My Thoughts on the Human Soul

[Time for change]

I’m well aware that many people believe that talk of the human soul is silly. Nevertheless, I feel that it’s a very important and interesting concept.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines soul as:

in religion and philosophy, the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being, that which confers individuality and humanity, often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self.

It goes on to define the soul in terms of theology, but I’m not interested in that for now. The Britannica definition is exactly what I had in mind. The soul is immaterial and it is our essence as human beings.

Admittedly the concept is amorphous and very difficult to grasp. The exact sciences, or the physical sciences, do not deal with immaterial things at all. Chemistry deals with atoms and molecules. Biology deals with cells, tissues, organs, species, etc. But they don’t deal with immaterial things.

In some sense, the social sciences deal with the soul. Certainly they deal with immaterial things, such as thoughts and feelings. But most social scientists, as far as I’m aware, don’t actually mention the soul. Perhaps that’s because they feel that thoughts and feelings are totally explainable in terms of physical phenomena – at least in theory.


The difference between belief in the soul and non-belief in it

It may seem odd that an explanation would be needed to differentiate between belief in something and non-belief. For most things, all it would take is to ask a person if they believe in it or not. But the soul is such an amorphous concept that I do think that an explanation is required as to what constitutes “belief” in it.

Everyone acknowledges that there is a strong relationship between the non-material aspects of a person (thoughts and feelings), a person’s physical body, and the physical world. A person’s thoughts and feelings are determined by their biological and genetic makeup, as well as myriad other factors, including their exposures to their parents, friends, and other people, the work they do, the books they read, etc. The list is endless.

But what a belief in the soul means to me is that a persons thoughts and feelings and the decisions that a person makes are not completely determined by one’s physical composition plus the endless list of potential exposures and experiences that a person has.


The question of free will

Definitions
Philosophers and others have been debating free will for millennia. Like the soul, it’s a very difficult concept to fathom. Wikipedia provides three different definitions of free will for different areas of study. In the following areas of study, free will implies:

Religion: An omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices.
Ethics: Individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
Science: Actions of the body are not wholly determined by physical causality.

Implications for ethics and justice
I’m not very interested in the religious definition of the soul because, frankly, I find it very difficult or impossible to relate to.

Clearly, the ethics definition has crucially important implications for the way our society (or any other society) works. Our whole system of justice is largely built around it. If we didn’t believe that individuals should be held morally accountable for their actions, we would probably be a lot more lenient with our punishments than we are. But for the most part, our society does believe that individuals should be held morally accountable for their actions. Therefore, from the standpoint of ethics and justice, our society does believe in free will. And so do all societies, as far as I’m aware (though I could be wrong about that). And I also believe in free will. But there are many people who don’t believe in it.

It seems to me that if you believe in free will from an ethics point of view, then you believe in the soul. That is, if you believe that people should be held morally accountable for their actions, then you believe in the soul. I say that because it seems to me that if all the decisions that a person makes are wholly determined by the physical composition of his or her body (including their brain) plus the sum total of everything the person experiences or is exposed to, I don’t see how that person could legitimately be held morally accountable for anything. I’m sure that someone will tell me I’m wrong about that. But I just don’t see how a person can justifiably be held morally accountable for anything if all of his actions are determined wholly by things that are beyond his control.

Implications for science – epidemiology in particular
I single out epidemiology for discussion here because I am an epidemiologist and have worked as one for more than 30 years. Another good reason for singling out epidemiology is because it is not fully a physical science or a social science, but a combination of both. In a nutshell, epidemiology is the science that studies the causation of disease or any health-related conditions in human populations. Here is a link to a more detailed definition of epidemiology.

Note the term “health-related conditions”. That is a term that could mean just about anything. It includes such things as personality traits, sexual orientation, psychological tendencies, or criminal activities. Any and all of these things are the legitimate subject of epidemiologic research.

With that in mind, to explain how epidemiology relates to the question of free will, I’ll quote from my 1997 book, “Philosophy in Epidemiology and Public Health”:

Almost everyone knows that human diseases, as well as any trait, physical or mental, which can characterize a person, is to at least some extent either genetically determined or environmentally determined or, more likely, determined by a combination of both of these factors. The term “environmentally” is here being used in its broadest sense, to denote all external entities to which a person is exposed – i.e. essentially any external thing which affects his or her senses (This includes physical, social, psychological, or any exposure imaginable). Some favor genetic explanations for most human behavior, while others favor the environmental explanations, but there is virtually no disagreement about the fact that both may be involved at least to some extent.

Geneticists (and genetic epidemiologists) have worked out statistical formulas for ascertaining the percentage of a trait which is determined by genetic factors. When this technique is applied, it is assumed that the remainder of the cause of the trait consists of environmental factors – so that the part of the cause which consists of genetic factors plus the part which consists of environmental factors adds up to 100%.

Now, think for a moment what this means in terms of free will……… It means that the scientists who make these calculations completely ignore it. If all of a person’s personality traits and the choices that s/he makes are completely determined by a combination of that person’s physical/biological/genetic makeup plus the sum total of his or her exposures and experiences, then that means that everything we do is determined by factors beyond our control. In other words, it means that we have no free will.

I find that quite interesting. In the realm of science we (or at least most of those who deal in the causes of human behavior) assume that free will does not exist, whereas in the realm of ethics and justice we assume that free will does exist). And that’s within a single society.

Some might be inclined from this discussion to take the side of the scientists because… well, because they’re scientists. But their assumption against free will is not based on scientific evidence. It is merely an assumption.


Why I believe in the soul

First of all, there is no scientific evidence pro or con for the existence of the soul, as I’ve described it. We know absolutely that a large variety of biological, physical, genetic, and “environmental” factors affect a person’s personality and the choices that he or she makes. But what we don’t know is whether there is anything beyond these material factors that affects the choices that a person makes or who s/he is. Our ethics and justice system assumes that there is. And our science system usually assumes that there isn’t. But neither has evidence to that effect. And the question is completely beyond the capability of our current scientific knowledge or methodology to answer.

So why do I believe in it? There are two reasons. First is the issue of free will. As I hope I’ve explained, the existence of free will is virtually synonymous with the existence of the soul. To have free will means that there is something other than material causes that explains our thoughts, feelings, and the choices that we make. If that is the case, then by definition we a soul – whatever exactly that means.

I just cannot conceive that I or anyone else are not morally responsible for our actions. To believe that, it seems to me, would be tantamount to giving up. If I’m not morally responsible for my actions, I should be able to do anything I want without feeling the least bit of guilt. I just can’t accept that.

And secondly, there is the existence of thoughts and feelings. I have them, and so do all other humans, as far as I’m aware. I just can’t believe that these things can be totally explained by material phenomena, no matter how complex. A feeling is not a physical entity. Physical entities can affect feelings, but they are not feelings, and I just can’t believe that physical entities can be arranged in any combination, no matter how complex, to produce something that has thoughts and feelings. It just makes no sense to me.


Where are the other 6 or 22 dimensions?

Some people might object to what I’ve written here on the basis that “non-material” things sound kind of crazy. They might feel that science deals only with material things, so therefore there isn’t anything else. My father, a psychologist, was such person.

In a sense they’re correct about the fact that science deals only with material things. Though social sciences deal with thoughts and feelings, all of the data that is used in science is physical. Scientists cannot actually see or examine a thought or a feeling (other than in themselves). Scientists simply infer thoughts and feelings in other people from what people tell them or what they observe. All of the data that scientists deal with are material.

Therefore it would be easy to conclude that, since nobody has ever proven the existence of a purely non-material entity, none must exist. We live in a universe of three physical dimensions plus time, and there simply is not room for anything else – or so it seems.

But it is doubtful that we live in a universe of only three physical dimensions plus time. Stephen Hawking is perhaps the most brilliant theoretical physicist in the world. I read his “A Brief History of Time” a very long time ago – but after I had formed my ideas about the soul that I describe in this post. His book is about cosmology, dealing with the origin (The Big Bang), development and nature of our universe. The first part of the book I found extremely interesting. For such a brilliant scientist, Hawking writes in a very easy to understand manner for such a complex subject – a manner which makes it possible for ordinary people to understand what he writes. But when he got to superstring theory near the end of the book, he lost me.

Anyhow, the point I want to make is this: Hawking used mathematical equations to prove that the universe contains, not 4 dimensions, but either 10 or 26! (If I had heard that from almost anyone else, I’d be extremely skeptical about it, to say the least. But if Hawking says it, you can take it to the bank.) After making that statement, recognizing that most people would find it rather difficult to fathom, he goes into an explanation as to why, if we live in a universe of 10 or 26 dimensions, we only notice 4 of them. But at that point he’s just speculating. He honestly doesn’t know. He says something like, “Maybe the other dimensions are curled up so tightly that we can’t see them”.

But I have a different thought on the matter. It is terribly difficult for me to believe that, though humans have lived in a universe of at least 10 dimensions since they evolved as a species, they haven’t noticed most of those dimensions. Perhaps at least some of the dimensions beyond the 4 that we know about are spiritual dimensions. At some deep level, that makes good sense to me. It’s not that we don’t notice those dimensions. It’s just that we don’t know what to make of them – perhaps because we are not able to measure them. There are very few humans who don’t recognize spirituality as a fact of life. However, many of them believe it’s just another aspect of our material world. But to me (and lots of other people) spirituality represents something entirely different than what we know as our physical world. It interacts with the physical world, but it is something qualitatively very different. For lack of a better explanation, it seems to me that it’s from another dimension or dimensions.


Implications for me

I can only speak for myself on what the implications of this are, though I’m pretty sure that a lot of other people feel similarly. To me, the idea that humans are just material beings is a depressing thought. That idea implies to me that everything we do is determined by the laws of the physical, chemical, or biological sciences, rather than by our own choices. I don’t see how it is consistent with such human qualities as caring for or loving other humans. I feel that that conception of human beings makes us out to be much less than we are. Therefore, I derive comfort from the idea that we are much more than the sum total of our physical parts.

Also, if the human soul is not totally dependent on material things, that suggests the possibility that it can be freed from our body. That idea also comforts me (though a discussion of the likelihood of that possibility is being the scope of this post).

Some might say, therefore, that I believe in the human soul as a non-material entity simply because I want to believe in that, rather than because the idea makes good sense to me. I won’t argue with that assertion. It’s impossible for me to say for sure.

Does this belief change the way that I choose to live my life? I don’t think so. I believe that our value as humans depends mainly on how much we add to the quality of life of our fellow sentient beings. If my soul dies forever with my body, then I would want to live my life in that way (being a positive force in other peoples’ lives) because this life will be the only chance I have to do so. If my soul lives on after my body dies, then I would want to live my life like that also because it would probably prepare my soul for new and better experiences after I die.


A final word about the Christian Right

One of the great ironies of our country is the worshipping of Jesus Christ by the Christian Right, which constitutes a large minority of our population. Jesus was a liberal. It is my belief that Jesus’ liberal teachings were and are the major reason for the great popularity over two millennia of the Christian religion, whose membership today constitutes a quarter to a third of the world’s population. One of Jesus’ most quoted statements, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me”, is at the center of his liberality – and of the Christian religion. What that statement says is that all human souls are worthy and similarly in need of nourishment and love, and that those who treat them as such will be rewarded (a very similar message to “All men are created equal” from our Declaration of Independence). In a world where injustice is rampant, where the powerful treat the powerless with contempt, and where so many millions live lives of desperation, a message like that must be felt as powerfully inspirational to many people, providing meaning to their lives where little would otherwise exist.

But the Christian Right is the very antithesis of Jesus’ message. The leaders of the Christian Right take the religion that was created in His name, and they use it for their own greedy political purposes. Somehow they have been able to convince millions of Americans that the Republican Party – the party of war, intolerance, and contempt for the poor, is the Party of Jesus.

[chill_wind]

1. TFC... you are one incredible thinker and writer..

Something I was reading only earlier today...

The Big Questions: What happens after you die?


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225780.075-the-big-questions-what-happens-after-you-die.html

k and r.

[Time for change]

8. Thank you chill wind.

Your article reminds me of a book I read by Dr. Raymond Moody, called "Life after Life", where he described a long series of persons who were pronounced clinically dead, following which they regained consciously and related to him what they experienced while they were thought to be dead. The expericnes were variously related as being "in another plane of existence", "floating out of their body". The good majority of these people were said to have come back with a renewed sense of what their life was all about. They suddenly seemed to understand a lot of things which they previously had not understood. Their life had more meaning to them, and gave them a stronger sense of purpose in life. Many of these people, upon their return, described events which happened when they were believed to be dead, and were certainly unconscious.

Also, I had a friend who described a similar experience to me.

The most convincing account I read on this was from the psychiatrist Carl Jung. Here is an excerpt:

In a hospital in Switzerland in 1944, the world-renowned psychiatrist Carl G. Jung, had a heart attack and then a near-death experience. His vivid encounter with the light, plus the intensely meaningful insights led Jung to conclude that his experience came from something real and eternal. Jung's experience is unique in that he saw the Earth from a vantage point of about a thousand miles above it. His incredibly accurate view of the Earth from outer space was described about two decades before astronauts in space first described it….

From below, from the direction of Europe, an image floated up. It was my doctor, or rather, his likeness - framed by a golden chain or a golden laurel wreath. I knew at once: 'Aha, this is my doctor, of course, the one who has been treating me. But now he is coming in his primal form…. The doctor had been delegated by the Earth to deliver a message to me, to tell me that there was a protest against my going away. I had no right to leave the Earth and must return.

I was profoundly disappointed, for now it all seemed to have been for nothing. The painful process of defoliation had been in vain, and I was not to be allowed to enter the temple, to join the people in whose company I belonged.

I felt violent resistance to my doctor because he had brought me back to life. At the same time, I was worried about him. "His life is in danger, for heaven's sake! He has appeared to me in his primal form! When anybody attains this form it means he is going to die… Suddenly the terrifying thought came to me that the doctor would have to die in my stead. I tried my best to talk to him about it, but he did not understand me.

