Philosophy Discussion Forums

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 11:13 am …For the truly nonphysical souls/spirits of academic philosophy/theology (Cartesian souls), which are bodiless and consist of no (material) stuff at all…

Souls in Descartes' sense aren't only immaterial and spatially unextended, but also spatially unlocated, such that there aren't any spatial relations between souls and bodies. However, there is a weaker substance dualism according to which souls are located at single points of space. (Since souls are point-sized, they cannot occupy more than one space-point at the same time.)

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 11:24 amSouls in Descartes' sense aren't only immaterial and spatially unextended, but also spatially unlocated, such that there aren't any spatial relations between souls and bodies. However, there is a weaker substance dualism according to which souls are located at single points of space. (Since souls are point-sized, they cannot occupy more than one space-point at the same time.)

This weaker substance dualism has an explanatory problem that Descartes' stronger substance dualism doesn't have: If spatially located souls can move (change their position), how can they do so? They cannot seriously be imagined as tiny angels with wings enabling them to fly through space.

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 11:13 am The idea of "spiritual bodies" that we find in spiritualist and occultist literature makes no sense unless "spiritual" is read as "made of a special form of matter (unknown to natural science)".

Surely, "spiritual" is read as "made of something that is non-material and non-physical"?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 11:57 am

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 11:13 am The idea of "spiritual bodies" that we find in spiritualist and occultist literature makes no sense unless "spiritual" is read as "made of a special form of matter (unknown to natural science)".

Surely, "spiritual" is read as "made of something that is non-material and non-physical"?

I'm talking about its (only non-contradictory) meaning within the phrase "spiritual body"!

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 12:02 pmI'm talking about its (only non-contradictory) meaning within the phrase "spiritual body"!

A body is a material object by definition, so a spiritual = immaterial body would be an immaterial material object.

Spiritual. I might agree to: It might be one of the variables that accounts for the degrees of Zombieism (defining Zombie as mechanical and spiritual as an extra dimension).

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 11:13 amIn my understanding, "immaterial body" is a contradiction in terms. The idea of "spiritual bodies" that we find in spiritualist and occultist literature makes no sense unless "spiritual" is read as "made of a special form of matter (unknown to natural science)". For the truly nonphysical souls/spirits of academic philosophy/theology (Cartesian souls), which are bodiless and consist of no (material) stuff at all, are different from the paraphysical souls/spirits/ghosts of folk mythology, which are not really bodiless but merely consist of some alien, exotic, "fine"/"thin"/"transparent"/"ethereal"/"airy"/"gassy" stuff, as opposed to the familiar, "coarse"/"hard"/"solid"/"thick" stuff of which ordinary material objects are composed.

"The phrase, 'spiritual body', seems a contradiction in terms: a spiritual body, in other words, a body all spirit. That is not it, for that would be a contradiction in terms. A body involves the very idea and necessity of matter. The spiritual body is a material body. This necessarily, or it is not a body. In its constitution, it is some refined modification of matter."

(Morgan, John. The Preachers' Treasury: Being One Hundred Outlines of Sermons, Selected from "the American National Preacher". Second Series. New Edition. London: R. D. Dickinson, 1871. p. 227)

My point exactly! A "spiritual" body is just a body made of "fine" matter.

From the materialistic perspective, the mind-body relationship is the relationship between the (central) nervous system and the organism.

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 12:06 pm

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 12:02 pmI'm talking about its (only non-contradictory) meaning within the phrase "spiritual body"!

A body is a material object by definition, so a spiritual = immaterial body would be an immaterial material object.

That would be a literal 'body', not a metaphorical (and spiritual) 'body', I suppose? Maybe that's where your difficulty lies?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 12:56 pm

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 12:06 pm

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 12:02 pmI'm talking about its (only non-contradictory) meaning within the phrase "spiritual body"!

A body is a material object by definition, so a spiritual = immaterial body would be an immaterial material object.

That would be a literal 'body', not a metaphorical (and spiritual) 'body', I suppose? Maybe that's where your difficulty lies?

I realise by reading your post that there is a big overlap between this thread which I started and the one on life after death. That is because ideas about life after death are dependent on what a body is and whether it is physical only, with the question of where does consciousness fit in?

Consul wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 10:54 am

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 1:29 pmA Mathematical Point has identically zero diameter and has no dimensional properties.

As far as I know, strictly speaking, there's a distinction between being zero-dimensional (point-sized) and being adimensional or dimensionless, i.e. lacking a defined dimension. For example, if abstract objects such as sets and linguistic types exist (e.g. the letter-type <a>), then they are adimensional rather than zero-dimensional.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 1:29 pmThe real utility of nD Points is that two or more nD Points can touch. Since the surfaces of nD Points are made out of Points, we can define two nD Points as touching when a Point from one is at the same location in space as a Point from the other one.

Right. Generally, direct contact between 2D or 3D objects can be defined in terms of coincidence (colocation) of (parts of) their lower-dimensional boundaries. Circles and spheres are in direct contact when two of their respective boundary-points coincide; and squares and cubes are in direct contact when two of their respective 0D, 1D, or 2D boundaries coincide (partially at least in the case of line or surface contact).

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑March 18th, 2022, 1:29 pmMultiple nD Points can be arranged like Points to form Lines and Planes, but unlike Points the nD Points can touch. Also, an nD Point has surface structure that can visually be seen to rotate, whereas a Point cannot visually rotate.

A point qua 0D object cannot rotate at all!

I think it could be said that a Mathematcal Point is Zero DImensional and Adimensional.

It is safe to say that the defined zero dimension is not detectable and that something like Freewill might have some detection or dimension in a manifold. Other metaphysical identities like love, etc., etc., etc. might get the same result. This would make a n- dimension different from a mechanical zombie of zero. IMO. If Freewill is not a byproduct of the manifold then it exist in the non spatial dimensions.

The Beast wrote: ↑March 21st, 2022, 11:09 am It is safe to say that the defined zero dimension is not detectable and that something like Freewill might have some detection or dimension in a manifold. Other metaphysical identities like love, etc., etc., etc. might get the same result. This would make a n- dimension different from a mechanical zombie of zero. IMO. If Freewill is not a byproduct of the manifold then it exist in the non spatial dimensions.

The idea of free will as being non special is important because this implies that even though consciousness is based on physical processes in the brain it becomes an independent form to some extent. This is, of course, based on there being free will, which many, especially physicalists deny. The physicalists are inclined to dismiss reflective consciousness reducing the process as being more or less robotic or mechanical.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 12:56 pm That would be a literal 'body', not a metaphorical (and spiritual) 'body', I suppose? Maybe that's where your difficulty lies?

What is the metaphorical meaning of "body" in "spiritual body"?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 20th, 2022, 12:56 pm That would be a literal 'body', not a metaphorical (and spiritual) 'body', I suppose? Maybe that's where your difficulty lies?

Consul wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2022, 8:33 am What is the metaphorical meaning of "body" in "spiritual body"?

Really? I understand the question well enough, but not the mindset that prompted you to ask it. The metaphorical meaning of "body" in "spiritual body" is that the latter phrase includes some aspects of a physical body even though it is not a physical body. Perhaps a brief investigation into the nature and use of metaphor might help?