The Soul

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

nameless
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 04:30 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean;17201 wrote:
nameless,

Sorry, but I can not really be a partner in such a hateful discussion because such discussion is against the rules of the forum as set down by its owner.

Your post is very cruel and not thoughtful at all. I really don't appreciate the gratuitous invective and name-calling.

I am sorry that you are so egoically involved that you cannot rationally respond to thoughtful and valid criticism without getting all defensive and emotional. I made valid points that you choose to ignore under guise of blah, blah, hateful (ridiculous! there is no 'hate' involved, unless it is in you), name-calling and invective (hardly)..
An egoic/emotional cop out is what you offer here..
Care to offer specific examples? To say that someone is 'ignorant' on a subject, for instance, would you call that 'namecalling'? I call it an observation. I guess it depends on the delicacy of the 'ego' involved.

Quote:
More importantly, science does not even demand that the soul doesn't exist, there are many great scientists who are active today who believe.

There are many scientists who believe in the FSM. So what? Does that mean something?

Quote:
Any decent and intelligent person would know this.

Gee, now who's doing the name-calling (by implication)

Quote:
Religion doesn't refute science

Not 'doesn't', can't.

Quote:
and science doesn't refute religion

In many aspects, it actually does just that.

Quote:
or else one would abolish the other.

No, 'beliefs' are not available to rational and logical correction. They are insularly self-contained.

Quote:
Your thoughtless and cruel attitude doesn't really have a place in this forum in my opinion.

Duck, evade, hide, defend, tattle, whatever works for you for that with which you are incapable or unwilling to discuss.
I call a spade a spade, as I see it. I don't dissemble. Truth hurts. If it 'hurts' too much, perhaps a 'different play-ground'? (Something about the 'heat' and a 'kitchen'...) After all, that is all that has happened, about which you are whining. I will not dissemble to spare your delicate ego. This is a 'philosophy board' and ego is out of place here, delicate or otherwise, not honest discussion (unless it is about 'ego')...
in my opinion.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 04:47 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;17210 wrote:
...that's similarly outside the interest of science and more pertinent to one's hopes, fears, and religious beliefs.

Then why is this not under the religion section. It has nothing to do with the 'philosophy of mind' or anything necessarily philosophical. You are speaking of psychological processes, not critical thought!
(Not odd at all that other 'believers' 'thank' (agree) with you.)
Quote:
hopes, fears, and religious beliefs.

Oh my!
 
de budding
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 04:56 pm
@nameless,
Nameless,

you certainly are starting throw your weight around now Razz, and I can't help but feel you are keeping a belief from us which you are defending but not stating. All I gather from you so far is that a soul does not exist, is that all there is to it in your opinion?

Dan.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 05:55 pm
@de budding,
nameless - We can have disagreements without abusing one another. There is no reason to be rude to someone who has been polite to you.

Quote:
Would not logic assume then, that the claim should not have been made. Many such claims and the individual making them would be taken for town fool.


But we often accept claims to be true when no evidence can be presented.

Consider this - if I say 'Last night I dreamed that humans achieved world peace'. No information can be presented to validate the claim. We might have hooked me up to some machine that can determine whether or not I was in fact dreaming, but only I have the experience of the content of the dream.

Unless the claimant is a mad man, I cannot imagine how, having explained the dream to the best of his ability, we could have significant doubt about the accuracy of his claim.
 
Ron C de Weijze
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 06:07 pm
@nameless,
How about 'soul' as the integration of multiple perspectives? One hundred billion axons in each brain have 10,000 connections to other axons [1]. The meaningful networks they form, somehow validly and reliably represent the environment. They evolve all the time but are the only cells in the body which aren't replaced once every quarter. The 'maps' [2] that are developed, reuse the same objects as references, and eventually reuse the references themselves. This not only brings physical perspectives together, but can also account for synthesis of abstract thoughts and private definitions of one's situation. How else could enlightenment ever have begun? Of course we do have to monitor the validity and reliability of those perspectives. We do so by ourselves but also by critical examination of other people's perspectives.

[1] Samba Internet iA Notebook How the Mind Works: Revelations
[2] Cortical homunculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 06:23 pm
@Ron C de Weijze,
C. G.Jung postulated the existence of a collective unconscious, that continuing generations of humanity can draw upon the collective wisdom of the past, having given thought to this I believe that such symbolic transmission of knowledge and wisdom in relation to the human condition via the dream state is achieved though the structure of our DNA.