In actual fact I was his last patient. On April 4, 1944 …. the doctor took to his bed and did not leave it again…. Soon afterward he died of septicernia.

http://www.near-death.com/jung.html

[Jambalaya]

20. Coincidence or synchronicity?

Ever read Jung's theories on Synchronicity? The incident with the Scarab beetle? Veddy interesting!

[Jambalaya]

21. Human Souls are Corpuscles in the Body of Creation

The Mind of God - Chapter 9 Excerpt Carl Jung said the synchronistic events he witnessed in his life might appear ... she was in his office describing a dream about an Egyptian scarab beetle. ...
themindofgod.net/chapter_9.htm - 20k - Cached - Similar pages -

[Time for change]

47. I didn't read that

What was it about?

[Jambalaya]

150. Golden Scarabs

RealityShifters

Synchronicity
Consciousness Plays with the Physical World
by Cynthia Sue Larson


Carl Gustav Jung (1875 - 1961)

"The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect
but by the play instinct acting from inner necessity.
The creative mind plays with the objects it loves."
-- Carl Jung


Swiss Psychologist Carl Gustav Jung coined the term synchronicity to signify "the simultaneous occurrence of two meaningful but not causally connected events," or as "a coincidence in time of two or more casually unrelated events which have the same or similar meaning... equal in rank to a causality as a principle of explanation." Synchronicity is the occurence of a physical event in the world which occurs at or near the same time that it is being discussed or thought about. The essence of synchronicity is felt, for there is often significance and meaning associated with it. When you consider that this kind of interplay is one way that your eternal spirit and your physical self engage in dialogue, you may find yourself looking forward to experiencing more frequent synchronicities in your life.

This playfulness we so often feel in creativity allows us to find connections between ideas without a structured, rational, mechanical process -- discovering that what we need comes to us when and where we need it.

Jung describes an amazing experience he once had with a scarab beetle in an article he titled, Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle:

"A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment."

As Jung treated this particular patient, he realized that she required a change of perspective from her overly-rational view of the world to one which allowed greater freedom of thought and feeling. Jung was intrigued to notice that this kind of rebirth that he considered so important for his patient was also indicated by the timely arrival of the scarab beetle at the window!

[Jambalaya]

151. Links to Science of Soul and Synchronicity

Victor Mansfield - Synchronicity, Science, and Soul-Making ... Synchronicity, Science, and Soul-Making: Understanding Jungian Synchronicity Through Physics, Buddhism, and Philosophy; Autore: Victor Mansfield ...
www.webster.it/book_usa-synchronicity_science_and_soulmaking_understanding-9780812693041.htm


Synchronicity
Unfolding the Enfolded... Cosmos, Mind & Soul. Cosmos · Mind · Soul · TOE · Home · Institute of Noetic Sciences (off-site) ...
www.enfolded.info/soul/synchronicity/synchronicity.htm
The Rhine-Jung Letters: Distinguishing Parapsychological from ...
The Rhine-Jung Letters: Distinguishing Parapsychological from Synchronistic Events. Journal article by Victor Mansfield, Sally Rhine-Feather, James Hall; ...
www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001378994


HQR: Burden of Proof, Synchronicity & Applications : intentblog
HQR: Burden of Proof, Synchronicity & Applications. DK Matai - March 16, 2007. Further to the Socratic Dialogue with Pure & Applied Scientists, ...
www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/03/hqr_burden_of_p.html

[shintao]

182. Orgin of Soul

<img src="">

The concept of soul reaches back 3,000 BC in Egypt.

[Jambalaya]

183. Egyptian symbol of Rebirth

Egyptian Scarab Beetle - Representing the God Khepri - Heart Scarab The Egyptian scarab beetle - a symbol of rebirth. .
www.egyptian-scarabs.co.uk/ - 6k -

[Trajan]

2. Misdirection

What is defined as a 'soul' can be better explained as a complex set of 'feelings' and beliefs, synthesized in the 'mind' as a concept of self and its place in the world, concepts that disappear once the mind stops functioning ...

The 'soul's existence, a complex human synthesis, is founded on a functional human biological system ... It is 'material' based ... without that material ? ... such synthesis ceases to continue ....

No functional biological system ? ... no brain function ...

No brain function ? ... No concept of self or world ...

No concept of self or world ? .... No soul ....


Animals possess a sense of self and world ...

Rocks do not ...

Animals possess the material tools for complex synthesis ... rocks do not ....

There is no evidence whatsoever that 'immaterial' entities such as souls exist .... There is great evidence that biological systems exist ....


This thread is better suited for 'Religion/Theology' forum .....

[Time for change]

7. "There is no evidence whatsoever that 'immaterial' entities such as souls exist"

So, what is the evidence that they don't exist? Nobody has ever shown that human feelings are fully the result of physical entities.

How would it be possible for human feelings to materialize from material?

Have we ever produced a computer that had feelings? Would that be possible?

And by the way, this post has very little to do with religion. You can call it philosophy, but it's not religion.

[Odin2005]

13. There is be a sentient artificial intelligence created within 20 years.

and it will be very sad if these beings are treated as non-persons and not worthy of rights because of BS notions about souls.

A computer is a computer, no matter if it's made of neurons or electronics.

[Trajan]

23. Point by point ...

So, what is the evidence that they don't exist? Nobody has ever shown that human feelings are fully the result of physical entities.

This is actually two separate questions:

1) So, what is the evidence that they don't exist?

While it is true that no one has definitely proven that immaterial 'souls' do not exist, there is no evidence whatsoever that they do exist .... They have been postulated 'A Priori' as abstractions of human thought alone .... One might use the argument "what is the evidence that magical giant turtles do not float about space?" to assert that in fact "magical giant turtles float about space" .... It is a fallacious assertion, specifically an argumentum ad ignorantiam, or 'appeal to ignorance'.

From 'Introduction To Logic, by Irving Copi :

The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true.

By this definition: I also committed the same fallacy, but I can support the assertion FOR a material basis of 'feeling' and 'belief' through medical science, founded on a material system ... That can be shown to exist ... The absence of evidence that supports immaterial 'souls' is rather damning for those who wish it were true, and in any case, their's is the burden of proving that such things exist ... It is not our responsibility to disprove every possible notion, no matter how improbable, in order to doubt their truth. Negative proof is not necessary to have strong doubt about a thing that possesses no empirical evidence of existence.

I will withhold absolute judgment that immaterial 'souls' absolutely do not exist, but I can with some certainly assert that belief in immaterial souls is unwarranted, given the lack of supporting evidence ...


2) Nobody has ever shown that human feelings are fully the result of physical entities.

In fact: The only REAL evidence for the existence of 'feelings' or 'beliefs, ideas, notions, thoughts', or even 'mind' is through materially-based biological system that can sense and interpret A Posteriori information from a concrete world. There is NO evidence of any other agency to provide these phenomena .... Feel free to provide such evidence here ....

3) Have we ever produced a computer that had feelings? Would that be possible?

By the most basic definition, computers already have feeling, in that they 'sense' real world phenomena and interpret what reactions they should enact. Animals possess 'closed loop' systems that 'feel' through sense organs and operate on sense data through cerebral and nervous system processes which form the basis of 'feelings' ..... biological systems are far more advanced than human designed computer systems, but the basic form of 'closed loop sense processing' certainly exists now, if crudely ....

4) And by the way, this post has very little to do with religion. You can call it philosophy, but it's not religion.

That may be true in your case, but the assertion that immaterial objects exist in concrete terms is typically offered as a basis for theology of some sort ....

[Time for change]

27. More points

1) Their's is the burden of proving that such things exist ... It is not our responsibility to disprove every possible notion, no matter how improbable, in order to doubt their truth. Negative proof is not necessary to have strong doubt about a thing that possesses no empirical evidence of existence.

I will withhold absolute judgment that immaterial 'souls' absolutely do not exist, but I can with some certainly assert that belief in immaterial souls is unwarranted, given the lack of supporting evidence ...

Why on earth is the burden of proving the truth on those who believe in souls rather than the other way around -- especially given the fact that there are more of us then you? You simply assert that the soul is "improbable", and therefore the burden of proof is on us. I could just as well say the same thing. I, and billions of other people believe that it is highly improbable that immaterial feelings come out of physical substances.

Furthermore, I never said that I had absolute proof that souls exist. I merely discussed why I believe that they do. You're the one who seems so certain of yourself.

2) In fact: The only REAL evidence for the existence of 'feelings' or 'beliefs, ideas, notions, thoughts', or even 'mind' is through materially-based biological system that can sense and interpret A Posteriori information from a concrete world. There is NO evidence of any other agency to provide these phenomena .... Feel free to provide such evidence here ....

The evidence for the existence of feelings in myself is that I feel them (And I assume that other people do too). You discredit that on the basis of your claim that I'm fully a "materially-based biological system". That's a tautological statement and circular reasoning. Sure, if all we are is a "materially-based biological system" then you're right. But you're simply making an assumption to prove your point.

3) By the most basic definition, computers already have feeling, in that they 'sense' real world phenomena and interpret what reactions they should enact. Animals possess 'closed loop' systems that 'feel' through sense organs and operate on sense data through cerebral and nervous system processes which form the basis of 'feelings' ..... biological systems are far more advanced than human designed computer systems, but the basic form of 'closed loop sense processing' certainly exists now, if crudely ....

I see no evidence whatsoever that computers have feelings. The fact that something reacts to something does not mean that it has feelings. I hit a ball with a baseball bat, and it flies away, so it "sensed" the baseball bat. That doesn't mean that a ball has feelings. There is a world of ddifference between experiencing emotions and reacting to physical phenomena. The difference is consciousness.

4) That may be true in your case, but the assertion that immaterial objects exist in concrete terms is typically offered as a basis for theology of some sort ....

My statement applied to my post, which is the post that you said belonged in the religion/theology forum.

[Odin2005]

38. Your unfounded assumptions based on cultural upbrining are showing

1. The burden of proof is always on the person making a positive assertion

2. The subjective point-of-view is not a good source of evidence. After all, Neuroscience has shown that the way our brains work contradicts this kind of naive subjectivism, a lot of our subjective reality is an illusion manufactured by our brains based on past information, that is how optical illusions work, taking advantage of out our brain "fills in" things.

3. These are typical unfounded opinions spewed by people like John Serle with dogmatic beliefs against sentient AI. Daniel Dennett makes short work of such nonsense in his well known book "Consciousness Explained", a book I suggest you read.

[Time for change]

46. Oh, right

The burden of proof is on me rather than on you because I'm making a positive of assertion and you're not. At least I have the humility to admit that I might be wrong about this. You don't. You're the one who's making the positive assertion, not me.

And your idea that the subjective point of view is not a good source of evidence in an area like this is not relevant here. There are many sciences that deal with studying emotions. Emotions are subjective. Some things need to be studied in a subjective way. We don't have an accurate means of knowing precisely what another person feels.

I did read "Consciousness Explained" -- many years ago. I think that a lot of what Dennett writes is very interesting. But I found "Consciousness Explained" to be unconvincing.

[Trajan]

63. You have convinced yourself ....

That your fantasy of the foundation of consciousness is the truth, and have apparently declared no veracity of any kind is required ....

Your belief in immaterial souls is all the proof you need ....

What's the point of even discussing the matter with you ? .... You might as well be a Flat Earther ... There is little separating you from them ...

[Time for change]

73. Look who's talking

I responded to each of your invalid points, and you didn't even bother to answer them. Instead, you come up with the brilliant move of calling me a Flat Earther. Brilliant move!

[Trajan]

95. You have responded with illogical assertions ....

You believe your responses have had substance and can stand as refutations ?

Nonsense .... You have done nothing of the sort ...

You have shifted the burden of proof ...

You have committed an essential ad ignorantiam fallacy ...

You have not rectified or alleviated these essential logical problems in any way ....

Your argument, in a nutshell: I believe it is true, therefore it is true ....

Well ... That doesnt cut it .....

Your fantasy is not a truth ....

[Time for change]

99. This post of yours is nothing but a bunch of name calling

You don't respond to my questions, and when I call you on that, you call me a bunch of names.

Oh, and your last line was really a winner "Your fantasy is not a truth". Great argument.

[Trajan]

117. Name calling ? .... Point out ANY name calling in that post .....

I have no need to continually respond to the same faulty assertions over and over again .... My essential arguments stand in the above threads, and you have not responded to those arguments in any substantial way that actually provided a refutation ....

Shifting the burden ? ... check ...

Ad Ignorantiam ? .... check ....

Circularity ? .... check ....

UNTIL you deal with these primary refutations, we have very little to discuss ....

Just because you choose to believe in something that has NO CONCRETE BASIS, that doesn't mean anyone else should feel compelled to believe it too .... Your assertion of the existence of the immaterial soul is unfounded and unwarranted, and is wholly fallacious ....

Until you effectively deal with the shifting burden and ad ignoratiam problems, you have nothing to stand on .... and we have nothing to talk about ...

But hey: You could accuse me of calling you names .....

[Time for change]

133. those aren't refutations.

They're just a bunch of babble. If I had any idea what you were talking about I'd try to answer them.

[Odin2005]

122. Emotions can be studied objectively via PET and MRI as well as via brain injuries.

And I never said absolutely that incorporeal "souls" don't exist. I said that there is no evidence for their existance and thus I have no reason to believe in such a thing, THAT is being intellectually humble. What you are engaging in is not intellectual humility, it is sophistry.

I don't believe in the existence of incorporeal "souls" for the same reason I don't believe in god or believe there is a teapot in orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars, there is no evidence for their existance. You are missing the distinction between "I don't believe in the existance of X because there is no evidence for it's existance" and "X does not exist".

[anigbrowl]

120. Basically, because you're asserting the existence of the soul

You say it exists as something separate from the body, it's up to you to prove it. The number of people who believe such a thing is irrelevant, any more than the number of people who once believed the earth to be flat makes any difference to a proof of it being round.

