Um, Ari...

[Zylstra]

Assuming this is an accurate summation

For these reasons, Aristotle revised the theory of forms so as to eliminate the idea of their independent existence from concrete, particular entities.[6] The form of something, for Aristotle, is the nature or essence (ousia, in Greek) of that thing. To say that Socrates and Callias are both men is not to say that there is some transcendent entity "man" to which both Socrates and Callias belong. The form is indeed substance but it is not substance over and above the substance of the concrete entities which it characterizes. Aristotle rejects both universalia in rebus as well as universalia ante rem.[6] Some philosophers and thinkers have taken this to be a form of materialism and there may be something to their arguments. However, what is important from the perspective of philosophy of mind is that Aristotle does not believe that intellect can be conceived of as something material. He argues as follows: if the intellect were material then it could not receive all of the forms. If the intellect were a specific material organ (or part of one) then it would be restricted to receiving only certain kinds of information, as the eye is restricted to receiving visual data and the ear is restricted to receiving auditory data. Since the intellect is capable of receiving and reflecting on all forms of data, then it must not be a physical organ and, hence, it must be immaterial.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)
^ a b c Aristotle (c. mid 4th century BC) On the Soul (De anima), ed. R.D. Hicks, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907; Books II-III trans. D.W. Hamlyn, Clarendon Aristotle Series, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.

1)No, it can't. It's unable of receiving x-ray signals...

2) The assertion I have bolded is impossible to demonstrate. Obviously, we would be unaware of any information we were unable to receive and process


:|


I just gotta stop following people's links when they cite wikipedia...

 

[Xulld]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)This one works.

The entire idea is bass ackwards in my opinion. Its easy to see with hindsight how forming a theory of mind while still unsure of the workings of human anatomy no less cognition is doomed to failure.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The philosophycal concept originaly arrived when we didn't knew to much about the brain, and it could be hardly concieved that all of its propreties could be atributed to a simple organ. Altough the argumentation is dependent on assumptions that are false, some of the points raised are indeed correct.
1. It assumes that the material couldn't take all forms (in other words that it can not compouse what we can concieve)
2. Then I assume that by the previouse statment a classic mistake was made on confusing the object with the representation of object
3. It assumes that the intelect can recieve and reflect on all forms of data. Which is false.
But from what we do know now about the brain, our intelect is not an organ it is not an individual piece, it is rather what the individual piece of brain do togheter then what the brain is.

 

[Dacu]

The ancient Greeks were pretty awful philosophers. It's always been beyond me why people are made to study dead philosophers, the so called greatest philosophers when they could be in the class doing some new thinking of their own.

A lot of the Greek philosophers... Had a very dualistic view of the mind. Today it is clear that dualism is stupid.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The ancient Greeks were pretty awful philosophers. It's always been beyond me why people are made to study dead philosophers, the so called greatest philosophers when they could be in the class doing some new thinking of their own.

A lot of the Greek philosophers... Had a very dualistic view of the mind. Today it is clear that dualism is stupid.

As everyone they can make mistakes and not get things right. The important is to learn the things that are right, the rest is fluff.