experiment to help you grasp the notion of 'essence' better. The essence of a dinosaur, basically, is its "dinosaurhood". Essence is what is common to a dinosaur in a book and one that really existed 65 million years ago; what is different is that one exists and the other does not. All beings are basically essences that exist.
"dinosaurhood" is a classification we use just like species (except it is broader and refers to a whole group of species). It is not exact and has fuzzy edges. We can have a mule which is half horse. It doesn't fit into any species. When I say human being, I am not defining a particular person. I am not specifying skin color, hair color etc. You cant claim that I am just a human being that exists or I would be identical to every other human being. I am unique. But even 'I' have fuzzy edges. You cannot pin down what makes me me. I change from moment to moment. I am divisible and combinable. Bits of me are dying all the time and bits of me are being 'born' all the time including the potential for new beings (children / clones). I am uncountable.

So if I have a heart transplant, will I have my new heart or my old heart when I get to heaven?

[edit] could I get a brain transplant from a 'saved' Christian just before death and thus get into heaven? No, wait, having a Christian brain would be hell!

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is exactly my problem. You cannot count living creatures.
Plants are the obvious case but to give a more complex example, take a sperm and egg bank. Each sperm is a living creature capable of life. Each egg is a living creature capable of life. At fertilization a new living creature is formed which is unique and distinct from the two cells that form ...[text shortened]... and thus get into heaven? No, wait, having a Christian brain would be hell!

You cannot count living creatures.

Of course you can. "How many human beings have posted on this thread?" is a question you can answer. You can certainly count organisms.

Chop off a human hand and keep it alive. It is a living creature capable of life. Does it have a soul?

It is not a living "creature" (that term is reserved for organisms). It is certainly living tissue and can be considered to have an essence, yes.

Actually it does fundamentally define them as a whole new being.

No, it doesn't. I don't un-become LH simply because I have a new liver.

What happens when their whole body is transplanted? Are you going to say the soul is confined to the brain? Is the 'essence' of who you are your brain?

No, I'm not.

What happens if half a brain is put in one body and the other half in another?

Then, presumably, you have two new beings with distinct essences but a shared history/predecessor.

"dinosaurhood" is a classification we use just like species ... It is not exact and has fuzzy edges.

The notion of biological species ('species' has a slightly different meaning in classical metaphysics) may be fuzzy at the edges, but that doesn't detract from the regions where it is clearly applicable.

You cannot pin down what makes me me.

Whether I can "pin [it] down" or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is something (cautionary note: this does not mean I am saying essences are beings) that makes you you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Only in so far as the analogy is wrong (or, as no1 might like to nitpick, inappropriate).

A more accurate analogy (actually, it's not an analogy*):

Paint + Canvas + (other physical instantiation factors) = matter => provides for existence

The design of the painting, the colour scheme chosen, the properties of the painting = [i]f ...[text shortened]... y that it's nearly impossible to draw an analogy without pointing out the concepts themselves!

So essences are abstract arrangements of physical things. Or are they more than that?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
So essences are abstract arrangements of physical things. Or are they more than that?

I think that would suffice for now, although they are more than that.

Essence is the answer to the question "What/Who is it?" A list of attributes or properties for a thing would have both essential and accidental attributes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think that would suffice for now, although they are more than that.

Essence is the answer to the question "What/Who is it?" A list of attributes or properties for a thing would have both essential and accidental attributes.

Essence, my foot.

Your thought processes are the result of experiance imprited on your neural pattern.

Given that it would be theoretically possible to build a model of any individual's brain and programme with his/her life experiances, it would then be possible to predict any course of action that the original would take. Modern psychology is already scratching the surface here.

There is no such thing as a soul, nor is there free will - but hat's another thread.

Originally posted by sugiezd
Essence, my foot.

Your thought processes are the result of experiance imprited on your neural pattern.

Given that it would be theoretically possible to build a model of any individual's brain and programme with his/her life experiances, it would then be possible to predict any course of action that the original would take. Modern psychology is already ...[text shortened]... here.

There is no such thing as a soul, nor is there free will - but hat's another thread.

Soul (in the Thomistic sense) is not incompatible with determinism. You're getting confused here.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Soul (in the Thomistic sense) is not incompatible with determinism. You're getting confused here.

Not at all. KISS.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Of course you can. "How many human beings have posted on this thread?" is a question you can answer. You can certainly count organisms.

You cannot count organisms because the term organism is not specific enough. A human being is a collection of cells sharing related dna all working together to sustain life. You cannot specify which cells exactly make up the organism. The organism is divisible and combinable. You can take any one cell away from a human being and the human remains alive you can even put that cell back in a different place and it remains part of the organism. For less complex life you can mix up cells or even parts of cells from two organisms to create a new one.


Chop off a human hand and keep it alive. It is a living creature capable of life. Does it have a soul?
It is not a living "creature" (that term is reserved for organisms). It is certainly living tissue and can be considered to have an essence, yes.
So if I make a viable clone from the living tissue when does it become an organism and gain a soul?