On point 2, we know about the existence of thoughts and feelings because we experience them. And we know of material biological systems because we are surrounded by them and can easily identify ourselves as such. This counts as evidence. You argue that there must be something more to being alive than biological material, but frankly I can't see why.

Essentially you're making the same argument as a philosopher called John Searle known as the 'chinese room': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room I disagree with this idea and am basically a connectionist (scroll down at the link).

[Time for change]

139. I said I BELIEVE in the existence of the soul, and I explained why

I didn't say I was CERTAIN that it exists.

So who are you to tell me that I have to prove it?

Nobody has ever been able to explain how feelings derive from physical material. So, the inability to prove that is just as much evidence against that as my inability to prove the existence of the soul.

[anigbrowl]

158. For a scientist, you seem very uncomfortable with logical propositions

Don't take it so personally. If I say 'you have to prove it' I don't mean 'you, personally, must provide proof right now',

[Time for change]

169. I don't have proof

I thought I made that clear in the title to my OP.

If I had made claims to proof, I would have titled my OP "Proof of the Existence of the Human Soul" rather than "My thoughts on the Human Soul".

I thought that should have been clear to anyone reading the OP.

[roguevalley]

89. this subject really interests me and it has nothing to do with

religion. I have always wondered how a gestating body can develop a soul or personality? Is it in some combination of amino acids that mesh together and do it every time for millions of years among trillions of people who have come and gone on the earth? or does a personality enter the body at some point in the gestation period and goes about their life living and learning before leaving at the end, perhaps wiser for the doing of it.

I believe in the existence of the soul. I don't believe in most religious interpretations of the soul. I believe in free will and the greatness of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Imagine a world if others could do that more fully. It would be different and better. IMHO.

[Time for change]

103. Yes. That's exactly the way I feel

[anigbrowl]

116. One does not need to prove a negative proposition

You have consciousness. You call this your soul if you feel like it. You find it depressing to consider that this is purely a material phenomenon, but I don't. We're quite comfortable considering small organisms like insects as mechanistic (and they are: here's one famous example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphex) and the human brain is not fundamentally different in its mode of operation - just orders of magnitude more complex.

Yes, I think it's entirely possible for a computer to have feelings. In fact, I consider it inevitable; I have a slim hope of seeing it within my lifetime.

[Jambalaya]

167. Philosophy of Soul and Immortality

The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the body is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound up the doctrine of a future life. Various theories as to the nature of the soul have claimed to be reconcilable with the tenet of immortality, but it is a sure instinct that leads us to suspect every attack on the substantiality or spirituality of the soul as an assault on the belief in existence after death.

The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term "mind" usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while "soul" denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well. That our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body, is the doctrine of spirituality.

If there be a life after death, clearly the agent or subject of our vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the body. The belief in an animating principle in some sense distinct from the body is an almost inevitable inference from the observed facts of life.

Even uncivilized peoples arrive at the concept of the soul almost without reflection, certainly without any severe mental effort. The mysteries of birth and death, the lapse of conscious life during sleep and in swooning, even the commonest operations of imagination and memory, which abstract a man from his bodily presence even while awake—all such facts invincibly suggest the existence of something besides the visible organism, internal to it, but to a large extent independent of it, and leading a life of its own.----------------------------------------------------

[Jambalaya]

168. Philosophy of Soul and Immortality-[link]

The above commentary was excerpted from :

New Advent:CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Soul The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the body is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound up the ...
www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm - 65k -


The ENTIRE piece is worth reading,and discusses the various philosophies associated with the existence or non existence of soul. Don't let the Catholic part throw you off. Its a superior piece,imho,for its clarity and conciseness.

[The Straight Story]

19. "no evidence whatsoever that 'immaterial' entities such as souls exist" I would disagree

:)

[anigbrowl]

123. I can't help noticing that you didn't present any evidence to justify your disagreement

[patrice]

3. ? thoughts and feelings are not non-material. nt

[Time for change]

9. What material do you think they're made of?

[Odin2005]

14. thoughts and emotions = various neruon firing patterns. n/t

[Time for change]

26. Emotions are NOT neurons

We know that neurons have an effect on our emotions, and it's even possible -- though I doubt it very much -- that neurnons are the only things that have an effect on our emotions. But to say that neurons ARE emotions is absurd.

That's like saying that bullets are the same thing as guns because they come out of them when the gun is fired. But they also have an existence independent of a gun.

[Odin2005]

32. I said emotions and thoughts are the electro-chemical activity OF the neurons.

That is simply a fact.

[Time for change]

48. No, that is not what you said

In answer to my question, "What materials do you think thoughts and feelings are made of?", you said, "Thoughts and feelings = various neuron firing patterns n/t". That's an exact quote. Look it up. Post # 14 of this thread.

So, my question still stands.

[ImOnlySleeping]

65. To be fair

You did misquote to equate emotions with neurons whereas the post was that the emotion was the result of a series of events, which is the psychologically correct explanation. The residual feeling (sadness, fear, hope, etc) could be a storage of the feeling much as you store images, sounds and other senses. A feeling is really just another way that you experience life.

[Time for change]

66. I don't understand what you're saying I misquoted.

I quoted Odin2005 by cutting and pasting from his previous post. How could I misquote that?

[ImOnlySleeping]

71. this way

So, he said "thoughts and emotions = various neruon firing patterns"

Then you said "Emotions are NOT neurons
We know that neurons have an effect on our emotions, and it's even possible -- though I doubt it very much -- that neurnons are the only things that have an effect on our emotions. But to say that neurons ARE emotions is absurd".

So he is saying that the activity is the cause and you are implying that he thinks the object is the cause. So, while you do quote him later on, you are misrepresenting his words.

[Time for change]

75. My question was

What materials are thoughts and feelings made of, in response to a poster who said that they are composed of materials.

Odin responded by saying "thoughts and emotions = various neruon firing patterns". How else am I to take that response to my question other than to think that he is saying that thoughts and emotions ARE neurons? My question was what materials thoughts and feelings are made of. I guess it didn't occur to me that he meant to say that a "pattern" is a material.

So, to go back to my gun bullet analogy, where I claimed that guns and bullets are not the same thing just because bullets are fired from guns, he would be saying that bullets are the firing patterns of guns. Either way, it makes no sense to me.

[varkam]

79. Would you say that the electical discharge, the neurotransmitters that cross the...

synapse, and the ions that pass through the axon are material or non-material?

[Time for change]

83. They are material

They are not emotions. They affect our emotions, but they are not the same thing as emotions.

[varkam]

86. And I believe the crux of this whole, big, bad discussion is...

what is your basis for stating that? You seem to be arguing for a dependent-type dualism. I mean, at least it's better than classic dualism since it recognizes the importance of the brain, but it's not much better. For example, it still doesn't resolve some of the most basic questions how how that would work in all practicality - for example, if our emotions are immaterial, then how would material activity affect them? For example, if we are experiencing the mental state of pain, then why is it the case that our taking an aspirin changes that mental state?

[Time for change]

97. That's right -- My discussion does not resolve lots of basic questions

Neither does the statment that thoughts and emotions are material. If they are material, then what material are they? Nobody has ever identified such a material.

I have acknowledged many times that thoughts and feelings are affected by material things. That does not mean that they are material themselves or that they are completely dependent upon material things.

[varkam]

107. Well...

the fact that certain questions remain unanswered does not mean that an alternative hypothesis is better. Take evolution, for example - the creationist love to yammer on about the holes in the fossil record and say that, since that question remains unanswered, creationism is a more cogent philosophy. If they were to take a step back, however, they would recognize that while there are unanswered questions, the theory of evolution is consistent with the vast majority of our observations concerning the natural world whereas creationism is not.

It is a similar problem with dualism. There are certainly unanswered questions with respect to materialism - namely how does consciousness arise from neuronal activity in the brain (philosophers in the area of consciousness regard this as the "hard" question). However, nearly all scientific observations are either best explained by or not inconsistent with a materialistic philosophy (and this is what is termed the "easy" question - that consciousness arises from or is due to activity within the material confines of the brain). To accept a dualistic philosophy, however, would to to turn on its head things that we have learned over the past few hundred years. Namely, a materialistic philosophy -- currently -- best fits the question of consciousness. That's not to say that evidence might come along that turns that on its head, but for now it is the best we've got.

If they are material, then what material are they? Nobody has ever identified such a material.

As I wrote, there are certainly unanswered questions - and perhaps questions that we'll never be able to answer. Certainly no one has identified a soul, and yet you seem to have no problem accepting that hypothesis. Why would it require such a leap of faith for you to accept that emotions are due to physical activity within the brain, even though that question is not yet answered satisfactorily?

I have acknowledged many times that thoughts and feelings are affected by material things. That does not mean that they are material themselves or that they are completely dependent upon material things.

Yes, but how does that happen? How does a material thing interact with or otherwise affect something that is non-material? I mean just in general - not necessarily with respect to this discussion. I mean, given our understanding of physics, a non-material entity (besides not being observable) cannot exert any sort of force on something that is material. Now perhaps that a non-material entity can exert such force and that is done all the time, but beyond simply being an unanswered question no one has even proposed a viable mechanism by which that can occur.

[Time for change]

137. "Why would it require such a leap of faith for you to accept that emotions are due to physical

activity within the brain?"

I do accept that the brain greatly affects emotions. But I don't accept that it is the only thing that affects emotions. I don't accept that because emotions are non-material, and the brain is material. I also believe that emotions are too complex to be explained on the basis of material alone. I'm not saying that I'm positive I'm right. But I believe it because it makes sense to me for some of the reasont I explained in the OP, and also for some other reasons that I explained on page 234 of my book, which I don't have the energy to type up right now. And since there's no proof either way, I believe what makes sense to me.

People have a tendency to simplify things. Many people think that, because of the great amount of evidence that shows that the brain affects our emotions, therefore the brain IS our emotions. But as I said, that makes no sense to me, and there is no proof that it is true.

[ImOnlySleeping]

108. It' like saying that 1 isn't material

Numbers do not exist. They have no physical makeup. They are concepts that we understand, much like emotions. I don't get why you are so insistent that emotions/feelings need to have a specific physical make up. I can't hold the colour red. Our ability to read isn't a physical object. I can't look at a good joke under a microscope. We can discuss these things and use pictures to describe them, but like the vast majority of the really important things, they are constructs of our brains.

[Time for change]

114. Numbers and colors are adjectives. Feelings are nouns

I'm not insistent that feelings have a specific physical makeup. I said just the opposite. My opinion is that they don't have a physical makeup.

[ImOnlySleeping]

119. My apologies

You kept asking, so I was assuming you were implying they were made of something different, rather than nothing. So I guess that begs the question, do you think the soul has mass or does the soul defy physical science (as we understand it)?

[Time for change]

135. I don't believe that the soul is physical

So therefore the laws of physical science don't necessarily apply to it, or perhaps apply to it in lesser degrees. I think that it exists in another dimension, one or more of the extra dimensions that Hawking talked about.

[varkam]

125. Ah, but numbers *do* exist...

not only in the sense that they are conceptions, but also in the sense that they accurate describe the world around us.

Furthermore, emotions are more than conceptions in that they are a state of mind that has with it attendant physical effects. The conception of emotion is not something off in space, it is a way of describing something that is happening to us.

I don't get why you are so insistent that emotions/feelings need to have a specific physical make up.

Well, I realize that this wasn't directed at me, though I was arguing for it. The point is not to be "insistent that emotions/feelings need to have a specific physical make up", but rather that it is the most cogent position given the evidence that we have. That's not only relying on philosophy, and the evidence that we have from neuro-scientific studies (such as fMRI and PET scans), but also just a basic problem that the immaterial cannot interact with the material.

I can't hold the colour red. Our ability to read isn't a physical object.

Colors are indeed concepts, and you cannot hold them. Colors are not, however, a property of our brain. The ability to perceive colors and process them, however, is controlled by physical processes within the eyes and brain. Ditto for the ability to read.

We can discuss these things and use pictures to describe them, but like the vast majority of the really important things, they are constructs of our brains.

Indeed, many things are conceptions - but the things that you've mentioned have little to do with emotions, much less consciousness.

Welcome to DU, btw :hi:

[ImOnlySleeping]

132. Don't worry

I primarily agree with you. I was posting in response to "If they are material, then what material are they? Nobody has ever identified such a material". Where I would disagree is your statement that "the things that you've mentioned have little to do with emotions". Emotions aren't set in stone or identical for all, but rather the product of our experience and 'describ(es) something that is happening to us" as you had mentioned previously.

[anigbrowl]

124. I think they are emotions.

What's your basis for saying otherwise? You mention elsewhere that a bullet isn't a gun, but equally I'm not aware of emotions unattached to people. I don't see clouds of free-ranging happiness, sadness or fear, for example.

[ImOnlySleeping]

87. I think what he means

is that when you feel something, a response is triggered in your brain (as a function of your senses causing a number of neurons to fire) and coded there and you remember that reponse and can think of that response and recall that response. It's not that this neuron is fear and this one is bliss, it's that when I was scared, I saw this and heard that and smelt something else and so on and thousands of neurons were set off. So a feeling is a recollection of previous experiences, and being an incredible species, we can translate those feelings into unique situations (which is pretty amazing). That allows us to be moved by art or to feel empathy or to be bullied into submission by fear alone. To qualify what I've said above, realistically, we know almost nothing about the specifics of the brain, but we do observe the same areas of the brain being stimulated when we observe something as when we recall it (which leads to the theoretical working of recall I posted above).

As for the gun bullet analogy it really applicable in this situation. It would be like saying that a bullet killed someone versus a chain of nervous system events caused a trigger to be pulled initiating a chemical reaction that led to a physical reaction that propelled a bullet out of a gun and into a person where a series of biological reactions led to the cessation of life.

[Marr]

91. He did not say that thoughts and neurons are the same thing.

He referenced the patterns of firing neurons. It's like using a light bulb and Morse code to spell out the word "apple". The light bulb is obviously not an apple. The pattern emitted by the light bulb signifies an apple to another human being, and it's all completely material.

