Do you believe in the existence of the soul?
Hi, I'm new, I'm a deep thinker addict and I've been so for about 20 years of my 25. Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post or if my posts are not scientifically or APA/MLA/Chicago format inclined. This is a question I've pondered and struggled with for a long time, participating in a sort of tug of war with my emotions and logic. I need a sense of clarification on the topic. I think it will give me satisfaction. I need input. Do you think the soul exists as a separate entity from our body, do you think personality has to do with the soul, do you think some souls shine brighter than others or can our existence and disposition be chalked down to environment and biology?
I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on.
I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on.
Comments (281)
But before going down this road, consider this point: we don't know what 'matter' is. It seems obvious what 'matter' is, but the truth is, scientists have built the largest and most complicated apparatus in the history of the world, to find out what 'matter' is. And at this time - they still can't say. There are murmurs that they need an even bigger machine, although it is understood they're not going to get one. But meanwhile, there are as many questions as there always were - it's not as if 'matter' has turned out to be some self-organising, self-explanatory stuff in terms of which everything else can be understood. Far from it.
So just remember that, whatever comes next.
Otherwise, I doubt there is anything of me that will survive after death except others' memories of me, I love some soul music, I believe a small number of people I know have good souls, and one of my favourite poems bids 'And so good morrow to our waking souls!' But perhaps this is inadequate: I've just decided that it doesn't matter to me whether or not the soul is an 'entity' of some kind. I'll speak of it sometimes, willy-nilly, while worrying about something else, and accept it on the terms offered when others speak of the soul to me.
So we know what "soul" is?
1) No one can say what is the nature of quanta and energy. It is all subject to interpretation and quanta phenomenon (such as entanglement and non-locality) had been observed at the molecule level. Thus there are many unknowns regarding the stuff off nature of nature that can only be discussed philosophically.
2) Science had no explanation what's so ever regarding qualia which is pretty much fundamental to human experiential existence.
Given this, I would speculate that:
1) There is no duality in nature. Everything is made of the same stuff with different substantially.
2) Everything is fundamentally mind that grows along a substantiality spectrum starting with quanta, electrons, atoms, molecules, etc.
3) Mind can be considered memory, creative intuition, and will.
4) Memory persists in the fabric of the universe. Evidence of this would be inherited traits, instincts, innate skills, and unexplainable skills (child prodigies, idiot savants, etc.).
It is this persistence if memory that we might call a soul.
Physicists can. The fact you accept the terms as separate shows you acknowledge someone can say what their nature is.
Qualia is an abstract human concept; so science need not explain it or even accept it exists.
So, you do think people can say what is the nature of quanta and energy; you just think it's only you. Sorry, the scientists are a bit more qualified.
No, there is no scientific or factual foundation supporting this.
Since you've spread the definition to the entire universe, we can't call it an individual soul.
Science had one and only one thing, the Schrodinger equation that provides a probabilistic prediction for the location of the "electron". All interpretations of quanta are metaphysical in nature.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Qualia is the essence of human existence (as opposed to abstract mathematical equations or linguistics) and it is what everyone experiences throughout their lives. Science had no explanation for qualia. That Scientism, the religious belief in science, attempts to corral all of human existence in an "illusion" pretty much puts it in the realm Hinduism, with a similar caste system. The actually process by which Scientism and Hinduism arrive at the same conclusion is pretty much the same - belief in some supernatural forces (e.g. Natural Laws, Maya) that govern our existence and create this illusion.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
There is no scientific evidence for anything relating to the nature of life. It is a metaphysical. There is no duality. There is a continuum and for this they is scientific evidence. And there is also much evidence for the persistence if memory, i.e. habitual activity in the universe.
No, science had and has many things. And you haven't even established all is quanta, so how it is interpreted is moot.
No, it's not, and you haven't shown it is.
Correct belief in science, as I have shown, is not Scientism.
The only one who has shown belief in supernatural forces so far has been you.
There is plenty of scientific evidence for anything relating to the nature of life, which is not metaphysical.
There is no evidence for the human concept of memory in the universe.
A lot of philosophers seem to believe in something like a soul, and they call it Mind, a metaphysical substance separate from matter. They're called Dualists. I often call them Spiritualists.
As Wayfarer brought out, the imagined dissection of us into body and soul, body and Mind, or body and Consciousness is artificial and cultural.
There aren't separate body-and-soul. There's just the animal.
Everything in your experience is consistent with what an animal would be expected to experience.
That position has been called "philosophy-of-mind Physicalism. (..not to be confused with metaphysical Physicalism, which I don't subscribe to.)
For brevity, I abbreviate philosophy-of-mind Physicalism as "pomp". When I say "Physicalism", without a qualifying-phrase, I mean metaphysical Physicalism.
Some here don't like it, but the scientists are right this time, about that anyway.
There's something called an Elminative Physicalist, who (if I remember correctly) takes a more extreme position, and says that the external, objective, 3rd-person point-of-view is the only valid one, and that our own 1st-person experience is fictitious. A ridiculous position, I'd say.
That view is probably common among scientists, and, in that instance, they're wrong..
Your life is a life-experience possibility-story, and it's centered on you, its Protagonist. You're its primary and essential component. So the person (or other animal) is primary in its life-experience story.
So I believe in the primacy of the person (or other animal), in their reality, which consists of a life-experience possibility-story.
People sometimes confuse a philosophy-of-mind position with a metaphysical position. It's true that, when someone states a philosophy-of-mind position, that seems to raise the question of what metaphysical position they subscribe to.
When a philosophy-of-mind position is stated, the question of "What is?" isn't far beneath.
So let me outline my suggestion about that. It would probably be called Eliminative Ontic Structural Non-Realism.
Physicists Michael Faraday (1844), Frank Tippler ('70s or '80s), and Max Tegmark (more recent) have pointed ot that experience, observation and experiment are completely consistent with the physical world consisting only of relation in mathematical/logical structure. No need for "concrete" objectively-real "stuff".
That position that that structure is all that the physical world consists of has been called Eliminative Ontic Structuralism.
Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis has been called Ontic Stuctural Realism, suggesting that Tegmark regards our external world as having its own existence, maybe the primary existence. That was my impression, too, when reading things that he's said.
That's where I disagree. As I mentioned above, I point out that your life is centered on your own experience. The relevant inter-related if-then structure is your own life-experience possibility-story, in which you're primary, and the essential component.
So, I'd replace the "Realism" with "Non-Realism".
A physical world, like ours, consists of a system of inter-referring if-then statements.
Physical laws are hypothetical "if" facts that relate some other hypothetical "if" facts called "quantity-values".
Those physical laws and some quantity-values are parts of the "if" clause of "if-then" facts. Those "if-then" facts' "then" conclusions consist of other quantity-values.
Mathematical theorems are if-then facts whose "if" clause includes (but isn't limited to) a set of axioms.
There are also abstract logical "if-then" facts.
Experience, observation and experiment are completely consistent with the physical world consisting on nothing other than that system of inter-referring "if-then"s.
Of course our experience with the details of that physical system consist largely of hearing from physicists about what they've found out by their experiments. But, in any case, statements about our physical world can still be stated as "if-then" statements.
For example, if I say that there's a traffic roundabout at the intersection of 34th & vine, that's the same as saying that if you go to 34th & Vine, you'll encounter a traffic-roundabout.
Declarative grammar is convenient, but maybe we start believing too much in our grammar. Maybe conditional grammar is what more accurately describes our physical world.
Anyway, where I differ from others who have suggested Eliminative Ontic Structuralism is that I suggest that this hypothetical system of inter-related "if-then"s, this "possibility-story", consists of your own personal life-experience possibility-story.
Hence "Eliminative Ontic Structural Non-Realism".
I call my that metaphyiscal proposal "Skepticism", because it makes no assumptions and posits no brute-facts. Complete rejection of assumptions is certainly skeptical, justifying my name for the metaphysics that I propose.
I claim that Skepticism is the parsimonious metaphysics, favored by Ockham's Principle of Parsimony.
A also claim that Skepticism qualifies as a version of Vedanta. Vedanta has several versions, of which Advaita is the most popular. Skepticism differs from Advaita, and the other usual Vedanta versions, but I claim that it shares the basic conclusions and consequences of Vedanta.
Michael Ossipoff
If no, then it exists.
If yes, then I don't know.
Interesting. Reminds me of Teilhard de Chardin.
Actually, it reminds me of basic college physics. Everything is made of the same stuff and quantum is entangled between observer and observed.
Have you read Teilhard de Chardin?
My primary inspirations are Bergson, Sheldrake, Bohm, Daoists and Heraclitus. All were (are) keen observers of the world. However, I do find French philosophers in general more in touch with life and less enamored by technology.
You might like him, but maybe you wouldn't learn anything new. His idea of the pleroma is bizarre but intriguing. He was a paleontologist and a Jesuit priest.
Scientists now realise that something unknown is holding the Universe together, because it doesn't behave as it ought to, according to their theories. They don't know what this "something" is but they think of it in terms of matter and energy, because they're the only kinds of things that they are prepared to consider.
You should read some Plato. There is very much information there concerning the nature of the soul, and why it is necessary to assume that we have a soul. Much is anecdotal. Here's an example. The thirsty man will drink water to quench his thirst. But if the water is contaminated he will not drink it even if he is very thirsty. What can account for this fact, that when he is thirsty, sometimes he will drink the water, and other times he will not, other than the assumption that he has a soul which is in control of his body?
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Do you think that the soul, if it exists, is necessarily something supernatural? How would you define "supernatural", and "soul", such that the soul is necessarily supernatural?
This claim is founded on an unsupported assumption; that everything that is "natural" is capable of being "found".
However, feel free to back up your unfounded assumption a natural soul could be present in our natural world without being found.
The point about the 'dark matter' example is this: the current cosmological model is that dark matter/energy accounts for 96% of the known universe. The obverse of this is that what is currently understood as matter and energy accounts for 4% of the known universe. (This is documented in the book The 4 Percent Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Race to Discover the Rest of Reality
by Richard Panek : http://a.co/3qK4Ul0 .)
I was listening to radio interview with Lawrence Krauss once, when the interviewer casually remarked that 'dark matter' might actually interpenetrate the 'ordinary matter' that we understand - that we're sorrounded by unseen matter and energy . Krauss said, 'may be', and the conversation moved on(!) So think about that - the notion that the vast majority of matter and energy is not even perceptible to science, yet it exists all around us.