Actually it does fundamentally define them as a whole new being.
No, it doesn't. I don't un-become LH simply because I have a new liver.
You do become a different LH.

Life is fluid. A what point in your scheme does a child become an organism?(thus gaining a soul) when the egg is produced by the mother? At fertilization? What about clones? What about plants that dont reproduce sexually but rather by cuttings. What percent of the stem must I cut for a branch to magically become a new organism distinct from its parent?
Its like claiming that a city or town has a unique soul. You cannot find anything that defines the exact edges of a town other than arbitrary definitions made up by politicians and yet you can change the whole population and even the houses of a town without the town becoming a new town.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You cannot count organisms because the term organism is not specific enough. A human being is a collection of cells sharing related dna all working together to sustain life. You cannot specify which cells exactly make up the organism. The organism is divisible and combinable. You can take any one cell away from a human being and the human remains alive yo ...[text shortened]... nge the whole population and even the houses of a town without the town becoming a new town.

Once again, you are confusing the notion that something may have grey edges with the notion that it doesn't exist. Biologists dispute whether viruses are living organisms or not; that doesn't mean they would dispute whether human beings are living organisms or not.

You cannot count organisms because the term organism is not specific enough.

It may have grey edges; but it is specific enough for most purposes.

You cannot specify which cells exactly make up the organism.

Why would I need to?

You can take any one cell away from a human being and the human remains alive you can even put that cell back in a different place and it remains part of the organism.

So what?

For less complex life you can mix up cells or even parts of cells from two organisms to create a new one.

Once again, so what?

So if I make a viable clone from the living tissue when does it become an organism and gain a soul?

At the point when it becomes a stable entity capable of carrying on the processes of life in a holistic manner.

You do become a different LH.

That statement is self-contradictory. Think about it.

A what point in your scheme does a child become an organism?(thus gaining a soul) ... At fertilization?

Pretty much.

What about plants that dont reproduce sexually but rather by cuttings? What percent of the stem must I cut for a branch to magically become a new organism distinct from its parent?

You haven't understood the first thing about what I've been saying so far. It doesn't matter what "percentage" you cut, if the resultant 'piece' is capable of sustaining basic biological processes then it is an organism.

Its like claiming that a city or town has a unique soul.

No, it's like claiming that cities and towns exist.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You haven't understood the first thing about what I've been saying so far. It doesn't matter what "percentage" you cut, if the resultant 'piece' is capable of sustaining basic biological processes then it is an organism.

So you agree that your concept of the soul is divisible.

Now explain how this fits with religion which assigns 'sin' to a specific soul. Or does it? Who was it who said "If your right hand sins then cut it off"?

Can your right hand end up in hell and your left hand in heaven?

Your concept of the soul is grey edged over both time and space (you have agreed to both these). When a religion says that your soul will have ever lasting life or will go to heaven do they mean that your 'essence' from your whole life from conception to death? Consciousness is obviously not possible for this soul concept so why would I care to be 'saved'? And why assign the concept to living things only, what about viruses? What about other chemical reactions? Does the sun have a soul?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you agree that your concept of the soul is divisible.

Now explain how this fits with religion which assigns 'sin' to a specific soul. Or does it? Who was it who said "If your right hand sins then cut it off"?

Can your right hand end up in hell and your left hand in heaven?

Your concept of the soul is grey edged over both time and space (you ha only, what about viruses? What about other chemical reactions? Does the sun have a soul?

So you agree that your concept of the soul is divisible.

No, I don't. The object may or may not be divisible -- the essence of the object (i.e. what it is) isn't. Either the essence of the object may continue to be instantiated in one of the two resulting objects, or you will have two new essences.

Your concept of the soul is grey edged over both time and space (you have agreed to both these).

Where did I do that?

When a religion says that your soul will have ever lasting life or will go to heaven do they mean that your 'essence' from your whole life from conception to death? Consciousness is obviously not possible for this soul concept so why would I care to be 'saved'?

I can't speak for what happens when the Thomistic concept of soul is applied to the soteriology of other religions; but Christianity holds to a physical resurrection of every human being -- which means that the essence has existence again and therefore the resurrected, everlasting being is very much conscious.

why assign the concept to living things only, what about viruses?

You haven't been reading what I wrote -- every being (including viruses) have an essence. In living beings, their essences have a special name -- souls. If viruses are living, then their essences are called souls; otherwise not.

Does the sun have a soul?

The sun has an essence but, as it is not alive, that essence is not a soul.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I can't speak for what happens when the Thomistic concept of soul is applied to the soteriology of other religions; but Christianity holds to a physical resurrection of every human being -- which means that the essence has existence again and therefore the resurrected, everlasting being is very much conscious.

So resurrection is the recreation of a human being to match his existence at a particular point of time in his life? Which point of time exactly?