[Time for change]

94. Right -- The pattern emitted by the light bulb signifies the apple

But it is NOT an apple.

My question, in response to the statement that thoughts and feelings are material entities, was "What materials are they made of". What sense does it make to say that the materials that they are made of are the firing of neurons? The firing of the neurons have an effect on our thoughts and feelings, but they are NOT our thoughts and feelings.

[anigbrowl]

127. You keep asserting this, but make no attempt at demonstrating it

That is, "The firing of the neurons have an effect on our thoughts and feelings, but they are NOT our thoughts and feelings." Why shouldn't they be? You appear to be arguing that thoughts and feelings have some kind of independent existence which is separate from our bodies. But why should this be the case?

[Time for change]

140. Why do I think that the firing of neurons is not the same thing as my thoughts and feelings?

Because I experience my thoughts and feelings and I don't experience the firing of my neurons, for one thing.

Do you think a gun and bullets are the same thing because firing the gun causes the bullets to fly out?

[anigbrowl]

160. Oh really

Isn't that a bit like saying you don't experience your individual tendons, muslces etc. when you move you arm around, or for that matter saying you don't experience your own blood cells, and so forth?

Personally speaking, I feel like I have had some experience of neural firing, from very mild seizure-like symptoms which were reminiscent of electrical resonance to noticing distinct changes in the behavior of my visual cortex under the influence of certain drugs whose chemical interaction with cells has the effect of changing neural firing and activation thresholds.

I'm afraid I don't think much of your gun analogy. As I pointed out elsewhere, feelings are something that only seem to exist in the context of people and specifically of their brains.

[Time for change]

171. To use your example

When my muscles contract, they cause my whole body to move in a certain way. The contraction of my muscles and the movement of my whole body represent a cause and effect chain. One causes the other, though the cause and effect may not be 100% correlated. For example, other physical factors such as gravity and wind will also influence how my body moves when my muscle contracts. But my main point is that that does not mean that the contraction of my muscle and the movment of my body are the same identical thing. They are related, but not the same thing.

To bring that analogy to the neurons firing and my emotions, there is also a cause and effect relationship there. The firing of my neurons has a strong effect on my emotions, which are also influenced by other things as well. But that does not mean that firing of neurons = emotions. They are not the same thing, any more than the contraction of my muscles are the same thing as the movement of my body that is largely caused by the contraction of my muscles.

[Marr]

186. Let me ask you this. If our thoughts and emotions exist independently

of our body/brain, why are mental processes consistently and predictably impaired by certain surgeries/injuries? Why do some drugs affect perception and decision-making in such predictable ways?

[Time for change]

188. I have acknowledged numerous times on this thread and in my OP

that our thoughts and feelings are affected by material things, especially in our brain. However, that does not mean that physical activities in our brain are the ONLY thing that affect our thoughts and feelings. Knowing the activities in the brain cannot precisely predict exactly what thoughts or feelings will occur from them -- NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE. That leaves open the possibility that there are other things as well.

I never said that I thought that our sould was COMPLETELY independent of physical processes. I merely said that there is SOME independence. Causation and independence of effect are NOT all or none phenomena -- although many participating on this thread seem to be unable to think in any terms other than black and white, all or none causation.

[Marr]

190. I understand what you were saying perfectly fine. The problem is that

by saying it's 'partially independent', you're just sticking a magical label on something that doesn't need it.

If consciousness were partially independent of these physical explanations, then why is it *completely* undone by physical trauma? Memories can be completely obliterated by removing some tissue. If there were something operating independent of that tissue, even partially, then shouldn't there be some trace of those memories?

[Time for change]

193. You say that memories are completely undone by removing certain tissue, but you don't know that.

Maybe they're made much less accessable but are still there. You materialists seem so sure that scientific knowledge in this area is so certain. It isn't.

Here's a post on this thread where I discuss some specific evidence for an independent soul that I didn't discuss in the OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4837861&mesg_id=4839103

[anigbrowl]

189. I'm not seing your reasoning here

You keep saying your thoughts or emotions are separate from your neural patterns, but I don't see how. The fact that your body is also subject to external factors is neither here nor there; after all, your mind is responsive to external information, but your ability to process that depends on your brain.

[Time for change]

192. I'm not saying that they're separate. There is obviously a strong relationship between them

I'm saying that they are not the same thing.

This is not a black and white issue. There are not just 2 choices here: Either emotions are completely separate from our brain or they are exactly the same thing. Those are not the only two choices. They are obviously strongly associated with each other. But there is no evidence to say that they are the same thing. If you know of any, then tell me what it is.

[anigbrowl]

194. I don't see any reason NOT to think they're the same thing

You keep saying they're different, but I'm not at all clear why you would think so. You did mention earlier that you don't experience your neurons directly, but as I pointed out you don't experience your individual muscle/bone/tendon/nerve/blood cells directly either.

[Time for change]

195. I don't understand your point

When I said I don't experience my neurons directly, that wasn't meant to imply that they aren't real. It was meant only to imply that they are different than feelings, which I do experience directly.

I also pointed out that my muscle moves various parts of my body, but that doesn't mean that it IS the part of my body that it moves.

It's difficult for me to fathom why anyone would think that a firing neuron is the exact same thing as an emotion, just because it contributes to the development of the emotion. You say it's not clear to you why I think that a neuron and an emotion are different. It's not at all clear to me why you think they're the same. Do you think that a muscle is the same as the bone that it moves just because it moves the bone?

[anigbrowl]

196. No...what I think is that emotions = the pattern of neural firings

I experience things like heat or cold as a pattern of neural firings which depends on input from nerve cells. Happiness or sadness are internally generated representations of my state of mind - that is, I might be sitting at home thinking about different things and feel happy or sad without any specific external stimuli, but rather because of reviewing stored memories. I don't see neural activity as a string of single cause-effect interactions, but rather as a continuous feedback loop.

Even simple feedback loops can give rise to extremely complex and nonlinear behavior. For example, consider the function Xn+1 = R Xn (1- Xn), where X is a value between 0 and 1 and R is a real number. For many values of R X will quickly tend to zero or 1, but you Set R to about 3.75 or so you'll get chaotic behavior, whose pattern is only apparent if you map this equation in phase space.

Consider the sheer size of the brain (ie, the rather vast # of neurons) I don't find it at all strange that it could be host to emergent phenomena such as consciousness. To return to the body analogy, I don't think muscle and bone are the same but I do think they're part of the same system. Correspondingly, the brain has different regions for handling perceptual input (frontal cortex), generating hormones (the limbic system) etc. etc. (obviously I am grossly oversimplifying here...).

It seems to me that any kind of mentation, whether organic or computer based, goes through a few stages.

1. it responds to changes in inputs with set actions. A simplistic electronic system like this would be a thermostat, that turns the heat on or off in response to measured temperature. The simplest organisms (which are rather more complex, but...) follow a pattern of absorb nutrients - accumulate energy - reproduce (I'm thinking of bacteria and cell division).

2. A more complex stage is goal-seeking, that is 'do something until fundamental needs of #1 are satisfied'. In the organic world this would be equivalent to multicellular organisms with simple flagellae that move around largely at random in hope of encountering favorable conditions, such as the presence of nutrients.

3. More complex again is the addition of memory, where an organism retains some mental impression of their environment and uses it to get around. I mentioned the wasp Sphex earlier, which is famous for NOT having any memory. The apparently hardwired behavior of this wasp is to sting something, paralyze it, dig/find a suitable hole, drag the paralyzed prey inside, and lay eggs inside it. It's famous because researchers noticed that if they kept moving the prey away from a suitable hole, the wasp would keep going through the cycle of dragging the paralyzed prey to the hole and then checking for suitability, no matter how many times it had already done so. (this is not to say insects are incapable of learning; it seems they are, to a limited degree. However, different instincts may have different learning thresholds. Reproduction is obviously very important, so it maybe that hardwired behavior improves evolutionary fitness.) So the capacity for memory gives rise to the possibility for learning, and thus for making assumptions about the environment.

4. Basic memory and learning, as above, is probably sufficient for things like 'where to find food' or 'this smells like predator'. Somewhere above this comes the birth of curiosity, as evidenced by mammals which are more likely to experiment with the unknown until it rewards or rejects them in some way, and recall the fact. Snakes and lizards, by contrast, don't seem to have a great deal of inner life. Of course there's some in-between examples. Some kinds of octopus can learn to open a jar with a screw-top and remember the activity, to quickly open another jar - but only if they encounter it pretty quickly. After about a half-hour, they forget about it and then have to learn how to do it all over again. We like cats and dogs because they are sufficiently curious and have sufficient memory to acquire habits, expectations, and preferences. Teaching pets to do tricks is somewhat entertaining, as we can relate to it; watching pets develop their own tricks, even more so. This level of memory seems to be tied to a capacity for imitation.

5. Somewhere above #4 comes an awareness of self as separate from the environment. One way to measure this is by the mirror test - marking an animal somewhere which they can only see in the mirror, to see if they react. This is the equivalent of drawing a moustache and glasses on someone's face while they are passed out. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test for a brief explanation). It happens I distinctly remember such a moment from my own infancy, where I was staring at myself in a mirror and suddenly realized it was me (and thus, that I was one of those human creatures). This isn't my earliest memory, but rather my first memory of agency. With this realization, and the ability to recall it, comes the capacity to not only mentally model one's environment, as in #4, but to model one's impact upon it. I suspect that this is required for the understanding of time, language and other abstractions.

6.

In short, I am suggesting that consciousness arises out of one's ability to model one's self as a component in one's mental environment, and go from 'if I do this, change occurs' to 'if change occurs, I am affected'.

[Time for change]

197. I'm familiar with that theory

That's what my dad believed, and I argued with him about it a lot. That what Daniel Dennett tried to explain in his book, "Consciousness Explained". I know that there are a lot of people who believe that.

And I'm aware that there are tons of evidence that show a connection between the activities of the brain and our mental and emotional functions.

But there is a HUGE difference between: 1) Patterns of neural firings have strong effects on our thoughts and emotions and 2) Patterns of neural firings are identical to thoughts and emotions.

I submit that there is no good evidence to bridge the gap between 1 and 2. I believe in 1 rather than 2 because:

A. The concept of equating feelings with a chemical/physical/biological process is too incredible for me to believe in.

B. Theory # 2 would imply the absence of free will, which I feel certain that I have.

C. Because of the testimony of hundreds of people regarding near death/ out of body experiences which had profound effects on their belief in the independence of the soul from the body.

D. As part of those out of body experiences, some people observed things while they were presumably dead or unconscious, including Carl Jung, that were later corrobarated.

In the absence of anything resembling proof of theory # 2, I believe theory # 1 for the above noted reasons.

[varkam]

78. His reply did not state that emotions are neurons.

:shrug:

[Time for change]

84. See my post # 75

[gtar100]

176. Or from another view: electro-chem activity is interpreted by the experiencer as thought/emotion

The original OP I think addressed that well. Interesting thread. Fascinating reactions to it - from hostility to agreement.

[Odin2005]

126. Maybe I wasn't making myself clear.

thoughts and emotions are physical processes that occur in the brain, just like a computer program is a process occurring in a computer.

[teknomanzer]

156. ALL BOW BEFORE THE MARVEL OF WESTERN SCIENCE!

Do not question mankind's greatest achievement: the Scientific Method. It can be used to find all the answers.

Or can it? I think you would be very hard pressed to find a scientist willing to admit that.

Why? Because science only deals with matters of quantification. Science only measures, and counts - it does not assign value, and since human being's live according to a system of values derived the sublime mystery of experience, science will always simply be a system of measuring and counting. The purpose of science is not to discover the existence of the soul, or God, or reveal the meaning of life. Science concerned with explaining natural phenomenon in the material world.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, there is in fact a sublime mystery in human existence. You live it every day. The soul isn't something that can be measured. We can't determine if one exists by calculating the difference in mass after someone dies. The soul is an idea, a concept, an immaterial thing we use to describe the experience of knowing a person. A kind of knowledge that lies outside the realm of science. When you describe the experience of human emotions to a mere firing of synapses in a pattern you come dangerously close to reducing the totality of life to some clicking of beads on a giant abacus. Any you know at depth of your very being that is not so.

You think I am wrong? I would assume that as a member of this forum you share with us some opposition to the events of the last 8 years or so. For the sake of conversation I will assume that you did not support the Iraq war. If you did not, was it because the final tally on the balance sheet came up negative? Or was because you felt revulsion at the slaughter and destruction that commenced after the American people were deceived. And if you do feel that way perhaps you should disregard that feeling, after all it is no more than a pattern of firing synapses in your cranium canister. And those that died and suffered are no more than some carbon based chemicals moving around in a sea of subatomic particles. Nothing lost there. It is all just cause and effect. But then again maybe that feeling you have is the result of something real yet intangible. That thing we call virtue, value, conscience - or in a metaphorical sense your soul.

Do not discount it, my friend, regardless of whether or not there is proof of its existence. It is the one thing that separates you from men who neurotically count dollars without contemplating the quality of human life.

[Bill McBlueState]

162. What about Eastern science?

The Japanese and Chinese astronomers I work with seem to come to the same conclusions as our European colleagues when presented with the same evidence. But your post title indicates that there's something different about the science coming out of Western nations. Otherwise, you would have just said "science" without the qualifier. Care to enlighten me?

[teknomanzer]

170. I will definitely break that down for you.

Definitions:

Western - relating to or characteristic of the western parts of the world or the West as opposed to the eastern or oriental parts; i.e. "the Western world ..."

Science - A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability, and the collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline.


I did not use the phrase "Western Science" to belittle your Asian colleagues nor to imply that there is some other science that is superior to and more effective than "Western Science" for accomplishing what it is that the scientific method is used for. I used the phrase to point out that the modern scientific method as a discipline is a development of occidental philosophy. There is a bias towards western philosophy as being superior to other ideas, and the Scientific method is held up as the epitome of western philosophy as proof of this superiority. For it is certain that science never fails. You said it yourself, "The Japanese and Chinese astronomers I work with seem to come to the same conclusions as our European colleagues when presented with the same evidence." I shall not disagree with you. To this day there is no better method of prediction, or discovery, or measuring, counting, and categorizing than the scientific method.