It's possible that there is no dark matter, and that current theories are incorrect in some unknown way. But it tends to undermine the idea that science has anything like a complete account of the nature of reality.
That's only one issue. There is another major, huge issue in current physics, which is that many physicists are prepared to entertain the notion of 'parallel worlds' - that 'this world' is but one of an infinite array of worlds, which almost (but not quite) exactly mirror this one.
Then there's the 'multiverse speculation':
[QUOTE]When Moses asks to see who or what he has been conversing with on Mount Sinai, he is placed in a crevice and told to look out once the radiance has passed (no peeking now!). Anything more than a glimpse of God's receding back, the story implies, would blow his mortal fuses. The equivalent passage in Hindu scripture occurs in the Bhagavad Gita – and, as befitting that most frank of all religions, is more explicit about the nature of the fatal vision. Krishna responds to the warrior Arjuna's request by telling him that no man can bear his naked splendour, then goes right ahead and gives him the necessary upgrade: "divine sight". What follows is one of the wildest, most truly psychedelic episodes in world literature.
No longer veiled by a human semblance, Krishna appears in his universal aspect: a boundless, roaring, all-containing cosmos with a billion eyes and mouths, bristling with "heavenly weapons" and ablaze with the light of a thousand suns. The sight is fearsome not only in its manifold strangeness but because its fire is a consuming one. "The flames of thy mouths," a horrified Arjuna cries, "devour all the worlds … how terrible thy splendours burn!"
Until recently, a physicist would have regarded this scene as the picturesque delirium of a pre-scientific age. Most still would. And yet the contemplation of the unspeakable flowering of an infinity of worlds is no longer the province of "mystics, charlatans and cranks", as the leading string theorist Michio Kaku has written, but instead occupies "the finest minds on the planet".
Welcome to the multiverse.[/quote]
The Hidden Reality
You know the original meaning of the word 'occult' is 'hidden', right? Well, there's plenty of places to hide in these stories. So don't appeal to science to support your naive realism - it's so last century ;-)
Aristotle found the soul through natural means, and his entire biology is centred around the existence of the soul. You should read it, it's called "On the Soul", and it is very comprehensive, covering the different life forms and their various different activities.
Do you understand that a living thing is different from a non-living thing, and that there is a difference between being alive and being dead? What is this difference, if not the soul?
>:O
Quoting Locks
Define soul.
Aristotle's understanding was, as I understand it, more along the lines of 'the unitive principle'; he was not a dualist, in that he didn't believe it made sense to say the soul exists separately from the body. It is more like the person is an 'embodied soul', or 'an ensouled body'.
His first definition of "soul" is "the first grade of actuality of a body having life potentially in it". It is important to notice that there is no actual body, which is "ensouled", but the body, which has no actuality prior to having soul, is given actual existence by the soul. The soul is the first actuality of that body
The body which will be the living body, only potentially exists prior to having a soul. So it is the soul which gives actual existence to the material body, by actualizing what only exists potentially, prior to that actualization. Therefore the actual soul must exist prior to the actual body as that which actualizes the potential of a body, giving actual existence to the body
Rather than 'actual existence', I would say - 'being'. And it's significant that the only living beings are referred to as 'beings'.
I think it's mistaken to speak in terms of the soul as being something you have. It is not an appendage or add-on, but the totality of the being. That is my reading of it.
A book I have noticed about the subject is this one:
A Brief History of the Soul, Stewart Goetz et al. http://a.co/dL2D8xA
(If anyone has read it, I would be interested in their opinion.)
The mind moves seamlessly from an awake state to a dream state or sleep state. There is no explanation why it how such a movement between states occurs, but it does. So now one is all of a sudden asleep, possibly dreaming. Within this state of being, out of no where, all sense of duration (real time) and concrete space vanish. There is just vague feeling that something is transpiring.
And then, out of no where, the mind awakens and duration and space reappear. What initiates these changes in states of being? To understand this, I believe, would give us some insight into the death/birth cycle.
I am personally on the fence and will be happy to expand on my thoughts later on."
--Locks
While it is sometimes "nice" to imagine that we as human beings are special and have spirits or souls as far as I can tell there is nothing that makes us any different from the other plants and animals that we are lesser than us and we don't believe they are special enough to have souls.
In fact, the idea of spirits and souls goes back to the days when we didn't understand many aspects of the world around us and we use to think of the forces of nature around us where living if not sentient beings themselves. In such societies it is often taboo and/or forbidden to tamper with such unknown forces much like it is forbidden in our society to tamper with certain aspects that make us human beings. However in order for science to advance this mindset had to be put aside and it was replaced with the concept of the "process". A "process" is an inanimate, impersonal, "thing" that doesn't have any ghost like natural forces/gods/spirits/etc in primitive religions/societies. The easy example of a process is the fire created when striking a match: at first a match only has the potential to become fire but it is in an inert state, however when struck the fuel at the top combined with oxygen in the air (along with heat created by friction) to create a chemical reaction or process that becomes fire. The strange thing about "processes" is that they can seem like they are alive when they are not and they can create an aspect of something alive while at the same time not being alive itself; such as the process that allow our cells to function. Also it is worthwhile to note that concept of a process is really a paradigm shift in the way one thinks because one can not really believe in the concept of the process and also see the world in the way we did when we imagined the world to be filled with spirits.
Anyways my main point about processes was to eventually point out that WE ARE ALSO NOTHING MORE THAN PROCESSES AS WELL. You see the one thing we forgot to do (or at least most of us forgot to do) is realize that you can't see nature as merely processes and not accept that human beings are not special snowflakes in that there isn't any fantastic "magical" spirit that allows us to live any more than there are magical things allowing your computer to operate. If your hard drive crashes, it is almost all but a given that the information it contains is gone forever; that is of course if recover software and/or services can not retrieve it. When your brain is without oxygen for over 15-25 minutes it does the equivalent of crashing like a hard drive does and you along with your memories are "gone" much like the data in a hard drive is no longer accessible.
Of course I could be wrong in that there is nothing out there allowing us to have a spirit and there is more to us us than the processes that we are aware of that allows us to live and exist, but without any proof that there is anything is sort of logical to accept that the concept of spirits, magic, and similar romantic thinking to be merely a form of escapism than something based n facts.
What has ruled out the existence of souls?
Some people say that the existence of deities can never be proven true or false. Theism and atheism are therefore irrational, and only agnosticism is rational, the thinking goes.
The same could probably be said about the question of the existence of souls.
I do not believe in the soul at all in anything other than a metaphorical sense of the unique being of a particular person.
But no, I believe that we are thoroughly physical beings. Science has not discovered anything like a soul, nor do I have any phenomenological or empirical experience of one.
While I acknowledge that the human mind is an incredibly complex and unique entity, unlike anything else we encounter in the world,I have no reason to think it is anything beyond an evolved capability of our biological makeup, continuous with but far more developed than the minds of other animals.
As a consequence, I do not believe in anything like survival of death, let alone immortality. Further, the libertarian notion of free will seems pretty much out to me too.
That said,life is still wondrous and should be celebrated. Maybe even all the more so!
I think such things are better explained by simply appealing to the fact that we have certain innate capabilities that we are born with and thatthese are different for anyone. Exquisite talent can often seem supernatural in some way, but I see no real reason to suppose that it actually is.
I don't see why something like a soul is a logical impossibility. On the other hand, I've seen no real a priori or a posteriori evidence that something like a soul exists.
I haven't read that book but I like this line of thinking. It dovetails very nicely with much of our colloquial use of the term "soul." I also think it has connotations with the factor that every person has his own unique mix of characteristics and qualities. "No two souls are alike." Of course, it also means something like deep feeling, i.e. "that musician / song had a lot of soul."
The fundamental structure of my life is pretty much organized around my atheistic beliefs that there is no God and that there is no soul. As a consequence, I try to live my life knowing that my life and consciousness will be temporally limited by death and so I have only one shot to make it amazing along the way.
It theoretically could be evidence of a previous life, but I think that link is weak. I think some babies and children just have an incredible ability to learn new things based on their biological makeup very, very quickly and to an exceptional degree.
For this idea to have merit, it must be shown that memory is not stored in the brain but rather in the underlying fabric in the universe, while the brain acts as a filter just as a TV tuner might. Rupert Sheldrake has outlined some experimental possibilities for such a line of exploration.
In theory, but in practice, I am not sure how a scientist could really research the persistence of memory in a way that was meaningful and would verify the existence of survival of death. That seems like a pretty tall order to me and not at all realistic.
The second para seems to undercut the first. I thought your post would lead towards there being soul, but not.....
This is because the opposite, a rigid denial of there existing anything like a "soul" will likely result in a very simplistic mechanical thinking about the mind/body problem and how humans function in general. Yet I fear that the word has too much religious baggage and hence people (especially scientists) will frown it's use and avoid the term. Hence someone will create a stupid word in it's replacement, just as the utterly idiotic term of the "meme", when there is a perfect simple word to describe the phenomenon with the word "idea".
What, then, is the natural explanation for 'exquisite talent'? How could a Darwin have predicted, say, a Mozart? What precedents are there among the animals for such a talent? If 'none', then how is it 'natural'?
Hah! Didn't know that, but just assumed something like that. Thanks.
Quoting Wayfarer
And basically that's my point: it pushes the focus towards a distinct philosophy, positivism.
Not that there's inherently wrong with that, actually. As I said, the term is useful for a complex phenomenon as people likely will some grasp of what you are referring to. To use the religious aspects of the term is a different issue. Because of the religious undertones of the term, somebody will likely start to deny the existence of a soul, but won't likely start a similar rant against other similar terms (that Rich pointed out) are used.
OK, so we don't find anything in nature then. We don't find different species, we don't find a difference between animals and plants, it's all theory, just like Aristotle's difference between living and non-living is just theorized. Where's the big difference? Is gravity just theory?
Quoting Wayfarer
It would be more accurate to say that the soul has a body. This is one ancient perspective, analyzed by Plato, that the body is a vessel for the soul. This was dismissed by Plato though (the exact argument I can't recall), as not completely adequate for describing the relationship between soul and body. I believe it has to do with the reasons why he developed the concept of a tripartite person.
Judging by human experience, he concluded that there needs to be a medium between soul and body. I do not know the Greek word he used to refer to this medium. but it's commonly translated as spirit, or passion, and related to ambition. In Plato's description, the soul controls the body through the means of spirit, but also the constraints of the body act upon the soul through the same medium. One's disposition is a description of this relationship. So the soul of the well-mannered, ambitious individual, has effective control over the body through the means of spirit, but this spirit must remain balanced with the constraints which the body places on the soul. And this why virtue, for Plato is a type of knowledge. It involves knowing and maintaining this balance so that it does not tip toward the wrong side, and the soul remains in control.
