[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]iVoodoo wrote:<<< as Pat stated, only action can be deemed moral or immoral, not faith. >>>[/quote]Ephrem has a sounder grasp of morality than Pat does. If you’re actually interested in learning what Christianity is there are threads with discussions underway. I don’t mean this how it may sound, but you have no clue.
[/quote]
In my eyes, neither do you 
In response to Pat and Brother Chris-
Sublimus Deus was annulled by Paul III in 1537 (this is documented in many places including wiki)… You realize that if Sublimus Deus was ever in effect, Mexico would have never been Colonized. Sublimus Deus was a convenient little motion that the Church touted even when it was annulled by the Pope because it violated the Spanish patronato rights. Nice and convenient to spread the word while they suck their conquistador dogs and diseases on Native Mexico.
Pope Paul III held slaves, he sanctioned and authorized enslavement of Muslims in the Papal state. It is well documented.
And don’t twist my words. I have stated that the Church didn’t consider certain people to possess souls. Blacks are one of the groups that they argued had no souls and were enemies of Christendom. Interestingly enough indigenous Mexicans were considered enemies of Christendom as well, and were also enslaved.
All you have to do is simply think about it for a moment. Spain brought black slaves to Mexico to aid the Mission System. The indigenous Mexicans were mass Baptized (the ones that survived the onslaught of diseases introduced by the Spanish, the overall population of Mexico at the time was decimated by disease). Inevitably the women were raped, and indigenous people would have worked under the Mission system which would have had Missions as a Center Piece of power run by Spanish Priests and families, with those families having plots of land to have the laborers work.
With time and rape there came to be mixed peoples who would have had their fathers Spanish name, but due to not being natives of Spain they would have lacked opportunity in established Missions, so they were the ones who would have been sent forward to establish new Missions in Mexico if there weren’t any Spanish Natives willing to do so themselves. Only certain mixes which were predominantly Spanish and non black were allowed to do such. The mixed were classified in to a caste system which would have gone as follows-
From Spaniard and Indian,
Mestizo
From Mestizo and Spaniard,
Castizo
From Castizo and Spaniard,
Spaniard
From Spaniard and Black,
Mulatto
From Spaniard and Mulatto,
Morisco
From Morisco and Spaniard,
Albino
From Spaniard and Albina,
Look the other way
From Indian and Look the other way,
Wolf
From Wolf and Indian,
Zambahiga
From Zambahiga and Indian,
Cambujo
From Cambujo and Mulatto,
Albarazado
From Albarzado and Mulatto,
Barcino
From Barcina and Mulatto,
Coyote
From Coyote and Indian,
Chamiso
From Camisa and Mestizo,
Coyote
From Coyote Mestizo and Mulatto,
Go no further
They often were willing to do this because in the Central locations, I guess you could say the hub of the Mission system in Central Mexico would have been dominated by established Spanish Families who would have been considered full blooded Spaniards. Establishing Missions would be their out, and presented them great opportunity. This way the Spanish had mixed and indigenous Mexicans doing their work for them (spreading Missions). We have several of these Mexican Missions here in the U.S. This is why I’m so familiar with the system, as there is one in my home town.
Cheers.
And as for St. Aquainas. You guys need to read up on what was considered internal vs. external freedom. Aquainus argued for internal freedom, not external. In other words, he was for free will/free mind, but not free body. Now you can argue this is freedom if you wish, but I don’t think that enslaving people physically is a lot more distinguishable than enslaving people physically and forcing them into your ideology. Free Will (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
MIT discovers the location of memories: Individual neurons
Another fascinating step towards conclusively proving that, even the metaphysical, “self” is a product of the brain.
Fascinating, but it absolutely doesn’t, won’t and can’t proves anything one way or the other about the metaphysical self.
No amount of discoveries about the physical world will ever say anything about metaphysics, since both realms are discrete.
You can’t deny the existence of a subjective, final, metaphysical aspect of the self, since you experience it.
But this subjective, final, metaphysical aspect of the self is located on the other side of the objective, mechanical, physical coin you’re looking at.
You’re looking at it from the wrong perspective.
You could always say that this aspect of the Self is a side effect and a mere illusion, but then, an illusion is still, well, a metaphysical thing.
And yet, the metaphysical is contingent on the physical form.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
And yet, the metaphysical is contingent on the physical form.