I wonder however, whether your colleagues come to the same conclusions when discussing the quality of life's experiences. I don't need to peer into a microscope, telescope, or use a spectrometer to know with some certainty that while your colleagues may share a significant number of values they do not agree on everything. I am also certain that no matter the geographic location of their origin they cannot use the scientific method to answer questions concerning values.

The scientific method cannot answer questions such as: Why do I exist? Why does anything exist? What purpose is there for my existence? What is my place in the world? What should my values be? The Western scientific method does not deal with these and other abstractions. For that I might have to turn to an "EASTERN" science - as in a practice or discipline that is a development of the philosophy of the orient. Maybe I would take up some yoga or tai chi, or consult with a Zen master for instruction on meditation. All these are methods, practices, disciplines, or sciences, if you will, used to develop insight to human experience. This Eastern Science is not superior to Western Science. It simply has different aims. I have also heard that these practices work just as well for Europeans as they have for Asians.

I hope that clears up the reason why I attached the word "western" to "science."

In conclusion here I will use a story from the eastern discipline of Zen that introduces some of the practice. Think about how the scientific method would answer the question.

A student approaches his master and asks, "Why do we eat?"

The master answers, "If you don't know then eat your breakfast. And clean your bowl when you finish."

[Jambalaya]

166. Science of the soul

These are all quite analytical and advanced,however,you may find this link* of particular interest.


Libro - Victor Mansfield - Synchronicity, Science, and Soul-Making ...
Titolo: Synchronicity, Science, and Soul-Making: Understanding Jungian Synchronicity Through Physics, Buddhism, and Philosophy; Autore: Victor Mansfield ...

Synchronicity
Unfolding the Enfolded... Cosmos, Mind & Soul. Cosmos · Mind · Soul · TOE · Home · Institute of Noetic Sciences (off-site) ...
www.enfolded.info/soul/synchronicity/synchronicity.htm
The Rhine-Jung Letters: Distinguishing Parapsychological from ...
The Rhine-Jung Letters: Distinguishing Parapsychological from Synchronistic Events. Journal article by Victor Mansfield, Sally Rhine-Feather, James Hall; ...
www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001378994


<*> HQR: Burden of Proof, Synchronicity & Applications : intentblog
HQR: Burden of Proof, Synchronicity & Applications. DK Matai - March 16, 2007. Further to the Socratic Dialogue with Pure & Applied Scientists, ...
www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/03/hqr_burden_of_p.html

[Marr]

187. I don't see why your entire mental state can't be explained by the firing of neurons.

You say that we should all just "know" it isn't so, but why? Because it seems too simple? The world is full of great complexity born of simple parameters.

The pattern of branches and leaves on a tree can be reduced to a very simple, repeated ratio, and a tendency to reach for light-- but the trees' growth can be almost infinitely varied. All the music you've ever heard or ever will hear is comprised of just a few notes.

I see no reason at all why my consciousness cannot be wholly expressed through a system of firing neurons and chemicals. I think that notion makes our existence all the more fascinating and precious, not less so.

[stillcool]

4. I have a soul...and it is the essence of me...

it is when I experience the bittersweet in life, death and pain, that it is most pronounced. That kind of loss that takes a piece of you with it. Those things in life that you know you can never recover from...things that rip my soul, and force my mind to account, take stock, grow or go. I went to the beach the other day, by myself on this empty beach, looking at the ocean. Hearing the water make the most melodic sound. A gift for me. Just me. When I was four years old my father gave me an inflatable duck. I never lived with him, but he showed up at my school and gave it to me. Whenever I think life sucks, I remember that moment. Pure joy to my soul. I don't think any person that I've encountered in my life truly dies, until I die.

[Time for change]

49. Very well said

That's largely the way I feel.

[Trajan]

69. I think you have it backwards ...

The essence of you IS your soul .... In other words; from the actual, real, concrete material 'You', founded on a central nervous system, brain stem, high functioning brain, and your sense organs, used since birth and developed throughout your REAL existence ... From that 'you', comes a 'sense' of you ... what you call your 'essense' ... What some might call a soul .... But that sense is founded PURELY on mechanical functions of your biological system .... It is within the 'software' running on your 'hardware' that you develop any sense or feelings whatsoever ....

Even I, a strict materialist, believes in 'animal souls', if the meaning of the term 'soul' defines the state of mind of an existent being in all of it's sense experiences, forming a complex and manifold set of feelings, ideas, memories and thoughts .... ALL that forms the human psyche throughout it's existence forms an 'animal soul', in my materialist view .... It is that existent state of being which is adorned by many with speculative attributes and causes.

In the end; animals are thinking machines .... whatever thoughts they may have can only be ABSTRACTIONS of real world events or objects ... They are sensed events captured within a neural foundation, and maintained throughout life as memories of feelings, and processed AS abstract thoughts in our day to day lives .....

The actual concrete objects are what is 'real' .... Your thoughts about people and events are not 'real', they are abstractions of what is real .... Your ideas and perceptions are nothing but neural processes in an active biological substrate ....

Remove that material substrate, and your ideas and perceptions cease to exist ....

When you say "I don't think any person that I've encountered in my life truly dies, until I die.", I believe the reality is: You don't think the ABSTRACT perception of any person you have encountered truly dies, until you die ....

Well .. that would be a true statement .... Your THOUGHTS about those people, your memories of them, do persist whether or not they are alive or not, but they are not the actual persons who really existed in a concrete world ... They are only YOUR thoughts, and those thoughts are formed within your existent and active brain .... They will be with you until you die (or your brain is damaged materially) ...

[stillcool]

74. I disagree..

my thoughts and my feelings are the only thing that is real, the only thing I have in life that I own. There is no permanence, those actual concrete objects disappear, and are no longer real. The realities of existence..universal laws of the world in which I inhabit, the human body, the science of life forms, are indicative of the world I inhabit, the parameters in which I exist. But my life, as a single entity in time and place, is only real to me.

[Trajan]

118. So ...

Did the world exist before you were born ?

[stillcool]

134. what is your intent, by asking..

a question like that? Is it your way of belittling?

[Trajan]

144. That would be an implication of your stated belief ....

According to your previous posts, things only exist in your mind .... There is no real world outside of your mind .... it is an extreme idealist position to assume ...

I take a completely opposite tack: the things that exist, materially, in the natural universe, are very real, and my thoughts about them, including the attributes of people whom I have known, are imperfect images that lack the fidelity of 'truth' because they are abstract models of reality, imperfectly acquired through weak senses and defective neural processes.

It is the REAL being: The one that has 1,258,546 hairs on their body, 4754 freckles, etc etc ... THAT is the real thing: our captured image of 'Joan has red hair and some freckles' is a poor representation of the reality ... a low fidelity abstraction of the real being .... Every mental image from sensed objects has that same quality of a degraded abstraction : We cannot know about 'things' in the real world in any perfect sense, because there are simply too many aspects to objects to know each and every thing about them .... Our brain naturally creates simple models that represent the people we meet and the things we learn in our day to day lives .... Live beings can operate in this world with such simple models, and have for hundreds of millions of years ....

You seem to place a sentimental value on your memories, and so does most everyone else who waxes nostalgic or considers their place in the cosmos, and I have no issue with your feelings about family or friends, but that is not my point ... Your sentimental notions do not make people 'real' ... Their actual, concrete existence makes them 'real' ....

I understand your emotional feelings are strong about these things, and there is no offense intended, but some intellectual rigor should be expected in a thread like this ....

Honesty and integrity are far better assets in life than sentimentality, in my view ....

[stillcool]

145. So I'm dishonest and lacking integrity..

because my perception of my being and my life differs from yours?

[Trajan]

148. If you agree to concepts that have no rational basis ....

Then yes, there is a lack of integrity ...

As far as being 'dishonest' because our opinions differ .... That is a Strawman: We are all 'different', and yet not everyone is dishonest ...

BTW: There is a huge difference between being 'dishonest' and being 'intellectually dishonest' ....

I think you are just being intellectually lazy .....

Better ?

:shrug:

[stillcool]

149. is it better for you?

You're the one making assertions about who I am, and the validity or lack thereof, in how I view my own existence. I don't know what to think about who/what you are. I guess I'm not as adept at passing judgment as you are. One thing I do know, is that you will have no further presence in my mind.

[patrice]

5. I think a lot of what is thought of as "non-material" is really emergent properties of highly comple

x, non-discrete, sets of sub-systems. This is the source of statements such as "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

[deaniac21]

6. Soul definately exists.

[SidDithers]

42. Best post in this thread...

and just to bolster your argument :)



Sid

[Mari333]

10. great post.

and i concur. quantum mechanics has opened up a whole new can o worms.
heres another site you might like

www.nderf.org

[Notwane]

11. The Soul

Yesterday, I sent a poem (titled The Night Whistler) I naively wrote to "feral scholar". After pastig the poem, I wrote two things:

1. Human Intelligence is overrated (we are not as smart as we think)
2. Human beings are Homicidal (we will always kill our own and other living things, the circumstances, numbers, motives, methods and the scale may change)

I think the Soul (the other undiscovered or unacknowledged dimensions of human essence) is the path to discover the perfect level of human intelligence in harmony with the physical world. That would mean NO WAR. It would mean we would have mastered so many other dimensions of our lives beyond the physical, that we would KNOW how to live without war, oppression, injustice, disease, hunger and we would cause the minimum damage to our environment, allowing it to continually regenerate (just like us) to allow us to live without these horrors. It seems heaven might be just right here on earth.

Your piece is GOOD.

Thank you

[Time for change]

85. I love that idea

In the sense that by better understanding ourselves we have a much better chance of learning to live in a way makes for a better world. You found the words to express why I thought this issue is so important, that I couldn't think of.

Not that I understand how we'll get there. But certainly understanding ourselves better will be a big step towards getting there.

And welcome to DU :toast:

[Time for change]

67. Thank you -- I have read about a lot about those near death experiences.

And I also have a friend who described hers to me.

I discuss it more in this post from this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4837861#4839103

There is so much we don't know about some of the most basic things that make us human. I think it's a fascinating subject, and I think it's going to be quite a while before we get a good handle on a lot of this stuff.

[Odin2005]

12. I'm a materialist, so as far as I'm concerned the notion of a soul is BS.

Anyone who knows anything about neuroscience and has an open mind (as opposed to dogmatically holding to dualistic prejudices implanted in us by naive "folk psychology," the Abrahamic religions, and the influence of Descartes) will realize that the mind and the brain are the same thing. A traumatic brain injury can literally turn someone into a totally different person, for example.

IMO the whole concept of "Free Will" is based on unfounded assumptions. The opposite of Determinism is not "Free will" but randomness, which is just as unfriendly to the notion of "Free Will" as Determinism is. And the notion that "Free Will" is necessary for responsibility is polemical nonsense, it is a rationalization of the bigoted notion that Atheists, Secular Humanists, etc. can't be moral. In fact the notion of "Free Will" often leads to people's misfortunes being blamed as the result of moral faults of the individuals concerned (Poor people are lazy!!!). If you believe in "Free Will" you are likely to ignore social, cultural, and economic factors that determines people's behavior, which leads to un-progressive economic beliefs.

[Notwane]

15. Soul Again

Think of it this way: Our inability to reach a complete understanding of all the dimensions of the material and nomaterial components of our lives and the world around us, limits our ability to KNOW how to live properly in this world. This is not a religous thread. Allow your mind to go beyond what you think you know. What if?

[Mari333]

37. einstein blew newtonian materialism out of the water

and its been blowing it away for a while now. hurray for multi dimensional universes....

[Time for change]

16. Believing in free will is not to ignore other factors in determning human behavior

It's simply to acknowledge that we humans have some freedom to back our own choices with regard to at least some things.

[Odin2005]

18. The notion of some "un-moved mover" in the brain is inherently fishy to me.

I suggest you read I Am a Strange Loop by cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter. The subjective feeling of the self as an un-moved mover and a coherent entity is an illusion (something Buddhists happened to have figured out introspectively centuries ago).

[Trajan]

164. Ah ... Hofstadter ....

BRILLIANT author of Godel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid ...

I still rely on the foundations established by that book when attempting to untangle the complexities of the world .... It is truly a masterpiece of logic ...

We can never know everything ...

[Jambalaya]

35. Brainless=Mindless?

EXPERIENCING 'THE CRACK IN THE COSMIC EGG'


The People With No Brains, Do you think 'brain' is 'MIND'? Surprise!!

THE PEOPLE WITH NO BRAINS

Very recently…the campus doctor at the University of Sheffield in the U.K. was treating a math major, when he noticed that the student's head was a little larger than normal. The student was referred to neurology professor John Lorber, for a CAT scan…and it was discovered that he had virtually no brain at all. Surprisingly, the student did have an IQ of 126. He was also doing well in college.

The student, Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity only had a tiny bit of cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column. This student should not have been just seriously retarded & unable to function, according to everything ‘we’ know, but he should have been dead or vegetable like. Regardless, this student lived a normal life and even graduated from college with honors in math. This, unfortunately for CLASSICAL Science, is not the only case. It’s not a one off aberration. There have been hundreds/thousands of such found cases-individuals.

Professor Lorber himself, in the course of his work/investigations, has found several hundred people who have similar conditions. Some he describes as having "no detectable brain," yet
they have scored up to 120 on IQ tests. No one knows how they're able to function at all. In order to justify this complete flouting of ‘The one allowed Reality’, it has been theorized that since we use only about 10% of our brain anyway…that maybe all we really need is a little bit of brain tissue. But, that’s still NONSENSE to ‘what we think we know’. It’s COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY.