Also, you need to read Comte, you don't know what positivism is.
Bergson's writings pre-dated holographic discoveries but his description of the universe very much foretells holography. Whereas Bohm, Hiley, Talbot, Pribham, and others theorized that the brain was comprised of holographic memory, it was Bergson who intuited that memory could actually be embedded in the fabric of the universe, and described this fabric in such a way that it foretold quantum theory (the famous quantum physicist De Broglie wrote an essay on this).
For the most up-to-date description of Bergson, I find Stephen Robbins' YouTube videos quite illuminating. Once one views the brain as a reconstructive tool to illuminate memory as a TV illuminates broadcasting waves (Sheldrake's metaphor), one can begin to recognize the possibility that memory persists and could possibly reawaken itself as it does every morning when it wakes up.
This is one of several of Robbin's videos.
https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A
When one views life in this way, and that someone such as Mozart, might be the result of persistent memory over duration (real time) then one might possible apprehend new meaning to life.
You're the one expressing Luddite disdain for scientific explanation. So why wouldn't you think angels make airplanes fly?
My understanding is that Plato thought the soul's divine spark lives on, but Aristotle (along with several of the Presocratics) thought the soul dies when the body dies.
The Old Testament doesn't support the immortality of the soul, but several of the Eastern Religions seem to support it.
I like the idea of the soul as an animating force, that which makes something come alive. Loosely, a work of art can have soul, a good meal with friends, music, my dog Sidney, a culture all can have soul as an animating force.
At death, who knows, maybe the spark goes on, but I don't believe it is individuated, even in some religions after death the individual is absorbed in a vision of god.
You're right about philosophy of mind physicalism, determinism, & no free will.
But if you're a met
You're right about philosophy of mind Physicalism, determinism, & no free will.
But if you're a metaphysical Physicalist or Materialist, then you're making unnecessary assumptions and accepting unnecessary brute facts.
Under Materialism, reincarnation is out of the question. But Materialism doesn't do well by parsimony.
Without being sure of your metaphysics, reticence is best.
Michael Ossipoff
Such an idea has no basis in modern thinking or science. It is a theory which does not work; a fantasy.
I know Comte and what you're arguing is pure positivism. And scientism.
Your missing the point Thanatos. What differentiates theorizing something, from something being found in nature? Suppose you find something in nature, you think it's a rock. Well isn't it a theory which says that it's a "rock"? The point is, that things are named, and there is theory as to how to apply the names to declare that the thing found is best called by that name. So you don't really find a thing with the name "rock" on it, and say "hey look I found a rock", you actually must refer to a theory to back up your claim that the thing you found is a rock. You don't find names in nature, you find nameless things, and use theory to put names to those things.
Consider living things now. Do you agree that there is something called "life"? But have you ever found life? We find all sorts of different living plants, and animals, but we do not find life. It is only theory which tells us that there is something which is called "life", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead. It is the same with "soul", just a different word for the same thing. In theory there is something which is called "the soul", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead.
Quoting charleton
If there is a concept such as "soul", which has persisted since the infancy of human thinking, why would you think that it is highly unlikely that it is a valuable concept? If a concept comes and goes in a very short period of time, like a flash in the pan, it is obviously not a valuable concept. But if a concept is held by human beings for thousands of years, then quite clearly it is a valuable concept.
One could argue, as does Pinker, that humans have improved over the ages. We don't burn witches today. In fact we don't believe in them. Mostly...
Today people with little thought can communicate with far more efficiency using the Internet, and there is a dissipation of that knowledge, and not all in a good way. Time will only tell if common sense and rationalism can prevail over this new system of communication, or whether we shall enter an idiocracy.
For the same reason that other idiotic ideas such as astrology, fairies and angels are still firmly believed in.
"If a concept comes and goes in a very short period of time, like a flash in the pan, it is obviously not a valuable concept. But if a concept is held by human beings for thousands of years, then quite clearly it is a valuable concept."
The idea of gremlins, fairies and angels are also useful concepts for those without the will to think.
8 of if 10 Americans believe in angels.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/
... and here we are.
Quoting charleton
So do you think that numbers, and mathematical ideas like addition and subtraction, which have been firmly believed in for thousands of years are idiotic as well?
Quoting charleton
What, other than usefulness can remove the label of "idiotic" from a concept, for you? Or is it only the concepts that are useful to you which are not idiotic? We have a concept for people like you, it's "prejudice".
Why wouldn't one believe in angles? We believe in souls don't we?
We can pretty much tell animate from inanimate, but we don't know how matter became and continues to become animate, we can't even mimic it (Craig Venter has tried and tried). I lean towards a form of Panpsychism, since as far as I am concerned there is no way mind could have formed except from matter, and I think all matter in the right configuration has the potential for ensoulment.
You clearly don't know either, since you can't explain in any way how my relying on scientific standards is positivism or scientism, and their not, particularly since I don't reject the humanities at all in my argument.
Using your flawed notions of positivism and scientism, rejecting the concept of angels without scientific evidence--the equivalence of doing the same with the soul--would be positivism and scientism, and it's not. So go back and read Comte. Your knowledge of him is as poor as your reasoning here.
No, you're missing the point Meta. A rock is still a physical object that was discovered and named, a soul isn't. So, your comparison is completely nonsensical; Aristotle theorizing a soul he never encountered in the real world is different from a naturalist naming an animal he actually encountered there.
According to your flawed logic, someone coming up with the concept of Santa Claus and naming it would be the same as discovering the Mississippi river and naming it. I hope you see the problem in that.
Again, you show you're wrong because you confuse naming real objects/animals/vegetation with naming concepts one comes up with in their mind like Tolkien's concept of the Orc. You must you think Orcs and Santa Claus really exist in the world then.
Yes, it's me, Thanatos Sand, I lost my password.
Sorry, ensoulment has no basis in reality since the a material soul has never been discovered or recorded. It makes as much sense as believing in angels.
We know that a certain part of the brain is responsible for language, but we're not capable of finding exactly where the word 'dog' is stored. Does this mean words are not natural?
By the same thinking, the 'soul' could be contained in and generated by the brain, even though it can't be physically located.
Well at least we got rid of one idiot! :P >:O
No, not knowing the exact in a particular organ causing a particular effect does not make the cause of that effect supernatural; it makes it natural but not entirely known, like not knowing why we are Gay or Straight doesnt' mean it comes from a supernatural cause.
Imaging a supernatural essence like the soul or a natural soul impossibly avoiding all detection is just fantasizing as one fantasizes Angels or Demons. Using your faulty logic, they could be there too.
I've made clear I'm no idiot, Cashkev, unlike you trying to compensate for your poor education and intelligence with your hilarious pretentious posts like the one I just debunked...:)
Notice that I put 'soul' in quotation marks. When I say 'soul', I am referring to the sense of being more than just an animal, due to our higher level of intelligence. I don't think there is any force separate from our biological structures, but I can see how the sense of a soul could be an amalgamation of inputs from various parts of the brain, making it seem very real.
Sorry, you compared the soul to the part of our brain that generates language, a physical part of the brain, so you did argue the soul as something that could be found.
But f you're talking about the concept "soul" coming from an amalgamation of inputs from the various parts of the brain, then you are correctly rendering it to a concept, no more real than "God,' "Satan" or "the Easter Bunny.
Words aren't stored in any one singular part of the brain, and no neurologist claims that. So, that comparison doesn't work.
However, the soul has not only shown no physical locus, it has shown no physical effect either. Again, it makes the soul as "natural" as angels or demons.
Of course a soul isn't a physical object. But on what principle do you say that it wasn't discovered and named. The number two isn't a physical object but it was discovered and named, "two".
Quoting John Harris
You're changing the subject now. We were talking about whether theory is required in order that the thing encountered is known by it's named. And clearly this is the case with the named river. Santa Clause doesn't fit the example because we do not ever encounter Santa Clause. We do encounter a soul though every time we meet a living thing. The problem is that you do not understand the theory, by which the thing encountered is called a soul, so when you encounter a soul, you do not recognize it as a soul. Likewise, if you encountered the Mississippi River and you did not understand that this thing is called the Mississippi River, you would not recognize it as the Mississippi River. So you might insistently argue that there is no such thing as the Mississippi River, and no one has ever encountered the Mississippi River, simply because you refuse to acknowledge that the thing you are looking at is the thing which many people call the Mississippi River.
No, it doesn't. We know where memory and mnemotic activity occurs but we have no idea where one word is located as opposed to another and in which particular site of that area. Go look it up.
And just because we don't know exactly where the word is stored, we know it is stored in some manner and somewhere in the memory site of the brain. We have no idea a soul even exists. Using your fallacious logic, we should be able to find God because we can't find exactly where "dog" is stored. Good luck with that one.
The real question is on what principle do you say the soul was discovered and named. Using your logic, God, the angels, and the demons were discovered because someone conceptualized and named them, like Aristotle conceptualized and named "soul. You must be quite the believer in God and the angels then.
I changed no subject, and you have no more idea you encounter a soul every time you meet a living thing than you know Santa Claus or God exists. And if you believe someone could have encountered a soul with no scientific evidence of it, you must believe the people who claimed to meet Santa Clause or God are being truthful too.
No, not likewise, as when one encounters the Mississippi River they encounter a body of water science and other people can second as being true. Nobody has encountered a soul or given any evidence of it. Again, it's no different then saying one encountered God. And stop trying to do the Saussurean linguistic thing; you've got it all wrong.
Keep showing off that lack of a college degree, Caskev; it's truly endearing...:)
Oh, I've shown more than enough of that. I've had to deal with tag-teams of you soft-minds...:)
I argue that animated means ensouled. The ancient Greeks used the word alive to mean ensouled, and inanimate is dead...so while you say I see life, and hence the manifestation of souls all around.
There is no way around the supposition that life evolved from matter therefore life must be a potential property of matter. That is more than an assertion, it is the only possible way, unless you think Martians, or a Sky God came down and did it.
And you argue incorrectly since all living things are animated and it is not the soul that causes it. So, your term fails. If you want to call life "souls" that's fine; it doesnt' make it so. Using your logic, you can call life "God's work" and that would make it so. It doesn't.