[/quote]
if it were true, you would be able to show at least one empirical example of a causal interaction between a physical and a metaphysical thing.
and all you can (and will ever) show, is the simultaneity (parallelism) of physical and metaphysical processes.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
And yet, the metaphysical is contingent on the physical form.
[/quote]
if it were true, you would be able to show at least one empirical example of a causal interaction between a physical and a metaphysical thing.
and all you can (and will ever) show, is the simultaneity (parallelism) of physical and metaphysical processes.
[/quote]
Excuse me? There have been countless examples of people in an MRI scanner who were shown images that invoke a specific respons in the brain, whether it’s an emotion or feeling or memory, that’s a direct cause and effect.
Have you ever had a sudden memory of an embarrasing moment that made you cringe years after it happened? Causal effect.
Or I’m not understanding you correctly and require further explanation of what you mean.
[quote]
Excuse me? There have been countless examples of people in an MRI scanner who were shown images that invoke a specific respons in the brain, whether it’s an emotion or feeling or memory, that’s a direct cause and effect.[/quote]
the physical chain of causes :
photons travels through someone’s eyes > the eye’s organs “convert” the light into electro-chemical impulses in neurons > something physically happens in the brain.
nothing metaphysical in it.
the metaphysical chain of causes :
someone’s see an image, someone experience an emotion, a feeling, a memory, an idea.
nothing physical in it.
both chains are “synchronous”, but one will NEVER explain the other.
we start thinking otherwise when we use ordinary language and vague concepts, and when we mix both chains of causes.
the physical photons becomes “an image”. The emotion becomes “brain area activation”. But, methodologically, and strictly speaking, this is erroneous.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t understand why this is so?
When Newton saw the apple fall and was inspired to formulate his theory of gravitation, you’d argue that there is no causal effect between the two?
i argue that there is TWO separate causal relationships between 2x2 things.
A material event in a tree causing a material event in Newton’s brain
A metaphysical event in Newton’s perception causing a metaphysical event in Newton’s intellect.
I never “seen” a material event causing a metaphysical event.
and i never “seen” a metaphysical event causing a material event.
if i ever “see” one of these things, i will call that a miracle, in BOTH cases.
[quote]kamui wrote:
THis is very interesting. I don’t have a ready thought out process that could address these remarks but I have some ideas… I am going to say there is a bridge between sensations, that which meets the eye and concepts, , making sense of that phenomenon or what word to apply to it. Without a bridge we could not construct worlds. We don’t ever really see things in themselves, but produce metaphors…
Tell me what you mean by " but methodologically and strictly speaking this is erroneous" WHat is erroneous, a causal connection to “reality”?
If apple hadn’t fallen, Newton wouldn’t have had the inspiration [at that moment].
That’s a direct cause and effect.
I’m not trying to play stupid here kamui, I don’t have to try hard to do that anyway, but Newton saw the apple fall. It made him ponder certain questions that led to him to devise a theory.
That is a straight line.
All the thinking, pondering, wondering and formulating afterwards were also material effects in Newton’s brain.
Do you believe that some form of ‘self’ survives physical death?
yes and no.
the physical fall of an apple can cause and explain a physical event in Newton’s brain because it’s physical in both cases.
We reconstruct a (true) story that tells us that some material bodies moves and cause other bodies to move in the same space-time. The bodies may be distinct, but, in last analysis they are made with the same matter, they exists and moves in the same dimensions and obey the same physical laws.
Ontologically, both events are on the same “level” or “layer”.
That’s why we are allowed to say that both events are causally linked.
This is the very basis of the “mathesis universalis” the West dreams about since the so-called Dark Ages. And it’s the very basis of modern Science.
Now, Ideas, affects, concepts and percepts (metaphysical things) interact between themselves. we all expeience that daily, and none of us can deny it seriously. Addiionnally, we all experience the fact that our own metaphysical reality (my thoughts, your thoughts) does NOT causally affect the material world. We may sometimes dream about it but we know that magic doesn’t work.
Nothing special here. It’s just another way to say tha we are finite being (and that we know it).
Now, we sometimes think, like Ephrem, that our metaphysical reality could be affected (and explained) by the material world.
But, there is nothing common, ontologically, between a material body and a thought that could allow us to say they causally interact in any way, shape or form.