Research has established (beyond any doubt?) that the functions of the brain ( which have been mapped comprehensively even lately by newly-invented PET scanners) must have certain degrees of specialization in different areas of the brain. It’s simply anathama to established KNOWLEDGE, that a brain can function without them….let alone live and function. Another question is, where do people with no brains store their memories? It was once thought that memory has a physical existence in the brain…apparently not. Extensive investigations have shown that memory is not located in any one area. One neurologist says, "Memory is everywhere in the brain...AND NOWHERE.

So, if the brain isn't the place where experiences/memories are stored and analysed what's the brain used for? Also…if our human intelligence doesn't exist in our brains, where is it? There is a Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (neuro scientist) who rejects the very idea that the brain is a warehouse for memories. He thinks it may be more like a radio receiver that can tune into the past like an internal time machine. But it may just be that ‘our’ whole notion of REALITY is simply self indulgent and plain wrong.

As we say at irishufology.com…’Nothing is as it seems’, and there is ‘no one Reality’. We are just starting to understand(?) that we ‘don’t know the 1st thing. Here’s another puzzle to provide for Realty being uncertain and queerer than we can know. NEANDERTHALS, OUR DISTANT COMPETITORS FOR DOMINATION OF THE PLANET, HAD 1600 CC BRAINS…OURS ARE ONLY ON AVERAGE 1200 CC’S. THE WHOLE IDEA THAT BRAIN SIZE MEANT ANYTHING TO EVOLUTION WAS ‘SHOT DOWN’ QUICKLY.---------------------------IrishUFology

[Time for change]

That's a very interesting discussion -- I'd never heard of that

[AntiFascist]

17. K&R, I agree that the Religious Right has been mislead...

whether people are Christian, atheist, or other religions they should realize that the Christian Right leadership has taken a positive message and, in many cases, used it for opposite purposes.

[Time for change]

138. No doubt about that.

That's the main tool of the psychopaths. Never tell the truth about anything. The psychiatrist M. Scott Peck wrote a book about evil -- It's called "People of the Lie". It is one of the most interesting books I ever read. He's a Christian, and he wrote the book somewhat from a Christian perspective, but you don't have to be Christian at all to relate to that book. I'm not a Christian, and I loved it.

[defendandprotect]

22. I believe I have soul or spirit . . . and I'm an atheist/agnostic . . .

[pokercat999]

24. Just a short time ago in our history we discovered the atom,

a short time before that we discovered that the earth was round. What we find in the future will be no less astounding in their own time. We assume that thoughts are immaterial because we can't prove otherwise.....yet.

As far as your statements about the Christian religion, I would point to the gods of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Incas, etc., when will humans discard our current gods for new ones or none at all?

[Time for change]

29. I could turn that statement around

Some people assume that thoughts are material because we can't prove otherwise... yet.

[Odin2005]

33. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

There is no evidence for the existance of an incorporeal "soul" so there is no reason to believe in such a thing. Sad that you seem to hold principles of empiricism in contempt.

[Time for change]

60. Sad that you think you know so much

Yes, I've hear of Occam's Razor. Did it ever occur to you that people may differ on what fits in with the principles of Occam's Razor?

I've worked as a scientist for the past 30+ years, published about 30 scientific research papers in peer reviewed medical and public health journals, plus two books. So I do not hold principles of empiricism in contempt.

To me, it seems highly implausable that non-physical entities (like feelings and thoughts) can be produced from purely physical entities. That's Ocam's Razor in action.

But you apparently don't have enough imagination to fathom that non-physical entities exist. That's fine. You're welcome to your opinion. But when you act so certain that you know everything you really come across as obnoxious.

[pokercat999]

72. My earlier point was you assume thoughts and feelings

are non-physical as do most of us but not so many years ago "swamp gas" caused malaria, the earth was flat and bleeding was a accepted treatment for most illness. Will we someday discover thoughts are actually material, with form and substance?

[Time for change]

77. Well, I'm not saying that's not possible

But I do feel strongly that thoughts and feelings are very different than physical things -- Not just different, but qualitatively different. Different, as from another dimension.

Yes, I could be proven wrong about that some day. Or, I could be proven right about it. But then, what about those other 6 or 22 dimensions? What are they? If they aren't spiritual, then why haven't humans noticed them in all the time of our existence as a species?

[pokercat999]

93. You state that like it was FACT, it's a theory only. nt

[Time for change]

106. Huh??

I said that I could be proven wrong. How is that stating it like a fact? Did you read my post?

[pokercat999]

165. To quote:

"But then, what about those other 6 or 22 dimensions? What are they? If they aren't spiritual, then why haven't humans noticed them in all the time of our existence as a species?"

I read your post....do you know what you wrote?

[roguevalley]

105. discovery had a show on dimensions and I believe it was Micchio

Akaku said that dimensions are like pages in a book with many overlapping but unseen. There could be dinosaurs walking in front of your television through your livingroom and you can't see them. :) What a great idea.

[Time for change]

109. I wish I had seen that

[roguevalley]

178. it repeats from time to time on discovery science channel

[conscious evolution]

185. Actually,humans have known about them

for a long time now.
It is only science that has started to realize it.
Tao and buddha schools have known about them for eons.

[Odin2005]

128. Depends on what you mean by "exist"

Emergent phenomena makes a precise definition of "existance" difficult. Nevertheless, said emergent phenomena (such as consciousness, societies, living things) rely completely on physical entities and the interactions theirof for thier existance.

[anigbrowl]

129. ':-o

"To me, it seems highly implausable that non-physical entities (like feelings and thoughts) can be produced from purely physical entities. That's Ocam's Razor in action. "

Why do you find this implausible?

[defendandprotect]

181. Actions, plans are the result of thought ---

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. What if it turns out to be true that the universe is a hologram?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x48593

Then how physical is physical? And who made the hologram? Or is that an unthinking accident too?

Does the mind/soul cease to exist when the brain stops functioning? Or does the brain stop functioning when the mind/soul is no longer driving it?

[mmonk]

28. Before the last 8 years, I might have believed in the concept of a soul.

But now, I'm left with the conclusion that the brain and whatever it decides to accept as truth and reality is the root until it is damaged and the person changes into something unfamiliar. Then when the body's time is up, everything goes out like a light bulb.

[Time for change]

115. So, Bush/Cheney have done that to you?

That's sad.

History has its ups and down, and in the long run it's a long, uphill climb. I agree, there is so much to be discouraged about today.

[mmonk]

136. I think it was the popularity bush had among religious people and

many organized Christian churches that hit a cord with me since I can't find anything connected to the divine in him. Also, the surge in religious bigotry as the result of propaganda surrounding the "war on terror" I detest as it seem to harken back to tribalism. I'm tired of people saying I belong to the party of death when death and sadism is what I've been trying to stop. And finally, I'm tired of the assault on the establishment clause to the Constitution. In my opinion, religion lacks tolerance today as well as human empathy. Maybe because it is so formulaic. I realize there may be more to the definition or belief in a soul than religion, but there is where it gets modern foundations in human thought.

[Time for change]

141. The Religious Right has hijacked Christianity for their own purposes

Psychopaths will always insinuate themselves into organizations that they think will get them close to the levers of power, and sometimes or often they succeed in taking it over. It is sickening, but it has always been like that. Maybe some day it won't.

[mmonk]

153. True. And it's when they make headway as they have now

that religion goes from the personal, good, and or community sharing and caring to threat. The awareness of that threat is what keeps me from getting too close.

[Time for change]

172. Yeah, I can see that

I joined a Unitarian/Universalist Church in about 1990, and quit when I moved from the area in 1994. The Unitarian/Univeralist "religion" is to religion what the DU is to politics. It was once a branch of Christianity, but I don't see how it can be called that any more. It has no dogma attached to it, and it welcomes everybody, including atheists, agnostics, Jews, or people of any other religion. I don't mean that it just tolerates them, it welcomes them into their church. In fact, when I was there, probably over half of the membership was atheists or agnostics. Probably they wouldn't welcome Neocons, however, just as DU doesn't.

[Jambalaya]

147. Hypocrites -r-us

"We have just enough religion to make us hate one another,but not enough to make us love one another."Jonathan Swift

[mmonk]

152. Good one.

[bloom]

30. Souls and responsibility

On the one hand - I like the idea of dimensions that we don't understand that could explain a sense of connection that we don't understand - and that could be something.

But either way (whether there are other dimensions or something outside of our current understanding or not) people are responsible for their actions. Even if we are "just" material beings.

Adding the word "morally" does not change things.

Even if all of our ideas and emotions and whatnot are neurons firing and those neurons are dependent on what genes we inherited and what food we eat - we are responsible for what we do. We have to be or society falls apart. We have to hold each other responsible. We have to have expectations of reasonable behavior. Not everyone will want to meet those expectations - and there will have to be consequences - but expectations have to be there anyway.

It seems that there has been a breaking down of expectations. Some people wanting to think that their own expectations of themselves are just as good as any other expectations. But that doesn't really work in a society. If someone (like Cheney) decides that it's ok to torture and kill people who are from a certain group then if we live by the idea that we can each have our own expectations for ourselves - then he/we can give ourselves permission to do that. Apparently, this is what Cheney has done.

Others do it do a lesser degree. For instance - men who give themselves permission to exploit women, employers who justify treating employees like crap, etc.

A person can call it morality - it can also be considered the social contract. We share a planet. We interact. We want to live in peace.

Some people want to have a standard of living that is above what the average person has. There are what are considered reasonable ways to do that - through education and position, etc. and there are detrimental ways to do that. That of exploitation and theft and abuse.

Either way - a person is using his resources - mental and physical. It's a matter of how one chooses - one's free will that determines how one goes about something. You can call it soul or not. But people have a choice whether you call it soul or whether you don't.
_____________

I think one could argue that there is a gray area about choice when you consider that some people have been "allowed" or managed to get away with polluting (to increase their profits) and that that pollution affects the neurons, etc. of others. Through poisons in food, in the air, etc. Through "poisonous" messages sent through the airwaves. To some extent this has gone on throughout history - people negatively affecting others. So it could be argued that the people who poison others share in the responsibility of the bad behavior that their actions cause. But the only way to hold those people accountable is to hold them accountable for their original actions.

Cheney/Bush and their torture policies will undoubtedly create a ripple of negative actions by those affected - those tortured and those who did the torture. Cheney/Bush 'should' be held accountable for their actions - and the way society works - those affected who go out and create mayhem will have to be held accountable for theirs.

Whether you use the words 'moral' or 'soul' or not - the result and the consequences are the same.

[Odin2005]

34. Exactly.

Like I said above, the notion that "free will" and belief in an incorporeal "soul" are needed for responsibility is a notion directly derived from the bigoted notion that atheists/secular humanists/materialists/etc. can't be moral.

[Time for change]

39. I agree with you for the most part

We need to hold people legally responsible for their actions if for no other reason than that society would fall apart if we didn't.

But there is some difference between holding people legally responsible and morally responsible. I believe it's fair to say that our society generally holds people morally responsible for their actions as well as legally responsible.

I remember a neurology class from medical school, where the neurologist was giving us a lecture and he used as an example a man who mass-murdered several people from the top of a building with a gun. He spoke of the outrage against the man, and then he explained to the class that the man had a brain tumor, which he (the neurologist) attributed to his actions. I don't remember his precise point, but I think it had something to do with showing more understanding for peoples' actions. In some sense, he seemed to be making a case against free will.

But then, his example was an extreme case. In most situations people have more opportunity (IMO) to refrain from actions such as that.

It does make a difference whether he hold people merely legally responsible for their actions, or morally as well. That's why "insanity" can be legally used in a person's defense. And the additional holding of a person morally responsible for their actions certainly results in harsher penalties than would otherwise be the case. And yes, there are lots of grey areas in all of this.

I don't think there is any doubt that the good majority of DUers hold Bush and Cheney MORALLY responsible for their actions as well as legally, and they are therefore quite angry at them. Those who think like that, including me, must believe in free will, whether they realize it or not. If you don't believe in free will, I don't see how you could hold anyone morally responsible for their actions.

[SidDithers]

31. My thoughts on the Human Soul...

There's no evidence that there is one.

Prove me wrong.

Sid

[Time for change]

40. There is no evidence that there isn't one either

[ProfessorGAC]

41. How Can There Be Evidence For "Doesn't Exist"?

Aren't you asking the impossible?
GAC

[SidDithers]

43. Seems that way to me...

:)

Sid

[Time for change]

50. No more impossible than what you're asking

Either our thoughts, feelings, and actions are determined fully by material things.

Or they are also influenced by something immaterial -- which most people define as the soul.

Logically, one of those statements has to be true and the other one false, because they are mutally exclusive. But there is no proof either way.

In either case, the fact that there is no proof for one doesn't mean that the other one is true. It works both ways.

[ProfessorGAC]

52. I Asked Nothing!

Are you simply not paying attention? I didn't ask a thing other than how can there ever be evidence for something that doesn't exist? No matter what it is. If it doesn't exist, there can never be evidence of it. I can't prove to you unicorns don't exist. Because if i find one, they do exist, and if i don't, because they don't exist, there is no evidence to find.

You're being willfully obtuse. People don't agree with you and then you ask the impossible as your rebuttal point. Intellectually dishonest.

Then you tell me it's no more impossible than what i'm asking. I didn't even ask for any proof of anything!
GAC

[Time for change]

64. Ok, let me put it another way then

If the soul doesn't exist, that means that immaterial things (thoughts and feelings) can be created out of material things. That is hard for me to believe. So, I think that when someone tells me that there is no evidence that the soul exists, it is reasonable for me to say that there is no evidence that it doesn't exist -- which is tantamount to saying that there is no evidence that immaterial things can be created out of material things. I think that's a fair statement, and it is not intellectually dishonest or obtuse.