I never denied any of this about matter, and none of it shows that souls exist. Sorry.
Of course we all have. It is the life force within us all. What Bergson called the Elan vital. Without it, there is only a cadaver.
The only question is whether the soul persists. Evidence of this is in the traits and skills we are all born with but are different because of different soulful history (memory).
If it is demonstrated what type of existence these things have, how they exist, and how they are encountered, such that I can actually encounter them, then I am not accepting their existence simply because someone conceptualized and named them. I accept their existence because there is evidence that they are real, just like there is evidence that the number two is real.
Quoting John Harris
So how do you know that the river you encounter is the Mississippi River?
Quoting John Harris
Because some scientist says "that is the Mississippi river", you know it's true? That's a known fallacy called "appeal to authority". It's not an acceptable argument. How do you really know that it's the Mississippi River? You don't believe everything other people tell you do you?
Of course we all haven't. It is not the life force inside us all, and nobody has shown it to be. Many say God gives us life too, that's no less ridiculous than saying a soul gives us life.
No, the only question is when people who believe in a soul are going to be able to even show its existence, much less prove it. Until then, those people are religious like those who say God made everything and Christ will save us. And no, our traits and skills are evidence of genetics, not a soul. Your poor science teachers.
Sorry, as shown below, the only one who has been insulting has been you.
As I define "soul" it makes sense, it is what causes life, the vital principal....but I can't force feed that notion to you, either it makes sense to you or not.
Some religious people say God gave us life and other religious people say that the Big Bang/Laws of Nature have us life. My own preference is not too appeal to supernatural forces. Life is what we all experience and what we are. No need to bring in other mysterious forces. Life is Life. You wanted existence of a soul, well there it is. It is we are and drives us - the impetus to create, learn, and evolve. If you prefer some supernatural forces and you have lots of company.
None of that has been demonstrated. And, sorry, but there is no evidence that any of those things, including the soul, are real and you havent' provided any.
I've never encountered it and never have to because others physically have. How do you know your parents are your parents or the White House is in Washington D.c.?
Of course it's an acceptable argument, and it's not an appeal to authority. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Millions have been at the Mississippi river. They arent' authorities. Get your fallacies straight before you make yourself silly again. And I ask again, how do you know your parents are your parents? You don't believe everything others tell you do you? I sure don't.
Nope, since I showed you started the bullying, I was giving the bully (you) a giant dose of his own medicine.
Sorry, you appealed to supernatural forces since you appeal to the soul which has never been shown or revealed in nature. So, you're right there with the Christians and the Satanist; I'm sure they'll love you.
And , lol, life is life is not life is the soul, and neither you nor anybody has shown it is. So, if you prefer your supernatural force, the soul, that's fine. I'll stay with the natural world.
No, it doesn't make any sense, since there's no evidence it exists or causes life. I clearly can't force feed that reality to you.
Just because it hasn't been demonstrated to you doesn't mean that it hasn't been demonstrated. Do I need to mention that word, "prejudice" again?
Quoting John Harris
I trust my parents, I've known them all my life. I admit that it could be a big hoax, but I don't think so. How do you know that there is no such thing as the soul? Did your parents tell you that?
I return to my previous point above. Perhaps we don't yet have the means of locating and measuring the soul.
No, you're the hoot. I correctly said the soul is supernatural....poor kid.
I didn't say "demonstrated to me;" I correctly said it hasn't been demonstrated, period, and it hasn't. So, I'm going to have to mention the words "prejudice," "straw-man" and "terrible reader."
Sorry, according to your flawed logic, you don't know your parents are your parents. Do you believe everything everyone tells you. I suggest you get that DNA test.
No, you denied life by calling it the soul and you gave no evidence. You don't even know what that word means. That's not surprising, you don't know what "life" means, either.
No, it's not and you need to show the science and scientific effort that even tried to do that. Denying qualia is no different than denying God or angels, so keep an eye out for those halos.
Life is evidence of life, not the soul. Your reasoning is as bizarre as your worldview. And I've experienced life, but you surely haven't . You've reduced it to a supernatural concept.
No, the thing I call "life" is life. What people like you call the soul or prana or Qi or Christ's spirit or the boogeyman are different things entirely.
Don't recall having said anything to you, John Harris. What I was commenting on was this:
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Which is pretty darned close to saying 'all that can be known, can be known by means of science'; if not positivism, then certainly scientism, although they're pretty close.
The dictionary definition of positivism:
Which is pretty well exactly what Thanatos Sand, and numerous others, argue on this forum.
And the fact that you can conclude that I have a poor knowledge of Comte and of positivism on the basis of a single sentence says something, doesn't it?
Strawman? It is my position, that there is such a thing as the soul, which is being attacked. Are you starting to realize that Johnny H is projecting his own understanding of "soul", (a misunderstanding I might add) onto my claims, and attacking it? Johnny H clearly demonstrated that misunderstanding when it was insisted that we should be able to find the soul as a physical object if it really exists. To think of the soul, or represent the soul, as being a physical object is most obviously a straw man attack.
Quoting John Harris
Sure it has been demonstrated. Didn't I refer to Plato's demonstrations earlier in the thread. As I said, the fact that you haven't paid any attention to these demonstrations does not mean that the demonstrations have not been made. It's a very self-centered world in which you live in.
Quoting John Harris
Why would you say this? We haven't even discussed what is meant by the word "know". It appears like you are using it in a way completely different from how I would use it, and projecting this onto me. You seem very confused and getting more and more so Should I try not to use any more big words, like "soul", so that you can stay abreast of the conversation?.
I am Thanatos Sand. I forgot my password and I thought I had made that clear to everyone. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear to you.
What you miss about that definition, and Comtes, of positivism, is it doesn't just reject non-scientific methods for determining the scientific existence of something, which is what I was doing. It also rejects the use of Humanities for everything, which my stance wasn't doing. As a literature teacher/scholar myself, I certainly don't apply scientific methods to studying the works of Faulkner, James, and Melville, nor do I, or did my position, reject all philosophical activity.
Sure it hasn't been demonstrated. What you referred to was theorizing, not demonstrating. Using your faulty logic, many people have demonstrated God, so you better head to Church..or a synagogue.
I said it because you said I couldn't know the existence of the Mississipi river, which is as physically real as your parents, and as "names" as a river as your parents are named your "parents". So, If I can't know the Mississipi River is the Mississipi River, you can't know your parents are your parents, and you don't know they are for a fact. So, I projected nothing, and the only confused one is you, as I clearly used your own faulty logic against you.
I am pursuing the nature and meaning in my life and the experience of inner life. Other than calling it an illusion, science has zero to say on this matter so I'll look elsewhere for ideas such as in philosophy and the arts.
Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities. Again, using your weak standards, people can assert God, angels, and Santa Claus exist...and Christ walks among us. I had no idea you were so inclined.
You can pursue whatever you want in your life, and I support that. And, as I said, you can personally believe angels and the soul exist. However, your personal predilections are not enough if you want to assert the existence of those entities to others.
You might as well be positing the existence of dragons.
You have all your work to do , to make your neolithic myth look reasonable. Wasting time using strawman arguments is only going to make you look like you are floundering.
If you do not know what one is, then please consult your comments to me above.
I don't believe in the supernatural Laws of Nature that is guiding me and forcing me to do things in life. I also don't impose my dogma on others. I am a person who is exploring the inner experience of life. Unfortunately, your Laws of Nature doesn't permit you to do so. So sorry.
Since we became an enlightened, scientific society. Otherwise people with your standard could point to a rock and say "look, there's a soul," or point to the Sun and say "look at those souls make that circle shine." Those aren't my restrictions; they're the standards of an enlightened, scientifically-oriented society like ours....thank god.
Of course you're imposing your dogma on others, and other people do that. You're here exclaiming "the soul is life, the soul is life." That's your imposed dogma.
...wanting to apply science outside of its legitimate range of applicability--the workings of this physical world and the interactions of its parts.
...trying to make science into a metaphysics, or even a religion.
But, in that regard, he's merely expressing a common popular belief.
Thanatos is much too far-gone to talk to, but I just wanted to make this comment.
Michael Ossipoff
You may have noticed that Michael Ossipoof is making lame personal attacks, which makes him a troll.
I never did either of these things, and Ossipoff the troll didn't show I did.
And here Ossipoff is both hilariously projecting and showing he is, again, the sad troll making erroneous personal attacks.
I don't know of any form of demonstration other than a logical demonstration, though we often use physical objects as props. This is what is commonly referred to as justification. Theorizing is to produce a hypotheses. The usefulness of the theory still needs to be demonstrated in order to justify the theory. What Plato did was demonstrate why we needed to assume the existence of the soul. It seems quite clear that you are not familiar with these demonstrations, so you are offhandedly dismissing them as theorizing.
Quoting John Harris
Yes, that is correct, many people have demonstrated the need to assume the existence of God. Some people accept these demonstrations, other people do not. I would say with a fair degree of certainty, that the majority of people who reject the demonstrations do so without even taking the time to understand them. This is what you do. It is evident that it is what you do because you refer to it as theorizing rather than as demonstrating. If you had taken time to understand the demonstrations you would be referring to them as demonstrations, and addressing the logic of the demonstrations rather than misrepresenting the demonstrations as theorizing.
Quoting John Harris
I didn't say that you couldn't know the existence of the Mississippi River. I asked, if you encountered a river, how would you know that it is the Mississippi River without referring to theory. You replied that you'd refer to science (theory), or else appeal to authority.
So I wasn't talking about how you could know that the Mississippi River is the Mississippi River, that would be kind of pointless. I was asking how, if you came across a body of water, you would know whether or not it is the Mississippi River. I know my parents as my parents because I've known them all my life, and I recognize them when I encounter them, so this is an unrelated example. The question is, when you find a body of water which you've never seen before, and therefore do not recognize, how would you know that it is the Mississippi River except through the use of some theory?
Likewise, if you came across something which is a soul, how would you recognize it as a soul without reference to some theory? If you refuse to consult that theory you would never apprehend it as a soul, just like you wouldn't apprehend the body of water as the Mississippi River if you refuse to consult the theory.
Quoting John Harris
Again, you demonstrate your selfish bias. For you perhaps, scientific verification is necessary, but this is not necessary for many people, and that is demonstrated by religion. So we clearly have consensual agreement on the existence of entities without scientific verification. The fact that you exclude yourself from that consensual agreement in no way negates it. It just excludes you from it.
