The problem with the “hard problem”

I read those two linked papers by David S. Oderberg, although I skimmed or skipped some of the more tedious, technical discussion in the second paper related to concepts and their relationship with the mind, as well as a lot of the rest that essentially recapitulated the contents of the first paper.

Here's what I've concluded:

Hylemorphic dualism is a strange mix of neutral monism, materialism, and dualism, bigoted against non-human living beings, but with an interesting take on the relationship of the human soul to the human person....

I would largely agree with you. I think the idea that animals don't use Reason was acceptable in Aquinas' time, but hard to justify [now] given all the recent and growing research into animal cognition.

Additionally it is very unclear why there should be Prime Matter that lacks any qualities, or what "Forms" actually are that they could impose structure upon Prime Matter...I would also worry that "Forms" imposing structure is itself a form of causality that needs to be explain[ed] which then leads to possible infinite regress?

Beyond that, it seems Human Forms survive after death but only in some attenuated Form that has to await a new body. Seems to contradict all Survival evidence, though one might argue that the immaterial mind will always have to be attached to some body even if it's a spirit/subtle body?

I would largely agree with you. I think the idea that animals don't use Reason was acceptable in Aquinas' time, but hard to justify [now] given all the recent and growing research into animal cognition.

As an aside:

We have kept a number of cats over the years, and we both agree that our current cat seems to be the most intelligent one we have had. I have never liked the notion that animals' brains are in principle inferior to human ones. I strongly suspect that his understanding of the outside world around our house must be very detailed and complicated. It may very well include psi observations (remember that cats and dogs often respond intensely to ghosts and the like.

David

[Laird]

The internal molecular structures of the sense organs.

OK, I think I understand this time: as the red light from a rose hits the eyes, the eyes physically respond down to the molecular level, and the mind translates that molecular structure into its red quale via its unconscious, species-specific knowledge of how it is supposed to translate it. Colour-blindness occurs when, due to some genetic or other biological abnormality, the eyes don't physically respond in the way they are supposed to, and the molecular structure which is formed doesn't translate to red; in that case the mind simply muddles along and translates as best it can, which is imperfectly.

Correct?

Assuming I've finally got it, then maybe the way to address this...

Which might somewhat explain perception in-body... vision is perhaps not caused by the physical structure of the eyes, not directly... it simply describes how the mind should be seeing. Though how that relates the brain signals sent, I am unsure. Perhaps it is simply mental unconscious stuff that the brain structure is then used to coordinate the rest of the body to react to, if necessary.

...is to say that the brain signals are their own type of (dynamic) structure which the mind translates along with the structure of the eye (and optic nerve, etc).

[Laird]

I would largely agree with you. I think the idea that animals don't use Reason was acceptable in Aquinas' time, but hard to justify [now] given all the recent and growing research into animal cognition.

Yes, and the idea that humans have souls but animals don't is anyway ungenerous, and should give somebody who's come to that conclusion serious doubt as to whether they've gotten their premises and inferences right.

Additionally it is very unclear why there should be Prime Matter that lacks any qualities, or what "Forms" actually are that they could impose structure upon Prime Matter...I would also worry that "Forms" imposing structure is itself a form of causality that needs to be explain[ed] which then leads to possible infinite regress?

Great points. What are forms and why do they, well, form? Do forms themselves cause forms to form, and if so, are there bedrock forms, and what explains their forming? How can this primordial matter which is neither a nothing nor a something even be formed in the first place?

Beyond that, it seems Human Forms survive after death but only in some attenuated Form that has to await a new body. Seems to contradict all Survival evidence, though one might argue that the immaterial mind will always have to be attached to some body even if it's a spirit/subtle body?

Actually, this made me think of the case of Annika and Tristan, in which Tristan's soul after he voluntarily ceded his body to Annika and "died" seemed to enter a state of dormancy and non-consciousness, which Annika somehow reactivated years later.

OK, I think I understand this time: as the red light from a rose hits the eyes, the eyes physically respond down to the molecular level, and the mind translates that molecular structure into its red quale via its unconscious, species-specific knowledge of how it is supposed to translate it. Colour-blindness occurs when, due to some genetic or other biological abnormality, the eyes don't physically respond in the way they are supposed to, and the molecular structure which is formed doesn't translate to red; in that case the mind simply muddles along and translates as best it can, which is imperfectly.

Correct?

Assuming I've finally got it, then maybe the way to address this...


...is to say that the brain signals are their own type of (dynamic) structure which the mind translates along with the structure of the eye (and optic nerve, etc).

Pretty much.