[Terran]

36. I disagree with this:

It seems to me that if you believe in free will from an ethics point of view, then you believe in the soul. That is, if you believe that people should be held morally accountable for their actions, then you believe in the soul. I say that because it seems to me that if all the decisions that a person makes are wholly determined by the physical composition of his or her body (including their brain) plus the sum total of everything the person experiences or is exposed to, I don’t see how that person could legitimately be held morally accountable for anything. I’m sure that someone will tell me I’m wrong about that. But I just don’t see how a person can justifiably be held morally accountable for anything if all of his actions are determined wholly by things that are beyond his control.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you overall about the existence of the soul, I think you're missing something here, which is idea of sentience. I do believe that possession of free will is an a priori truth, but I believe its existence is grounded in intelligence. We as humans (and possibly a couple of other species on this planet) have a gift that allows us to contemplate the consequences of our actions before we commit them, to think long-term, to empathize with others, and to know that our own deaths are inevitable. I think that comes from sentience, which is grounded in our physical bodies and minds, not in something immaterial. Is there a connection between the soul and sentience? Maybe. I almost think that's the bigger question: does one require the other? My personal feeling is that it does not.

[Time for change]

44. Yes, but we have no control over the content of our body

If everything is thought of as having a material basis, then the composition of our physical body determines how we act.

Yes, we have sentience. I agree that free will is founded in that. But if our sentience is totally determined by the physical composition of our body, then how is that consistent with free will?

[Terran]

51. Well, IMO that's what's so special about sentience.

It allows us to transcend the limits of the body. It is of the body but beyond it. I would assert that free will is an aspect of sentience. Creatures who lack sentience are controlled by their bodies, but humans can overcome that limitation.

The paradoxical nature of the above may well be what originally inspired the idea of the soul--the idea that there must be something immaterial about us that allows to behave thus, because how could our physical bodies contain something that allows our behavior to transcend the physical? (That's just a thought, I'm not saying that's the reality of our being. I *want* there to be a soul.)

[Time for change]

53. "How could our physical bodies contain something that allows our behavior to transcend the physical?

Yes, that is exactly why so many people believe in the soul.

How can we be solely physical if we can transcend the physical? It seems to many of us, including me, that that is a false proposition by definition. We cannot fathom how that could possibly be so, or even what it means.

[Terran]

56. It need not be a false proposition, though.

It seems like you're assuming that there is nothing within us, physically, that would allow us to circumvent the robotic impulses of our bodies--eat, procreate, eliminate, survive. Perhaps, given what we have (big brains, minds, sentience), we're *not* transcending the physical, but rather achieving what we can with what we have. It's kind of a matter of semantics, really. We can call it "transcending the physical", but we don't even know if that's what it really is.

One thought that occurs here, regarding religion (Christianity, anyway): to me, the greatest demonstration of free will is the ability to sacrifice the self (i.e., die) for the good of others who have no connection to us other than that they're also human. No animal does that; mothers protect their young and may sacrifice themselves in that endeavor, but that's instinctual. No adult bear, for instance, will sacrifice itself to protect another adult bear. Given that self-sacrifice is central to the mythos of Jesus, I can see how that human characteristic might become associated with the supernatural. There is something awe-inspiring about it, no doubt, and I believe that the emotion of awe has given rise to religion throughout human history--whether its awe of the rising moon, of fire and water, or the extremeties to which the human spirit can reach (using 'spirit' figuratively, not literally).

[Time for change]

59. I think we agree on a lot

We agree that we are sentient beings with intelligence and that we can transcend the physical. I think that by that we mean that we can, of our own free will, make decisions that are not pre-specified by the laws of physical science. I think that "transcend" is a reasonably good word for that, but it could be called other things as well. The point is that we are not robots and we are not slaves to the laws of physical science. We have something beyond the physical, which we can call sentience, intelligence, free will, or the soul. We agree on all that I think.

What we seem to disagree on is whether that means that we are composed of something other than the physical. In my opinion, and in the opinion of almost all philosophers (I believe) who believe in the soul, that means that we must be composed of something other than physical material. Because if we weren't, then it wouldn't be possible to transcend the physical. We believe that the laws of the physical sciences are immutable -- they cannot be disobeyed. But we also believe that there is something beyond (or different than) the laws of the physical sciences which operate according to their own laws. These things are not physical in nature. The example of heroism that you provide is an excellent example.

[anigbrowl]

130. Transcending the physical?

try as I might, I am as yet unable to make a long-distance phone call without resorting to the telephone. Indeed, i feel terribly bound by the physical. I don't feel that puts any limits on my ability to imagine things, though.

[glitch]

45. Thank you for this post TFC.

It's odd to see how much anger any discussion of the existence souls generates. You could probably write a post analyzing that. Or are you, and this is part of your sampling? ;)

[Time for change]

54. Thank you glitch

It's not that I didn't expect something like this.

It is of course a very emotional subject.

What makes me angry is when people assert that they KNOW the truth about this, to the point of being condescending or downright insulting. We could have a civil, intelligent discussion about this if people didn't act like that, and there is some good discussion going on in this thread.

I used to argue with my dad about this when I was a teenager, and I did get upset about our "discussions". That might have been because he was so self-assured about this, like some on this thread, or more likely it was simply because he was my father and I was a teenager.

No, I'm not doing this for research purposes. I thought it could generate some good discussion, and it is a subject that I'm very interested in -- though a little off the track of the usual DU post.

[glitch]

57. Well, if you were doing research it would be very interesting to see the results.

I guess I can see why soul talk might be emotional; sadness, fear. But why anger -- oh wait, duh. Anger is often repressed fear. Nevermind.

I have been reading Ervin Laszlo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ervin_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3
fascinating theories about all of this. This was the kind of thing I focused on before the coup diverted all my attention. Hopefully at last we can recoup our losses and get back to the really interesting stuff like this.

Good thread!

[Terran]

68. That's annoying to me too.

What makes me angry is when people assert that they KNOW the truth about this, to the point of being condescending or downright insulting.

Especially invoking Occam's Razor as all the authority one needs to confidently state that there's no such thing as a 'soul'. Given how very little is known with absolute certainty about the cosmos, it's seems absurdly subjective to say that 'no soul' is 'more likely' than 'soul'. In fact, I think that souls are a somewhat convenient way to explain some things, and therefore I might find them more likely to exist than not.

[varkam]

80. Who, specifically, in this thread, has stated that they "know the truth"?

[Time for change]

Here's one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4837861&mesg_id=4841388

[varkam]

90. Where did they say that they "know the truth"? eom

[Time for change]

111. When you refer to a person's idea who disagrees with you as "nonsense"

That is the equivalent of saying that you know you are right. And it's an insulting way to do it too.

[varkam]

112. I think that it reflects a degree of certitude

but I think from the first to points in that post that, by adhering to basic "laws" of logic and argumentation, the door is left open for the alternative (even if ever so slightly). Of course, when I talk about knowledge I tend to think of it in an epistemological sense.

[OneBlueSky]

55. I've often wondered if creation consists of one cosmic soul . . .

that functions as the "prime mover," or "higher power" . . . what some call God . . . and that when we die, our individual souls are subsumed into that cosmic soul and remain part of creation, but in a different way . . .

at some later time, that piece of the cosmic soul that constituted our individual self may break off again and guide another being through a physical lifetime here on earth . . . in a process that can be repeated many times . . . a sort of reincarnation, if you will . . .

not saying this is exactly what I believe . . . but it is something I ponder now and then . . . who knows? . . . :shrug:

[glitch]

58. That's pretty close to the explanation I've settled on. For now :) nt

[mojowork_n]

61. We are spiritual beings, having a physical experience n/t

[ismnotwasm]

62. Fun read

Thank you.

I'm a straight up agnostic (I'm kinda like what I read here once, the first 6 days I'm agnostic, the 7th atheist-my day of rest)the type has "spiritual" experiences in biology classes. (True story, bio 101, studying a single cell, I was blown away. I didn't see God, but I got a hell of a lot of respect for the shape and function of things)

I like to find out about how things work, or don't work, but object to any idea of a creator Deity. Any I've read about, heard about, made up myself in my teenage years. Why has something to do with the way I think, and something to do with I've never found a religion that didn't either shit on women, treat them live property, or simply consider them (us)incapable of much outside hearth and home. You'd think some of those great enlightened minds throughout the ages would have figured something was fucked up, but no. Not a one.

I also don't buy the "fine tuner vs multiverse" limitation certain physicists like to shove at those of us who don't understand physics.

Soul, spirit, emotional responses?. I do know everything we perceive as true or real is processed by that very fallible and organic organ, the brain. But like that biology class, the brain to me is endlessly facinating and holds many secrets yet. That's what is spiritual, or soul, to me.

Is there a logical and explainable substance that is of us or around us or part of us? "Soul"? (I dislike magical thinking, it there's a soul, it will eventually fit in some version of the explanable, and why not?)

Dunno. I kind of doubt it, and I totally call bullshit on that 7th day, but then there's that word serendipity. Serendipity seems to have a physics all it's own at times. (And that fun stuff, dark matter, which is totally off topic, but I love that we don't know what type of particles that give the Universe structure and weight. It's Mystery, it's soul)

As far a Jesus, I can tolerate him better than his Dad, who is the worlds biggest asshole. Jesus, while he did do a lot of trash talking about Philistines (gave 'em a bad rap)And he did do the you're all gonna die at the end of the world schtich, at least Did seem to care about fellow human beings

The religious right should be scared spitless of biblical Jesus because here I agree with you--If he's coming back, he's pissed-- like the bumper sticker says-- and not at people like myself, but those ridiculous, mean-spirited and damaged people who insist and doing everything he said NOT to do.

[Time for change]

113. I'm pretty much an agnostic too

About a lot of things.

I certainly don't consider talk about the soul to be "magical thinking". There are so many things we don't understand. We try to make the best sense of the world we can, and in the process we use explanations (such as the sould) that we can't fully explain -- not by a long shot.

[ismnotwasm]

146. It's a good word

It started out one thing, and has evolved. I meant if there is such a thing in the more traditional sense, it's a much a part of the world as solar wind in some way.

The magical thinking part is for me more about not thinking about it(I think)Not considering a spirit or souls' place as a human experience, or a paranormal assumption or interpretation.

You covered your points beautifully. I've been reading the bible and the history of the bible quite a bit lately, looking for those pesky right wing justifications of certain issues, (and not finding anything particularly coherent BTW) and it's making me snarky.

[ImOnlySleeping]

70. Where it falls apart

"Now, think for a moment what this means in terms of free will……… It means that the scientists who make these calculations completely ignore it. If all of a person’s personality traits and the choices that s/he makes are completely determined by a combination of that person’s physical/biological/genetic makeup plus the sum total of his or her exposures and experiences, then that means that everything we do is determined by factors beyond our control. In other words, it means that we have no free will."

You know that that is inaccurate. A scientist would never tell you that something of that nature is definitely going to happen. There will be statistical likelihood, but no assured decisions. Even with something as basic as an electron, we know either it's position or momentum, but not both, just a likelihood. A gene will lead to a likelihood of a trait, but sometimes the dominant trait doesn't win out. One's decision making is guided by their past experience (if you have no base of experience, then you can't make a decision). People will act on what they know, but not consistently, some people less consistently than others. That can be attributed to the soul I suppose (if you're curious I'm agnostic, of the "I don't know and no one else does and never will till they're dead" variety), but don't equate science, particularly social science with definitive answers.

[Time for change]

81. My bottom line point is that if we have free will, that implies a soul

When a scientist makes an assumption that all of our personality traits and decisions are based on a combination of our genetic makeup plus the sum total of all the experiences and exposures we've had, that implies the absence of free will.

Free will implies that we have some quality that allows us make decisions independent of the laws of physical science. You say "That can be attributed to the soul I suppose." Yes, I do attribute that to the soul. Note the definition of the soul given in the OP: "The immaterial aspect or essence of a human being". If we can make decisions independent of the laws of physical science, that means to me that we have an immaterial aspect because if we were purely physical we would have to respond to all the laws of physical science. We would have no choice.

[ImOnlySleeping]

96. I would enjoy reading the article

that led you to this belief "a scientist makes an assumption that all of our personality traits and decisions are based on a combination of our genetic makeup plus the sum total of all the experiences and exposures we've had". No reputable scientist would claim that this set of DNA put through that series of events will lead to this state of mind. Social sciences, in particular, in no way give 100% certainty of predetermination.

Also, I don't appreciate you quoting me out of context in this section

Free will implies that we have some quality that allows us make decisions independent of the laws of physical science. You say "That can be attributed to the soul I suppose." Yes, I do attribute that to the soul.

I in no way implied that defying the laws of physics could be attributed to the soul, as in science, laws are immutable. What I had indicated was that you could attribute someone taking the less probable choice to the function of the soul, if you like. That you consider it possible for the human mind to defy the laws of physical sciences is a little unsettling.

[ImOnlySleeping]

98. Aside

Typically, I really enjoy your posts, but I think your attempt to drag science into a philosophical debate is a little off. The soul, like so many other things, is something you either believe in or you don't. And everyone is free to their interpretation of what the soul would be, as no one will ever be able to demonstrate anything about it. Imagine if we could ever scientifically isolate the soul. What value would it hold if we knew how it worked?

[Jambalaya]

155. Mind of God

" --if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the mind of God."

Stephen Hawking

[Junkdrawer]

101. I think you're reacting to Reductionism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

I've always seen Reductionism as a sophomoric phase in the development of a scientist.

[anigbrowl]

131. Now just a minute thar

a. It's not at all clear that we have free will. We like to think so, but on the other hand we know of many techniques for manipulating people. It seems to me that so called free will may be nothing more than a high degree of unpredictability.

b. again, why presume that we are not responding to the laws of physical science? You seem to assert that physical science cannot give rise to complexity. However, even quite simple physical and mathematical systems are capable of both complex and chaotic behavior. Fractals exhibit considerable complexity at arbitrarily fine levels of calculation (indeed, the defining property of a fractal is that its complexity is invariant with scale).

Our choices may not be free at all; perhaps we merely think so because we lack the capacity to fully analyze our own decision-making processes, or are unwilling to consider the possibility that some of them are arbitrary. It's clearly true that many decisions are not optimal in any way: there's no shortage of stupid people.

[Time for change]

142. If humans don't have free will, that means that we're all just robots

It's true that some people come mighty close to that description. But certainly not all of us. If you want to believe that we're all just biological robots, go ahead, but count me out.