Quoting charleton
Understanding the existence of the soul requires a lot of study, and all I'm trying to do is stress this point to those who offhandedly dismiss the concept of soul without putting in the required effort to understand it. If I presented a "theory of soul" right here in this thread, it would require a lot of effort, and be so long that very few if any would read it, therefore wasted effort. I believe you would dismiss it without even trying to understand it because it would require numerous demonstrations of the need to assume the existence of the soul, to get that point across, followed by theory as to what exactly the soul is. If you are really interested you could read some of the material I referenced earlier in the thread. Plato offers the demonstrations of the need to assume the existence of the soul, and Aristotle offers theory of exactly what the soul is. There is a vast amount of philosophical material on this subject if you take the time to read it. I can't do your reading for you.
Quoting charleton
You are telling me to consult my explanations of Johnny's straw man argument, to inform myself of what a straw man argument is, if I do not know? How could I learn from my own descriptions of what that is, if I didn't already know?
Then you've never seen an actual physical demonstration of reality, as in you've never seen a car drive or plane fly. Those are physical demonstrations showing the calculations and machinery used could make something fly. You've clearly never seen someone have illness either. As the symptoms of those illnesses are used to diagnose those illnesses. Those are physical, scientific demonstrations far above logical demonstrations that can be used to theorize, but not show, God or a soul exists.
No he didn't. The theorized what he thought the soul was. Nobody saw the soul or detected it in any way through his theory. And as someone who graduated from a Jesuit Honors program in college, I assure you I am far more familiar with Plato's demonstrations than you. What is your education anyway?
I answered that question. And I asked you, if you encountered your parents, how would you know they were your parents without referring to theory. You still haven't been able to answer that, showing the fallacy of your original question.
Again you show you're an angry, hostile person who cant' make an argument without making personal attacks. And my position is the rational one; the only selfish bias is yours. And disagreement on method isn't consensual agreement. What we do have in this world is the educated (are you?) understanding that we do not accept something exists until it has been scientifically demonstrated. You're free to believe in angels and the Easter Bunny, and your parents are your parents, but you can't impose that on the consensual agreement you exclude yourself from.
I like it too.
Quoting Janus
Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being.
Quoting TheMadFool
Hmm.. why would it exist if I think it doesn't matter? If it dies it existed in the first place, right? But yes, it matters to me.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Thanks for the suggestion. I am enjoying your contribution to the discussion. Undercover as what?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I am having a hard time understanding how our experience of consciousness as an animal removes the possibility of a soul or how 'if then' factors interracting with each other disqualify the possibility. You have given me a lot to digest though and perhaps I need to read more in depth into these terms you've provided me with or if you'd like to expand on them, go for it.
If we were born to experience the same world without a soul like influence yet individualized, then how did humanity become individuals to begin with? how did culture and artificiality arise... I'm sure you've addressed this somewhere in there but it is hard for me to connect the dots considering I don't have the same knowledge you do.
That's a great last name, by the way.
Quoting Rich
Cool idea, very intriguing.
Quoting mcdoodle
I lumped personality with soul because I wanted to see if people thought the soul (if believing it exists) was our driving force behind our actions and our disposition and then somehow culture and environment influenced and changed it over time. It isn't an idea I'm attached at the hip to but something I've pondered.
Quoting Wayfarer
Sounds ominous. I'll keep it in mind.
Quoting Thorongil
That light glowing thing that makes us tick.. oh, I don't know. Perhaps an entity or matter separate from body but obviously in control of it, something that gives us life.
Quoting Brian
A refreshing attitude and half the time I am on your side of the argument.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Good question.
And fair point.
On a sidenote: Does anyone know if there are ways to delete messages from discussions?
Actually, it's not a good point since my assertion was founded on the notion one couldn't assert something existed until it was found, not that everything that is natural is capable of being found.
And secondly, his statement itself is erroneous since, as you noted, even if I had made that assumption, it would have been a significantly valid one even if not absolutely proven. And finally, if people could assert something existed without it being found, one could assert God, the Easter bunny, angels, or even the soul could exist. That's why something being actually found is vital.
Oh my. Relax John Harris. It could be a good point to me for many reasons, even if simply to think about it and debunk it. You've still made your point.
Apart from that, I don't think Janus was asserting that the soul actually exists without being found. Only that some natural things could actually be incapable of finding with the resources available or some lack of technology or many reasons really.
Oh my. Relax, Locks. You said "good point," which means "good point," and I pointed out it wasn't. Using your faulty logic, one could say "good point" when someone says "puppies are meant to be drowned," then just claim they had their own "private" reason. And "oh my" is such pretentious theatrics, which hardly helped your erroneous point.
Whatever he meant is irrelevant--we never know what anybody means--what he said in the context of the discussion did make the defense of the soul being able to be found. if he wasn't doing so, he would have just been trolling. And if it couldn't be found without the immense scientific resources available, then nobody could assert it's natural existence anyway. It would be like saying unicorns, angels, and the Djinn exist, and nobody can say they don't because they just haven't been found.
Symbols - like the letters this sentence consist of - are material objects. They're pixels on a screen, or lines on paper, and so on. But the meaning of those symbols can't be understood in those terms. Meaning requires judgement and interpretation, and those are always internal to thought itself. And meaning can be expressed in many different forms - different languages, different symbolic systems - whilst retaining its identity. So, a sentence may be translated into different languages, or transformed into different symbolic forms, but still retain the same meaning; which demonstrates that the meaning and the physical form are different.
A materialist will counter that the meaning is encoded in brain cells or neural patterns. But the point is, to demonstrate this alleged fact, also requires judgement. 'Look here', a materialist will say, 'this neural pattern means that the idea is "in the brain" '. But that, too, is a judgement, whereby the data is said to support a particular interpretation. But there have been many doubts cast on the notion that through analysis of neural imagery, one can ascertain the 'mechanism of meaning' in the brain; even though materialists would like to say this is something that has been done, we're still far from it.
Right.. people have opinions about different things. It doesn't require consent. All you pointed out was that we differ on the opinion which was already a given. So these seem like pointless words... Lots of points.
Quoting John Harris
you've made your last argument many times, Harris. One no one has combatted.
It's how I Interpreted what he was saying-- and why I replied good point.
Can you explain how the assumption that everything that is "natural;" is capable of being found is supported? Really the assumption at work here is an even stronger one: that everything that is "natural" must be capable of being found. If this is meant to be an analytic definition of "natural", (along the lines of 'everything that is a bachelor must be single') then that would capture only one dimension of the term.
On that definition the existence of things that do not qualify as "natural" cannot be ruled out. In addition to that we would need to define what it means for something to be "found". It seems obvious that in the context of this discussion 'found' means to be 'observed by means of the senses' and/or 'inferred as forces that can be mathematically or quantitatively modeled to explain what is observed by the senses'.
Taking the example of the OP, the question of the existence of souls, then according to the circular definition outlined above, souls if they existed, cannot be natural. but what if we define 'exist' as 'being natural' or 'being capable of being found'? Now we would be circumscribing possibilities to suit our own definitions; we would be defining terms such that it would not be possible for souls to exist. Can 'what is what' rightly be decided by definitional fiat, or is this not a huge presumption?
On the other hand if human beings are ensouled; in other words if the notion that they are is metaphysically robust, then to be ensouled would be an essential part of human nature; and hence souls would have to be natural. The notion of the soul is not, and arguably has never seriously been, a notion of something that can be found "found" by the senses, or inferred in a mathematical or thermodynamic context.
I think it should be acknowledged by both proponents and opponents of the idea of souls that their attitudes merely reflect their own subjective preferences and assumptions; that is they merely reflect the worldviews they have come to accept for multitudes of reasons; not all, or even most of those reasons, being by any means purely rational.
Can you please have a heart to heart with your Laws of Nature and tell them that my Laws of Nature and suggest to them that it is still to try to change anything that is determined by itself. Such a conversation may reveal to yourself how preposterous is your metaphysics.
On the other hand, I am presenting real mind, real memory, real evidence of persistent memory without resorting to some supernatural God-like forces that take over us and determine everything that has ever happened and everything that will ever happen - including your dogmatic, religious-like belief in such forces.
Now, exactly why are you trying to change anyone's mind if it is what the Natural Laws dictate? Are you going to tell me it is because the Natural Laws that you worship wishes you to do so? Did you ever ask your professors what Natural Laws create disagreement?
Which, again, is positivism.
No, I pointed out far much more than that; I'm sorry you're having reading problems. So, the only pointless words were all yours.
No, I've had to make it a second time because of your hollow, erroneous "oh, my" post. If you didn't want a response, you should have avoided posting the erroneous statements you made there. And I had every reason to point out it wasn't a good point, since even what you thought he interpreted was a considerably faulty point.
Which, again, is not, and you haven't backed up that claim in any way. I'm not surprised; you have no idea what positivism, and many philosophical concepts, actually is.
The better question is can you explain your erroneous assumption that something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things? If you can, you could win a Nobel prize. You've made pretty clear you can't.
I'm sure I'm not the only participant here who notices that your typical modus operandi is to mock, belittle and condescend to anyone who tries to interact with you. But regardless, almost every statement you have made in this thread has been textbook positivism, along the lines of 'if 'the soul' was real, then science would have found it, and as science hasn't found it, then it must not be real'. Then, when this is pointed out, you deny that it is positivism, by saying that those who point it out 'don't know what positivism is'. I can assure you, I know that, and you're advocating it. It's open and shut.
Whatever other participants say is irrelevant. That's your modus operandi you described as I didn't mock or belittle you and the only one who has been condescending is you, just saying I'm wrong without backing it up in any way.
And again you make two more false claims about me and positivism, failing to back your false claims in any way. Nothing I've said has been textbook (or any) positivism; everything you've said has been absurdism. And until you actually back up your false claims, absurdism they will remain.
I have a deep soul. Buxtebuddha has no soul and no cerebellum.
I haven't assumed that "something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things". I have not assumed anything either way but have instead eschewed assumption and allowed for the possibility that "something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things". There certainly seem to be some careless readers here!
Also you tendentious phrase " all the exhaustive means" is just the senses, and explanatory inference, as I already explained.
No, deep like your nether regions...:)
OK to ease your soul, here are a few examples of Thanatos Sand/John Harris advocating positivism.
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Quoting Thanatos Sand
All of these are textbook cases of 'verificationism' which is fundamental to positivism.
this is exactly what you're saying throughout this thread, and the only defense you can offer, is that you're not, actually, saying it. You can't even own your own statements.