We can only affirm the existence of two parallel chains of causes, a physical and a metaphysical one.
But… even parallel lines intersect at some point.
Only they do it at infinity.
So, we can actually say that there is a “bridge”, but this bridge would not be in our eyes, it would only exist at a fundamental level, from the beginning, and globally, not on a “case by case” basis.
The bridge is that, “at infinity”, matter is thought (information)
Hence, an absolute intellect.
[quote]
I’m not trying to play stupid here kamui, I don’t have to try hard to do that anyway, but Newton saw the apple fall. It made him ponder certain questions that led to him to devise a theory.
That is a straight line.[/quote]
Yes, but it’s a metaphysical straight line, from Newton’s perception to Newton’s intellect.
[quote]
All the thinking, pondering, wondering and formulating afterwards were also material effects in Newton’s brain.[/quote]
No. But all the thinking, pondering, wondering and formulating afterwards certainly correponded to some material effects in Newton’s brain.
But these material effects were the effect of the “photonic” causes, not intellectual ones.
[quote]
Do you believe that some form of ‘self’ survives physical death?[/quote]
The self doesn’t die physically (it doesn’t lives physically either). But it certainly cease to exist at the same time the body dies.
[quote]kamui wrote:
So that information/self just dissappears?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
So that information/self just dissappears?[/quote]
When somebody die, matter is still there, but it’s not a body anymore.
When someone die, informations are still there, but it’s not a self anymore.
[quote]kamui wrote:
If you believe this then why do you separate the metaphysical from the physical?
I’m beginning to understand what your point is, but I’d like some clarification.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
I’m not trying to play stupid here kamui, I don’t have to try hard to do that anyway, but Newton saw the apple fall. It made him ponder certain questions that led to him to devise a theory.
That is a straight line.[/quote]
Yes, but it’s a metaphysical straight line, from Newton’s perception to Newton’s intellect.
[quote]
All the thinking, pondering, wondering and formulating afterwards were also material effects in Newton’s brain.[/quote]
No. But all the thinking, pondering, wondering and formulating afterwards certainly correponded to some material effects in Newton’s brain.
But these material effects were the effect of the “photonic” causes, not intellectual ones. [/quote]
Where lies the difference between material effects caused by the brain, and intellectual ones?
[quote]kamui wrote:
yes and no.
the physical fall of an apple can cause and explain a physical event in Newton’s brain because it’s physical in both cases.
We reconstruct a (true) story that tells us that some material bodies moves and cause other bodies to move in the same space-time. The bodies may be distinct, but, in last analysis they are made with the same matter, they exists and moves in the same dimensions and obey the same physical laws.
Ontologically, both events are on the same “level” or “layer”.
That’s why we are allowed to say that both events are causally linked.
This is the very basis of the “mathesis universalis” the West dreams about since the so-called Dark Ages. And it’s the very basis of modern Science.
Now, Ideas, affects, concepts and percepts (metaphysical things) interact between themselves. we all expeience that daily, and none of us can deny it seriously. Addiionnally, we all experience the fact that our own metaphysical reality (my thoughts, your thoughts) does NOT causally affect the material world. We may sometimes dream about it but we know that magic doesn’t work.
Nothing special here. It’s just another way to say tha we are finite being (and that we know it).
Now, we sometimes think, like Ephrem, that our metaphysical reality could be affected (and explained) by the material world.
But, there is nothing common, ontologically, between a material body and a thought that could allow us to say they causally interact in any way, shape or form.
We can only affirm the existence of two parallel chains of causes, a physical and a metaphysical one.
But… even parallel lines intersect at some point.
Only they do it at infinity.
So, we can actually say that there is a “bridge”, but this bridge would not be in our eyes, it would only exist at a fundamental level, from the beginning, and globally, not on a “case by case” basis.
The bridge is that, “at infinity”, matter is thought (information)
Hence, an absolute intellect.
[/quote]
all of what you said is just another form of metaphysics. Just ideas about ideas. If Ideas are seen as theory then those idea can lead to say science doing investigations and experiments to see if there is a correlation. Over simplifying here but Science is concerned with correlations.
From your idea of metaphysics coming to a conclusion that an absolute intellect exist is a positing from metaphysics to metaphysics. Just more first philosophy.