tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post447100091417869452..comments2024-02-29T04:15:06.480-06:00Comments on Life, the Universe, and One Brow: Review of TLS -- A soulful discussionOne Browhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-56067308939664998312016-05-29T23:14:29.297-05:002016-05-29T23:14:29.297-05:00R. C.,
I think the post overall was fairly clear ...R. C.,<br /><br />I think the post overall was fairly clear that I understood the Aristotelian notion of the soul encompassed the body, while the person is alive. However, if the mind relies on the body for memory and imagination, than it must needs go without this memory and imagination after death, in Feser's universe.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-16455756284701081432016-01-02T11:43:01.798-06:002016-01-02T11:43:01.798-06:00One Brow,
I've little to say on this post. Bu...One Brow,<br /><br />I've little to say on this post. But I note the following, near the end:<br /><br />"When discussing the process of thinking about forms, and saying this process means instantiating that form in an immaterial way, Dr. Feser uses this concept as proof that the mind can never be found to be material or even to depend solely on the material. This would mean that any discovery which indicates the mind does indeed depend on the brain must be wrong (unless one of his fundamental assumptions is wrong)."<br /><br />That looks like it oversimplifies what Feser is saying to the point of caricature. Feser insists that intellect <i>does</i> depend on the brain for several of its powers (e.g. memory, imagination). So it is hard to imagine how there could be a "discovery" which "indicates the mind does indeed depend on the brain" which would not fit perfectly with the A-T understanding of mind/brain/intellect. But his blog, and apparently also his book <i>Philosophy of Mind</i> (which I haven't yet got) say more about that.<br /><br />But I think Feser would also say: "To look for a discovery -- for experimental evidence -- about such a topic is a category error. You can't go looking for experimental evidence of the principle that A is A, or of the principle that A can't be both B and Not-B at the same time and at the same way. You just reason about it. The principle that the mind's operations and powers are partly, but <i>not even in principle wholly</i>, dependent on matter, is determined as an unavoidable conclusion from axioms that you can't deny if you want to retain the ability to reason at all. There is <i>not even in principle</i> an experimental result that could show otherwise; so this is entirely in the metaphysical realm and the only way to show it isn't true is to argue the way metaphysicians argue."R.C.noreply@blogger.com