The only careless reading has been yours. I read and addressed your posts well and clear. And since you corrected me for the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found, then it is on you to show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. If you can't do that, your correction was just trolling.
My phrase wasn't tendentious at all; I suggest you go look up the words. And no, we have many means besides the senses in those exhaustive means. I'm sorry you never heard of Infra-red, sonar, or radar.
[b]LOL. Listing all my non-positivist statements and erroneously calling them positivist isn't showing anything except how wrong you've been.
And now you're throwing out verificationism at me without backing it up as well. I'm sorry, Wayfarer, but children pick out philosophical terms and erroneously throw them at people. Adults actually use them correctly and back up their usage. I suggest you finally join the latter.
And I don't have to make a defense against false statements you fail to back up. And the only defense to that you can do is stare into space and realize I'm right.[/b]
If persistence of a life is known via memory of oneself (as well as memory of others) over a duration, then similar persistent memory might provide evidence of a persistent "soul".
Hence, the evidence that inherited traits, innate skills, unusual talents (e.g. child prodigies, idiot savants, as well as any advanced talent) might provide evidence of this persistent soulful memory. How would such soulful memory persist? In exactly the same way as any memory persists.
Memory is very natural, not measurable, but integral too everyone's inner experience of life.
>:O This might go into my quotes section on my profile, for real.
You're not even capable of owning your own statements or making an argument for them. All you can do when challenged is resort to insults.
No, that's you as you make no arguments for none of your statements. I own up to all my statements, just not your nonsensical claims their positivist. Sorry.
and I'm sorry my 'oh, my' made you feel defensive. next time I will remember that shock and surprise doesn't bode well with you.
i realize you'd like to believe you always point out really good and meaningful things but we're squabbling over what you think is hollow and pretentious right now. and again, all you pointed out is that we have differing opinions, just in a really acerbic manner.
so, if you could move on, please do. otherwise i've nothing more to say to you.
So, you are now saying that you. like me, allow for the possibility that not all natural things can be found? Really???
I don't have to show how something natural that might not be capable of being found could avoid being found, because I haven't claimed any such thing exists, merely that it might exist. If it did exist it would be impossible in principle, obviously, to demonstrate how it could avoid being found, because in order to do so you would first have to find it; which is a contradiction. So, don't ask for the impossible, and pretend that my inability to do so in any way supports your contentions. I am now not even sure what your position is, since you seem now to be inconsistently claiming that you allow for the same possibility that I do (which if it were true would make your initial disagreement with me totally senseless).
Quoting John Harris
What are those if not mechanical extensions of the senses?
Oh boy, and here comes the adolescent gas-lighting. This is a philosophy forum, Locks, not the "try hard to show you know philosophy by resorting to cheap on-line tacts" forum. Maybe you could start one...:)
So Logical positivism is not "real Positivism" now? :-}
You're starting to look like a bad joke, man.
I never said that at all. So, you're straight up looking like a bad joke, man...:)
I'm here to learn about philosophy, not to try hard to show I know it. The only one getting in the way of that, is you.
No, I've pointed out much more than we have differing opinions. Since you've had astounding difficulty figuring that out, I suggest you move on.
No, all those "oh mys" and gaslighting show you care more about cheap pretension than making arguments. Considering the quality of your arguments, I'm not surprised. So, you probably should be moving on.
No, I didn't say that there at all. But thanks for proving you can't show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. I wasn't expecting you could.
And if you're asserting that something that can't be found might exist, you need to show how. The fact you have failed to do so undermines your claim. I'm not surprised.
So, you admit such a thing--like the soul--is impossible to be found. Good; I'm so proud of your growth. I allow for the possibility we might not have found something yet; I don't, and never have, allowed for the fact it cant' be found.
They're not extensions since they don't connect to the actual organ. They are heighteners and expanders of the senses that allow us to detect which the senses alone cannot detect. Key element at the end.
So, you're not equating Comte with "real Positivism", as you appeared to be? You're a slippery prick!
Don't you dare make assumptions about what I care about. you couldn't possibly know that. I joined this forum for a reason and it was not to deal with arrogant people like you who are so stifling that anything other than ridiculous arguments ensue because you don't know how to have a civilized discussion. you are the one that defaults to attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, you are the one who jumps to conclusions and likes to upset people not out of an avidness to learn about philosophy, just out of a need to prop yourself up on personal attacks. If you really cared about the quality of discussion here, you would leave your arrogant, nasty remarks out of it.
Quoting John Harris
There is no consistency in what you have been arguing, so it seems pointless to respond further.
I stopped reading this at "don't you dare" which confirmed everything I said about you and your pretentious theatrics. So, you and I are done too. I won't read anymore of your posts on this thread.
There's your problem. You don't even know what it is you're inquiring about the existence of. Set that straight first.
Making fun of him with a reference to nether regions, which are dark? What a wacist comment.
The phrase “you are what you eat” comes to mind when I hear about your physical being, however, in this case, I will delve into a more general description as to stimulate discussion. Your physical being can be welled down to one organ: your brain, which on its own can store over eight libraries of congress worth of information. It also allows you to enjoy the tastes, smells, sights, sounds, and feelings of food and sex (intimacy). (The only important things in life). Then comes your emotional being, which informs and helps shape your emotions, empathy, and sympathy, allowing for the development of social life, building relationships/destroying them and all that entails. Whether it be God, hope, or faith, your spiritual being is where your intangible thoughts lie, those underlining understandings that don't fit in this world. Then on top of your ability to live a physical life, socioemotional life, and a spiritual life, you also have the ability of logic. I can label another operation of the brain: understanding or the wisdom of experience and knowing what to do with it. Learning: the ability to capture knowledge and experiences. And Reason: the ability to critically think, as well as communicate your knowledge and wisdom. These three tools are leading to a single meaningful ability: perspective, and or the ability to create an opinion. This is an intrinsic theory, but it is what makes us, humans, who we are: The ability to experience life physically, to live life socially, to seek God, and to have an opinion about it. It is the basis of who we are as a species. Directed and organized by some pounds of gray matter and electricity. (No wonder Frankenstein and his monster were “tangible”)
Try this:
Quoting John Harris
Quoting John Harris
They are demonstrations that the logic of calculations are useful, therefore they are logical demonstrations. Making cars fly is a logical demonstration, just like drawing geometrical figures on a piece of paper, or laying out the foundation of a building using the Pythagorean theorem, these are demonstrations of the validity of logic.
Quoting John Harris
That's a strange thing for you to say, because I came into contact with the soul through reading Plato's demonstrations, so clearly you're wrong when you claim nobody did. I found the soul. And if I did, then quite likely many others did too. There was a whole school of people called Neo-Platonists, and they believed in the soul. I really don't think you ever read any Plato, or else you probably would have come into contact with the soul too. Or are you just lying when you claim that you never detected the soul in any way? I know it's untrue when you say that no one ever detected the soul in any way, so it's probably equally untrue when you say that you never detected the soul in any way.
Quoting John Harris
Evidence that you are lying.
Quoting John Harris
I just answered that, I've known my parents since birth, and I recognize them. You however have not answered my question. When you come across a body of water which you do not recognize, how would you know that it is the Mississippi river without either referring to some theory, or an appeal to authority?
So when you come across a soul, how would you know it is a soul without referring to some theory of what a soul is. How would you expect that a soul would ever show itself to you as a soul, unless you referred to a theory of what a soul is, to be able to designate the thing before you as a soul?
Quoting John Harris
You really should reconsider what you're saying here. Scientific experimentation is used to verify and falsify theories. It does not demonstrate whether or not things exist. That is a matter of metaphysics, ontology.
You really hate science, which is pretty sad since it allows you to drive a car and could one day save your life. Those aren't just demonstrations of logic. They are scientific demonstrations of specific physics and engineering formulas, chemical designs for gasoline, and engineering designs. Try that.
No, what I said was perfectly lucid. What you said is strange since you didn't contact the soul, ffs, you encountered Plato's theory of it. I would have loved to have seen you read The Lord of The Rings. You must have yelled "I encountered Gollum and some Orcs!" And the Neo-Platonists belief in the soul doesn't make it real. You must also believe Christians's belief in Christ and Satan make them real. Interesting.
No, evidence you're just trolling, which shows you have no soul.
No, you didn't answer that. Many adopted kids know their parents since birth, then find out when they're 40 they were adopted. That could be you. So, you don't know they're your parents, and recognizing them is far from enough. And I've answered all your questions...and debunked all your arguments.
And you still neglect the fact there may be no soul and nobody has shown there is. You might as weill ask, when you come across Christ, how do you know he's Christ. Just nonsensical.
No, you should really reconsider what you are saying. Without science, we'd never have discovered many species. You clearly haven't heard of Darwin. Considering your disdain for science, I'm not surprised. Anyway, say hi to your parents...even if they're not your real ones.
p.s. Disregard John Harris and Thanatos Sand. Evidently they're clones, or else one of them is a sockpuppet. Though I'm not really authorized to, I apologize for them on behalf of this forum's membership.
You wrote:
.
It doesn’t remove the possibility of a soul. It merely removes the need to assume one.
.
The fewer assumptions, the more believable.
.
The explanation that doesn’t need unsupported, complicated or elaborate assumptions is more appealing.
.
William of Ockham was an English philosopher who lived from late 1200s to around mid 1300s. He’s credited with Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony.
.
Here’s how Merriam-Webster describes that principle:
.
“A philosophic and scientific rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily, which is interpreted as preference for the simplest of competing theories, over more complex ones. …or a preference that explanations for unknown phenomena be first sought in terms of known quantities.”
.
I prefer an explanation that doesn’t need to assume or posit something more than what’s obvious.
.
Because our experience can be explained by our animal-ness, then why assume another entity?
.
Why assume an artificial dissection of the animal into a body and a soul? We know there’s the body, the animal, and that’s enough to explain our experiences. No need to assume anything else.
.
We humans, as animals, could be regarded as more elaborate relatives of the Roomba.
.
There are two obvious differences:
.
1. We’re much more complex and elaborate.
.
2. Completely different origin and purpose. Roomba was designed by humans, for the purpose of floor-vacuuming. We were evolved by natural-selection, selected for survival and reproduction (which of course includes support and protection of offspring).
.
But we have something basic in common with Roomba: We’re purposefully-responsive physical devices.
.