[anigbrowl]

159. I don't find that limiting. Perhaps it's because your conceptions of robots are simple

I don't see any reason a robot (or computer etc. etc.) couldn't have highly complex behavior, including hesitation over decisions and so forth. I've seen your point of view before; quite a few people seem offended by the idea that their thought processes could have a mechanistic explanation (even though the mechanisms would be so hopelessly complex that it would take forever for another human to fully understand them).

I can't help wondering if this isn't just another way to express a fear of mortality. I appreciate that for some people the notion that their thoughts (and thus their personalities) will dissipate into nothing along with their death is quite disturbing.

[Time for change]

175. You're right

I am very resistent (I don't know if offended is the right word) to the idea that my thought processes and emotions could have a purely mechanistic explanation.

I believe that most people, and most DUers too feel the same about that. Isn't that why we contemptuously refer to Republicans as "sheeple" or "Bushbots"?

Yes, I fear mortality, and the notion that my thoughts will dissipate into nothing with my death is very disturbing to me. I believe that that is a very normal human emotion. Does that influence my thoughts on the soul? Possibly. But that doesn't mean that my ideas are wrong.

And that brings up another very interesting issue. Hundreds of interviews with people who have undergone near-death experiences report that their fear of mortality is greatly reduced afterwards, to virtually nothing. I have read at least three books on the subject, and I also have a friend who told me of her own similar experience. These people generally attribute their reduced fear of death and their renewed sense of purpose in life as being due to the fact that they have experienced a glimpse of what their life after death will be like. I believe that this phenomenon provides evidence -- not proof -- for the existence of the soul.

[anigbrowl]

191. Hmmm

I'm not in the habit of contemptuously referring to Republicans as 'sheeple' or whatever. Indeed, doing so looks to me like a reflexive behavior. This doesn't alter my view about the workings of the brain being ultimately mechanistic, though.

I have actually had a near death experience, and indeed it's one reason I don't feel any great fear of mortality...it's hard to explain, but I just feel comfortable with (what I believe to be) the fundamentally transient nature of life.

[Joanne98]

76. I believe in the soul and I think it's pretty obvious that the Christianity got corrupted

First by Rome and then by Wall Street!

[ima_sinnic]

82. when I had cataract surgery, I was put under general anaesthesia

--it seemed almost instantaneous when I opened my eyes and asked when the surgery was going to start. It seemed only a fraction of a second, the blink of an eye had gone by, but I had been "out" for however long it took (I don't really know how long that was--half an hour?) to complete the surgery. That to me is what "happens after we die." When the brain stops functioning (as it does under anaesthesia), there is nothingness and timelessness.

Consciousness of oneself does not automatically equate with a "soul." "The "existence of a soul" is wishful thinking. It is a construct of a brain that is just a series of chemical reactions and firing of neurons across synapses. Humans have felt the need to believe that "life goes on" even after death. It is comforting, yes, but it is an illusion.

"Near death experiences" are the product of a brain that is not yet dead. Though the heart has stopped and one is "clinically dead," the brain is still working, and the fact that the people have been "brought back to life" proves that they weren't really "dead" anyway. Dying, yes, and modern medicine did curtail that process.

[Junkdrawer]

88. Careful. Sounds to me you're revisiting the old Cartesian Mind/Body dilema...

René Descartes used to believe that the mind (or soul) communicated with the body through the pineal gland:

...

René Descartes, who dedicated much time to the study of the pineal gland, called it the "seat of the soul". He believed that it was the point of connection between the intellect and the body. This was in part because of his belief that it is unique in the anatomy of the human brain in being a structure not duplicated on the right and left sides. This observation is not true, however; under a microscope one finds the pineal gland is divided into two fine hemispheres. Another theory was that the pineal operated as a valve releasing fluids, thus the position taken during deep thought, with the head slightly down meeting the hand, was an allowance for the opening of these 'valves'.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland

Our understanding of post 4 dimensional physics is similar to Descartes understanding of neuroscience.

[immoderate]

92. Is information scientific? Is it material?

I would call it personality. But I was a psych major. It has to do with an arrangement of things.

--IMM

[dysfunctional press]

100. when the body dies, so does the soul.

there is no cosmic or karmic force that carries on in our stead. neither life nor souls are eternal.

and animals have just as much soul as human beings. the ones i've met, anyway.

[Junkdrawer]

104. Which is why the pursuit of self is a dead end. n/t

[IsItJustMe]

102. I believe in the soul and I do not believe in free will. I believe that given a persons genetic

makeup compiled with the persons cultural influences, pretty much makes that person who s/he is. At the same time however, I do see that we have some choice in the matter. It's somewhat of a paradox.

That in no way however, says that I think people should not be held accountable for their actions.

If a wild mountain lion got loose in your neighborhood and was attacking people, somebody would kill it. Not because the mountain lion had to take responsibility for it's actions, but because it was dangerous to the community. I see people as not much different. We do what we do.

Given the same genitic makeup and the same upbringing, a person's reaction would be much the same. Hence the phrase, before you judge someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes.

[mdmc]

110. kick for a read

but might be too long for my little mind..

[DailyGrind51]

121. You would find affinity with Pierre Teilhard deChardin!

"The Law of Complexity/Consciousness is the tendency in matter to complexify upon itself and at the same time to increase in consciousness. The law was first formulated by Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Teilhard holds that at all times and everywhere, matter is endeavoring to complexify upon itself, as observed in the evolutionary history of the earth. Matter complexified from inanimate matter, to plant-life, to animal-life, to human-life. Or, from the geosphere, to the biosphere, to the noosphere (of which humans represented, because of their possession of a consciousness which reflects upon themselves). As evolution rises through the biosphere, geosphere and noosphere, matter continues to rise in a continual increase of both complexity and consciousness.

For Teilhard, the Law of Complexity/Consciousness continues to run today in the form of the socialization of mankind. The closed and circular surface of the earth contributes to the increased compression (socialization) of mankind. As human beings continue to come into closer contact with one another, their methods of interaction continue to complexify in the form of better organized social networks, which contributes to an overall increase in consciousness, or the noosphere.

Teilhard imagines a critical threshold, Omega Point, in which mankind will have reached its highest point of complexification (socialization) and thus its highest point of consciousness. At this point consciousness will rupture through time and space and assert itself on a higher plane of existence from which it can not come back.

Interestingly, for Teilhard, because the Law of Complexity/Consciousness runs everywhere and at all times, and because of the immensity of both time and space in outer space, and the immensity of the chances for matter to find the right conditions to complexify upon itself, it is highly probable that life exists, has existed, and will exist in the universe apart from our earth.

Quotes

"The more complex a being is, so our Scale of Complexity tells us, the more it is centered upon itself and therefore the more aware does it become. In other words, the higher the degree of complexity in a living creature, the higher its consciousness; and vice versa. The two properties vary in parallel and simultaneously. If we depict them in diagrammatic form, they are equivalent and interchangeable."
--Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man, p.111

"For its reflective and inventive forward spring it is in some sort necessary that Life, duplicating its evolutionary motive center, should henceforth be sustained by two centers of action, separate and conjoined, one of consciousness and the other of complexity.... In hominised evolution the Physical and the Psychic, the Without and the Within, Matter and Consciousness, are all found to be functionally linked in one tangible process."
--Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man, p.209

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Complexity/Consciousness

[MedleyMisty]

143. This sounds like arguments I used to have on another forum

I was on the free will side. I do get the whole materialist argument and mostly agree with it, but I don't get how humans are just robots who can't make any decisions on their own.

I guess it's like - if I can decide to not buy a Hummer (not that I could afford it even if I wanted to), what forces other people to buy one?

I guess I think that there are degrees of free will and not everyone has the same ability to make mental choices. I get that someone with a mental illness may not be totally responsible for their actions. But how can people who seem sane choose to support torture? If they don't choose to do so, what forces them to like the idea of people being tortured and why do I have the freedom to choose to not like the idea?

I think that on the other forum there was a miscommunication and I've seen it in this thread in Odin's posts - I have been atheist for as long as I can remember. I read the Children's Bible when I was five and saw so many holes in the logic that I couldn't believe in it. I totally get that people aren't generally responsible for their economic status. I think The Secret is stupid, but when I say that I think humans have free will people automatically put me in a box labeled "Christian who thinks poor people deserve to be poor because they create their own external conditions." or something.

My concern is with the mental choices that mentally healthy people in comfortable situations make. For instance - can the executives of corporations who decide to exploit people and natural resources and maybe even hire mercenaries to abuse and kill people to protect their investments be held responsible for their mental choices?

[Time for change]

154. Exactly

There certainly are degrees of free will. But a lot of people don't seem to be able to handle that concept. To them, it's all or nothing.

[aikoaiko]

157. I'm happier with the material world.

Souls and free will don't really much. It like when someone asks, "why did this person die", and someone says, "its gods will", it sounds like an explanation but it really isn't.

All the science use metaphysical explanations when they couldn't understand the physical causes (including physics, chemistry, and biology).

You say that without free will or the soul we are just robots. I think not. It merely makes us organisms.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

161. Read My Stroke of Insight

By Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D.

She had a stroke in her left temporal lobe, and that was the language-using, linear, rational side.

She was completely in her right brain where she felt as One with the Universe.

Fascinating book.

[eridani]

163. Emergent properties are never predictable from their material components

Because matter moves, there is heat. Because it is complex, there are souls. (And no, I don't think that humans are the only entities sufficiently complex for that. How about ecologies?)

[BlooInBloo]

174. Where's the university? I don't see anything but a bunch of bricks!!!!

:rofl:

[eridani]

184. It's an emergent property. Not just facilities, but people and their histories, etc.

Where is a computer program? Hard drive, CPU, printout, programmer's brain? It might be all, but it can't be none. It is not any of these things, but it must be embodied in at least one in order to exist. Jump off a high enough bridge, and the Bloo in Bloo software will no longer be running on the Bloo in Bloo hardware .

[BlooInBloo]

173. (facepalm)

[MedleyMisty]

177. I looked up the wikipedia entry on free will

I know that wikipedia has its problems, but whatever.

I guess I fall in somewhere on "compatibilism".

It seems like other people apply free will to external as well as internal things. Like if humans have free will that means that they completely choose their external conditions. For example, they would say that if you believe in free will you think that peasants in the fourteenth century chose to live short brutal hard lives and chose to be oppressed by the church and nobility.

I don't think that people create their own external reality. That seems rather silly to me. Plus, if the peasants choose to be oppressed doesn't that mean that the people oppressing them have no free will and can't choose to not oppress the peasants, therefore destroying that whole argument?

I tend to think that's the argument of people who need to feel like they're in control of external things and were probably abused as kids. It seems to posit a world centered around the abused person in which the abusers are just shadowy actors who are controlled by the will of the abused.

Or it could also be the view of the abusers, who see themselves as being in thrall to their victim and feel unable to control their abusive behavior.

I think that external reality is pretty much chaos, formed by random chance as well as the actions and decisions of sentient beings. People don't will their houses to be bombed and their relatives to be killed. Nope, that was caused by a string of things reaching as far back as you want to go. Personally, I stop at the brain of the person who ordered the bombing to start and wonder what happened there. I also look at the people who support the bombing and wonder about the inside of their brains.

And I think that our internal reality does depend a great deal on our genes and brain functions. But I also think that within all that, we have some power over our own minds. But maybe that's something that develops over time. I've been reading a lot of developmental theories lately, and they all seem to have the same pattern. And in that pattern, it takes a while to get to the stage of being able to question your own prejudices and motivations and feelings. Many adult humans - perhaps the majority - never make it to that stage.

So maybe the people who support the bombing just don't have the cognitive and psychological tools to be able to realize that the people on the other side of the bombs are real and have their own families and friends and jobs and desires and loves and lives. Maybe the genes and chemical reactions that lead to what we term "free will" just aren't there.

And then when I look at the person who ordered it - well, that brain is a complete mess.

Maybe that answers my question about the Hummer. Maybe those people are at the conforming stage and don't have the cognitive tools to be able to recognize poisonous cultural messages and advertising or understand the links between their conspicious consumption and the misery of other living beings.

Maybe what we term free will is something that is emerging in humans as our society becomes more complex and we leave our days of hunting and foraging like any other species further and further behind.

So essentially - I guess I believe in a sort of free will that emerges on materialistic principles. It's not a soul or a divine spark. It's in our genes and brain chemistry. And I guess I think of it more as a capability to feel empathy for beings other than yourself or the group that you identify yourself with and to make ethical decisions about both actions and internal beliefs and thought systems based on that than as the capability to decide whether you stand up for 10 more seconds or go ahead and sit down on a chair.

[PerfectSage]

179. The first 2 books I read on Quantum mechanics: The tao of physics and the body quantum convinced me

that the reductionist science paradigm that consciousness explained as an epiphenomena of matter is wrong.

The paradox's of quantum mechanics are the ultimate zen loan of understanding reality.

The paradox's are:

The wave/particle ie wavicle nature of subatomic particles.
The Quantum observer effect
The paradox of Schroedinger's cat
The existence of local and non local space time(local space time as defined by Einstein and non local space time necessary to explain how correlated subatomic can transmit information instantaneously)

Non local space time would contain the other dimensions proved by Hawkings.

A philosophy of reality based on the paradox's of quantum reality is going to be similar to the philosophies of reality based on Eastern religions.

The simplest way of all the eastern religions to explain reality is through the symbol for the Tao.


The entire symbol for the Tao is the one light of universal consciousness that transcends it's complementary manifestations. The two complementary manifestations are Yin/dark/female Yang/light/male.

Yang defines the transcendent archetypal realm of ideas as the source of material and mental phenomena.
Whereas Yin defines the immanent realm of material and mental phenom enema otherwise know as the world of manifestation.

So what would the soul be? The little circle of light within the Yin/dark half of the Tao symbol?

[Confusious]

180. I believe less in free will these days

After looking at my daughter

we are slaves to our genes ( well 51% anyway )