An animal has been selected by natural-selection, to respond to its surroundings in a way that furthers its natural-selection-caused purposes mentioned above. To do that, of course it must assess its surroundings, and judge what actions would help its purposes. How would that look to the animal? Exactly like our own experiences and efforts look to us
.
.
It doesn’t really disqualify the possibility of another metaphysics being true. No metaphysics can be proved.
.
But the metaphysics that I propose, the metaphysics based on those “if-then”s, doesn’t need or make any assumptions, or posit any brute-facts.
.
Therefore, among metaphysicses, it’s the hands-down winner, by the Principle of Parsimony.
.
.
Well I’m having a go at it in this post.
.
.
Our evaluation of our surroundings and efforts toward our goal, were built into us by natural-selection.
.
Individual feeling is natural for us, because our naturally-selected task is to further the survival and reproduction of the individual that we are.
.
.
Nearly all animals are, for the reasons described above. There are a few kinds of animals, such as ants and bees, in which the individual is completely subordinated to its community. But that’s relatively unusual. I’ve personally experienced that a fire-ant cares nothing for itself. If you’re near its nest, it’ll get onto you and sting you, with the understanding that it will of course get squashed as a result. It doesn’t care. It only cares about making it unpleasant for you to be near its colony’s nest.
.
But nearly all kinds of animals instead act as individuals, to further the naturally-selected-for goals for the individual that they are.
.
Humans, of course, are social animals, and so our species is strongly influenced by social considerations and interactions among humans. …often or usually to our detriment, of course (…though it must have been adaptive at some time in our prehistory).
.
Wolves have a lot of that social-ness too, which is why it so readily happened that some wolves and humans began to work together. (…the wolves being eventually bred into dogs).
.
.
Yes, some people object that our complex and varied culture, our technology, the ability of some individuals to lie so well, and the ability of other individuals to believe lies so well…Some people object that those things make us too different from the other animals to be called animals.
.
But I disagree. We’re just animals with special abilities. And I feel that animalness-deniers overestimate human rationality, as exemplified in societal matters in any particular day’s newscast. Societal affairs routinely exhibit an unmistakable and strong herd-instinct.
.
About my name: The direct Latin transcription of its Cyrillic spelling would be Osipov. It probably became Ossipoff when my Russian grandfather pronounced it during his immigration, and, with it written only in an unfamiliar alphabet, the immigration-clerk wrote it down, from its sound, in a customary English-like spelling for how it sounded.
.
Two of my grandparents came from Russia right after the Russian-Revolution. My grandfather had been an officer in the Tsar’s army, and had to immediately leave the country when they lost.
.
I’d guess that Osipov might roughly approximate the meaning of Josephson, but that’s only a guess. I’ve heard that it isn’t a really unusual name in Russia.
.
Michael Ossipoff
No, that's not the case. As I tried to explain, Plato's writing explained how I would recognize the soul, such that I could identify it as "the soul". This is just like a description might explain to you how you would recognize the Mississippi River so you could identify it as such. I have always been in contact with my soul, all my life, except I didn't recognize it as my soul until I read Plato. Likewise, there was a time when I was very young when I didn't recognize my parents as "my parents", but I was still in contact with them at that very young age. And prior to Europeans coming to North America there were many people living near the Mississippi River, who did not recognize it as the Mississippi River.
Quoting John Harris
Why do you find this to be nonsense? How would you know that it is Christ, if you came across Christ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism
Yes it is the case. And It is absolute nonsensical and hilarious that you compare the directions for finding something that someone theorized to directions to an already-physically discovered river. Using your outlandishly faulty logic, if Tolkien told you how to find the Gollum, you'd go...and the sad thing is you would.
And now you're saying your parents are no more real than a non-proven soul..
[Because Christ doesn't exist. And that's it, metaphysician. Your arguments have gotten so silly that I'm not going to waste my time engaging them anymore. I won't be reading any more of your posts.
Sorry, Noble. I have no time to read the story of how your mind works. It's late.
How'd you know I wrote that wiki article?? :-O
Some of my favorite art. Truly profound:
:-O You're welcome.
John Harris is Thanatos Sand, right? Who else could sound so much like Thanatos Sand?
I'd said:
John/Thanatos says:
Really? Here's a quote that I got from someone else:
That's a hilarious example of trying to apply science outside of its legitmate range of applicability. An example of a belief that science decides metaphysical questions. An example of trying to make science into a metaphysics or a religion.
Science is valid within its range of applicability. To try to apply it outside that range is pseudoscience--something regrettably common on Internet forums.
I'm not claiming that there's a soul, but the claim that, if there were one, it would have been detected by science is hilarious.
Actually, scientists admit that they don't know what dark matter and dark energy are. They don't claim to have "done a prettiy good job of explaining" them.
No, it's pseudoscience.
Science and the laws of physics attempt to describe the physical world. That's all they attempt to describe, explain or answer about
Except when a pseudoscientist like Thanatos gets on the subject, and seems to believe that they have metaphysical authority.
Michael Ossipoff
Correct
>:O >:O
god, I'm starting to sound like
First the discussion is about the possibility of soul being natural, and then you jump to the idea that it is chemical? Sure.
Also, there are stars, planets and moons we haven't found, does this mean they are supernatural or don't exist?
Quite an assumption.
I did no such thing, since if people are saying the soul is natural, I was using their own range of applicability, and even if there is a soul, it has no clear range of applicability. I'm not surprised you don't grasp that.
As for the rest of your post, it was as incoherent as the rest of yours and not even worth addressing. And I won't address any more of your (always erroneous/incoherent posts) on this thread.
The chemical is natural and vice versa. I'm sorry you didn't take any science classes in high school. Erroneous smugness is no compensation...:)
I never said those couldn't--unlike the soul--be found. Reading classes may be a glaring lack as well. I suggest you read better if that's not the case.
It's no assumption and you haven't shown that it is. Again, erroneous smugness is not an argument.
I don't recall anyone saying that soul couldn't be found, you just jumped to the conclusion that it hasn't been found and therefore can't be found.
If you start with the premise that Christ doesn't exist - against which I won't argue because it's irrelevant - your comparison isn't a valid one. Also any claim is an assumption until proven and as there is no consensus on His existence you can't claim your stance to be a fact.
I said it and someone responded to that. So, the only one jumping to conclusions--and is clearly just trolling now--is you.
Of course it's valid and you haven't shown it isn't. So, the only one making assumptions, and erroneous ones, is you.
Of course there's consensus on his existence, the consensus of the scientific world and the consensus of most of the world that doesn't believe in him. And I no more have to establish Christ's existence isn't a fact than I have to establish angels arent' a fact. Sorry.
Yes, I did forget my password and explained it to, and cleared it with, Baden, who has erased the Thanatos Sand account. And since I never hid the fact who I was, and the Thanatos Sand account no longer exists, this isn't a sockpuppet account. And you're being a troll, pure and simple.
Are hypothetical examples ok? If not, I could take anything from the fields of social sciences which you can theoretically explain with chemistry but no one does for obvious reasons.
Quoting John Harris
So you made a false assumption and everyone else made the mistake of not noticing it and attacking other parts of your arguments. The point still stands, "hasn't been found" does not equal "can't be found".
Quoting John Harris
The comparison between two things of which one exists and other one doesn't is not a valid one, shouldn't that be obvious? You can't take it as a premise that soul doesn't exist either.
Natural entities arent' hypothetical examples, you know that perfectly well and just cant come up with any examples. Thanks for proving I was right.
No, I made no false assumption since nobody, including you, has shown that it is false, and I showed they havent' again above. You're clearly just trolling now, so I wont be responding to any more of your posts.
No, it absolutely was a valid one in the context I used it, and you haven't shown otherwise. And I, and others, can take it as a premise the soul doesnt' exist just as one can take it as a premise God doesn't. You need to get better at this, even if you are just trolling. So, good bye, I won't even be reading your next posts.
Is reading that hard for you?
Quoting BlueBanana
Quoting John Harris
... this is a fucking joke, right? No they can't while discussing the existence of God.
Quoting John Harris
We both know this to be a lie.
Shall we make a straw poll on which one of us is the troll?
Quoting BlueBanana
John Harris makes the judgement "X does not exist because X's existence has not been scientifically proven", then proceeds to discuss the question of whether X exists by asserting this bias. I've been trying to explain to John Harris that this is nothing more than prejudice, without any progress.
Quoting John Harris
When someone gives you directions for finding the river named "X", how would you know whether that river exists or not?
Quoting John Harris
This is exactly the prejudice I am talking about. You decide "X does not exist". You have no justification for this decision. You decline and deride anyone's directions as to how to find X by referring to your prejudice "X does not exist".
Quoting John Harris
Correct, my parents' existence as living beings is dependent on them having a soul. To prove that they exist, I must refer to the soul. "Exists" is the most general predicate. I say my father was a man. A man is an animal. An animal is a living being. I want to prove that a living being, my father, "exists", but I need to account for the gap between animate and inanimate existence. So a soul is assumed, and this allows me to say that my father exists, regardless of whether he is dead, because his existence is other than as an inanimate physical object. Does your scientism give you something better? How would you prove that your long dead ancestors are real? Please adhere to your insisted principles, that theory cannot prove existence.
I guess this is the crux of the question for anyone interested in exploring who they are.
When I touch myself, I feel something solid. But physics tells us they we are not solid, but empty. That there are no boundaries anywhere. So how does the transformation from the insubstantial to the substantial take place? There is no explanation.
Further exploration reveals that we are fundamentally qualia: memories of emotions, images, feelings, thoughts, ideas. These are all insubstantial. There is nothing substantial there. Again, no explanation.
And even more inviting to exploration is the rather interesting changes of states that we go through during a given day, from awake, to contemplation, to daydreaming, to sleep. Where or what is the impetus for the becoming and transitions into these states, which feel completely different?
Because of all this, I have taken the position that we are fundamentally memory with will and creative drive that is imbued with qualia. All of this appears to be fundamental and irreducible. And if this is so, then we are not physical/solid subject to dissolution but rather some form of energy that appears to persist in some form that cycles between sleep/awake, and through these cycles we evolve.
So then question arises, what is the point?
To learn means to be open to new ideas. Some will learn more than others in this lifetime and others may learn in future lifetimes. There is no rush. We are all different. The problem with academic Western Philosophy (there are economic reasons), is that its whole premise is that there is a truth, and we have to convince others of the truth. This is the raison d'etre for academic Western Philosophy.
I take a different approach (which is why I received an A and not an A+ in my college philosophy courses). I study philosophy to learn not to teach.
Philosophy is the love of knowledge, it is a manifestation of the desire to know. I do not see a necessity to convince others, like you do. But involved with the desire to know is the necessity of discourse with others. The act of considering another person's ideas, assessing them, and laying out one's own ideas for comparison and assessment is all a part of philosophy.
I believe, the idea that we have to convince others of the truth is a misrepresentation of philosophy. The desire to know indicates that one does not believe oneself to have the truth and therefore a true philosopher could not believe oneself capable of convincing another of the truth.
I was careful to say academic philosophy for a reason. Certainly there are many ways to approach philosophy without concern to truths but rather with the idea that there is much to learn.
It was via online philosophy forums that I was introduced to Bergson, Whitehead, Sheldrake, and Robbins. If there are new ideas about the nature of the soul, I would love to hear them.
Lol.
Not only didn't you understand my point (and continue to do so), but also you just made my point that "the word has too much religious baggage and hence people will frown it's use and avoid the term".
That my point, that it's a useful word to describe, to be a metaphor, of the part of man which enables him to think and which renders him a conscious subject, is so objectional to you that you accuse me of being hostile to science as a luddites were to machines, simply shows this religious baggage of the word. Anybody talking of a "soul" has to be religious and anti-science! I thus must believe that angels make airplanes fly!
Well, using a metaphor doesn't actually mean anything of one's religious views. So if someone uses word like "speaking from the heart" he or she likely doesn't have any misconceptions of how the human body works, yet people do understand the metaphor and what he or she is implying. (Or hopefully understand)
And I guess you don't find the philosophy of science important either. Who needs it? Because we have science, right?
Many who say so, who "believe in science" but have a "disdain for philosophy" are basically are positivists, yet are likely ignorant about being perfect examples the school of the philosophy. They see themselves not followers of any philosophy, but someone who only believe in the scientific method! The facts! Nothing else!
(And before you start, I will say I believe in science and think that the scientific method is the only way for science)
In your usage, "supernatural" is the same as "nonphysical", and so, for you then, "natural", must mean "physical" :D
Newsflash: When someone said that the soul is natural, they didn't mean that it's physical.
A more reasonable meaning for "natural" would be "not artificial". Most people who believe in a soul probably don't believe it to be artificial :)
Two good dictionary definitions of "natural":
Not artificial.
Usual or ordinary, rather than an exception..
You're all confused by your funny meaning for "natural".
To anyone who isn't a Materialist, Reality is nonphysical. But such a person doesn't believe that Reality is other than natural.
It's common knowledge that "supernatural" is often used as a double-meaning trick. Anything that isn't physical is, by some people's definition, "supernatural". But, in movies, "supernatural" means "in contravention of physical law", like vampires, walkling skeletons and mummies, witches, sorcerers, etc.
So "supernatural", and its two meanings, can be used to equate non-physicality with contravention of physical law, and vampires, etc.
Sometimes that's dishonest, but sometimes it's just ignorant or sloppy.
If you're trying to advicate Materialism or metaphysical Physicalism, someone should let you know that you aren't an effective advocate of it.
No, there isn't a soul--but not because science hasn't deteected it.
What can be grasped there is that you haven't a clue what "range of applicability" means.
Michael Ossipoff
I believe that a philosophical forum should be a place where minds young and old should feel at ease in expressing new ideas. Something fresh and exciting. I'm hear to listen and learn.
There are other ways to improve. In fact, it is the cultural aspect of humanity that has proved to be the driver of achievement.
No, John Harris is a quite well-known philosopher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harris_(bioethicist)
;)
Ok, so "Thanatos" besmirched the name of a philosopher, in addition to a Greek word. :)
By the way, the theory that he was banned is eminently plausible, given his great qualification for being banned. Maybe he somehow convinced the admins to give him another chance. If so, then he seems to have already botched his other-chance.
Michael Ossipoff
Maybe he was trying to emulate Socrates-as-gadfly.
The behavior of the souls may or may not include incarnation in a physical/material form. When they are in a discarnate state they are said to exist only in the spiritual world, while in an incarnate state they are said to exist in the physical world (but simultaneously also in the spiritual world because they remain projections of the "sea of spirit" in the spiritual world, although they may not be conscious of it).
This gives rise to the questions about the nature of the spiritual world and its relation to the physical world. If the spiritual "stuff" could be included in an expanded quantum field theory it seems it would be a new type (or types) of energy field and related particle. Maybe dark matter could fit the bill. It is generally assumed that dark matter, which does not interact via electromagnetic force, is a new type of fundamental field and particle. If dark matter is spiritual "stuff" then the spiritual world spatio-temporally interpenetrates the physical world (ordinary matter) but its interaction with the physical world is very limited (perhaps only to the gravitational force).
Dark energy is probably not a good candidate for spiritual "stuff" because it just seems to be repulsive gravity that accelerates rather than slows down the expansion of the universe and so it doesn't seem to have the capacity for intelligence or consciousness that are attributed to souls.
Another candidate for spiritual world might emerge in the form of additional dimensions of space that are required in string/M-theory, a candidate for the unification of quantum field theory and general relativity.
The quantum stuff (I hesitate to call if anything, though Bohm named it the Quantum Potential) leaves open the possibility that at the deepest level of the universe, there is mind/consciousness that transitions out morph's into stuff that feels substantial. This is the nexus point that philosophers might want to ponder and discuss since it can be quite significant particularly in the way we view our lives and the health of our lives.
There's no evidence backing that, but if it were true, It could also be the location of Angels, God, or demons.
There is evidence in every day life. There is mind and it is directing movement - making choices. And memories of this creative learning process persist and affect future actions. That this is so, is everyone's everyday experience. This is life. The only question is how does memory of these actions persist, in one life and over many lives.
No one is possessed by some mysterious outside forces (so called natural laws or natural selection) that are determining their lives (an ancient superstition). They are directing and navigating their own lives and possibly the memories of one life persist over many lives, most substantially demonstrated by child prodigies and idiot savants, but similar for all people who are born with certain innate characteristics and traits.
Then I need a brain to be conscious? If I were just a soul without a brain then there would be no difference in the experience of me being physically dead in a world with no souls, and me being a soul disconnected from a brain. Can I only be aware of, or know, that I am a soul when I am connected to my body?
What is the point of a soul when that makes me (my body) a faulty copy of my self (my soul)? Why is the body necessary? Can souls exist independent of bodies and still possess knowledge and memories and a sense of self? If not, then how is that any different from non-existence?
There is no evidence of soul in everyday life; some people make the same claim of God or angels.
You don't know this, and the soul is as supernatural a concept as God or angels.
You need a brain to reveal. The mind/memory might still be there without awareness.
So, the question is what might it feel like when someone is brain-dead? This is an interesting philosophical question. For me, it is that point in that sleep state, when there is nothing. Quiet. What in Taiji is called Wuji state. And then POP!, one is awake. So memory/mind persists through the sleep state and somehow reawakens itself, only to go back into it.
I also played lots of sports when I was younger. Golf was there toughest. Very Zen.
Then the soul can never be self-aware on it's own? The soul needs a body to be self-aware and even then we aren't even aware of our soul - we are only aware of our bodies. So much for the "after-life". It wouldn't be much of a life if you aren't aware of anything.
More of my speculation. Self-awareness without external awareness is what we might feel in a dream state. Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy is about this analogy of death and dreaming. It is an interesting idea to muse over.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Why are you in such a hurry? Are you simply interested in making a point and winning some argument? Unfortunately, that is all that academia philosophy teaches.
As I explained, the mind does wake itself up from the sleep state. It is a period of rest. Of quiet. A place for renewal. To begin a new day. To begin a new life. When one begins a new chess game game, one does not lose memory of the prior chess game, but a new game provides a new beginning.
What do you mean by this?
At the end of lives (or at the end of this life, if you don't believe in reincarnation) you won't be aware of the world, a body, individuality, or identity. There will be no such thing as time or events, and you won't know that there ever were any of those things.
...or that there ever were such things as problems, menaces, lack, incompletion, or other such undesirable things.
"Life"? Well of course it won't literally be "life", as we know it now, as the experience of an animal.
Michael Ossipoff
That Timelessness could be regarded as the more "natural" (in the sense of usual or ordinary) state of affairs, because of the (long duration) temporariness of our life-experience(s).
So it certainly can't be regarded as something undesirable, though nearly all of us aren't currently anywhere near ready for it (according to Hinduism and Buddhism, which are probably right about that).
Michael Ossipoff
I do sculpture
— Harry Hindu
More of my speculation. Self-awareness without external awareness is what we might feel in a dream state. Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be" soliloquy is about this analogy of death and dreaming. It is an interesting idea to muse over.[/b]
This is not speculation. You have not even yet established the meaning, ontology or validity of any claim for the existence of "soul".
As far as I am concerned many people consider soul great music, I'm more on the rock side of the fence.
Soul is a diverse genre. You probably like some of it, as do I.
Likewise for Rock.
Michael Ossipoff
If course this is a matter of definition, but for me art is a manner of self-expression and dancing and Tai Chi would be every bit as artistic as any of the other arts.
I have, you just want to continue denying it. Heck, I'm not here to convince you to drop your religious faith. Live as you wish. If you want to be a computer, go to it. Fine with me.
Rich is unable to disagree politely.
That's particularly inadvisable, for someone who believes that he's controlled by a disembodied, distributed, Rupert-Sheldrake holographic quantum Mind-repository.
Michael Ossipoff
It is born of human hubris and hope for immortality much like religion.
One cannot be absolutely certain about the existence of other realms or planes of existence but I think it is a big mistake to not treat this life as the only one you can be sure of.
What does give me comfort is knowing that every moment is an eternal fixed point in space time and that every NOW is inline with another NOW in space time as discussed in the below vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks&index=30&list=PLB0EB1638F706BC49
Quoting Rich
Did you get a chance to look into this yet? I feel like it is also relevant to your arguments in the discussion on Quantum Free Will vs Determinism, as they depend on non-local intelligence affecting choice.
Brain or mind? How does a brain morph into a mind?
No matter to me. So your brain is making choices. Fine. If there are choices, it's not determined and that's about that.
No, it is a continuum from the least substantial to the more substantial in the same way that quantum -> electron -> atom -> molecule creates a continuum. It is not surprising at all (to me at least) that quantum entanglement is now being experimentally observed at the molecule level. It is all the same.
The problem with dualism it's that one has to show how to cross the chasm, so I rejected it a long time ago.