That is if such a thing as the collective unconscious exists then it exists within all of us and is not separated by time and space, that different planes and states of existence are not exterior to our human condition but are reached by turning inward and transcending both the limits of the body and the mind.

The Soul, like wise, is in my humble opinion an essence, a component of the vast ocean from which all life arises. I do not believe in a personalised immortality of an ego based after death existence that appeals to fears of nonexistence held by the followers of both Christianity and Islam, amongst many ego based religions.

If anything the spiritual is an innate aspect of the human condition which we all share. So for the Soul to exist it would have to be egoless, a tiny droplet in the sea of eternity, that is if there is one.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 08:38 pm
@Paracelsus,
Nameless,Smile

An honest discussion here when it comes remotely close to Christianity is called, Christian baiting,:rolleyes:
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 28 Jun, 2008 08:49 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Then why is this not under the religion section.
Who cares which section it's under?

Quote:
(Not odd at all that other 'believers' 'thank' (agree) with you.)
I'm a stone cold atheist. The difference is that I'm nice about it.

Oh, and as a general principle it doesn't bother me that someone believes something that's either unsupported by science or even contradicted by it. I care what people do, not what they believe.

Quote:
Oh my!
Exactly...
 
midas77
 
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2008 03:21 am
@Ramsey phil,
Ramsey wrote:
No particular conception, I'm leaving it totally open to what ever conception one has.


Too bad. we might end up arguing and figthing for myriad of things. narrowing down the concept might help i nthe discussion
 
de budding
 
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2008 03:42 am
@Ron C de Weijze,
Ron C. de Weijze wrote:
How about 'soul' as the integration of multiple perspectives? One hundred billion axons in each brain have 10,000 connections to other axons [1]. The meaningful networks they form, somehow validly and reliably represent the environment. They evolve all the time but are the only cells in the body which aren't replaced once every quarter. The 'maps' [2] that are developed, reuse the same objects as references, and eventually reuse the references themselves. This not only brings physical perspectives together, but can also account for synthesis of abstract thoughts and private definitions of one's situation. How else could enlightenment ever have begun? Of course we do have to monitor the validity and reliability of those perspectives. We do so by ourselves but also by critical examination of other people's perspectives.

[1] Samba Internet iA Notebook How the Mind Works: Revelations
[2] Cortical homunculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hah! I use to think something like this, but I gave it up because I thought I didn't know enough about the brain. So if this is the case, what kind of cross-referencing software would we need installed on a computer to allow the computer consciousness? Or more often I wonder what algorithm or software would need to be introduced on the Internet to allow become self-aware. Are we any where near answers to these questions?

Dan.
 
Justin
 
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2008 07:37 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Duck, evade, hide, defend, tattle, whatever works for you for that with which you are incapable or unwilling to discuss.
I call a spade a spade, as I see it. I don't dissemble. Truth hurts. If it 'hurts' too much, perhaps a 'different play-ground'? (Something about the 'heat' and a 'kitchen'...) After all, that is all that has happened, about which you are whining. I will not dissemble to spare your delicate ego. This is a 'philosophy board' and ego is out of place here, delicate or otherwise, not honest discussion (unless it is about 'ego')...
in my opinion.


You are right, this is a 'philosophy board' but on this philosophy board we are actively practicing one of the toughest philosophies to put into to practice... Social Philosophy. There's no reason we can't discuss philosophy in an online forum without being rude or obnoxious towards others.

Pythagorean has been an active 'ASSET' on this forum and within this community since it started. Pyth has never tried to hurt someone else to make himself feel better within these forum discussions and has always been conscientious of others and thoughtful to other members. We can actually learn a lot from Pythagorean because he's provided a great example of practicing social philosophy within a global discussion forum.

Needless to say, the posts have been somewhat rude and obnoxious. This may be part of your character and we're all different and express ourselves differently. Being mean is just not acceptable in this forum setting.

Everyone, please consider the feelings of others when sitting behind that keyboard. Consider that you are talking to real people who have real feelings and words can cut like a sharp knife. Sometimes it's good to ponder before responding and try to find where we are common rather than focusing on our differences.

No need to respond to this, we don't need to deal with a bunch of drama in the forum. Just treat others how you would like to be treated and if that's difficult, just do the best you can.
 
Ron C de Weijze
 
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2008 08:52 am
@Justin,
I just came across the site of a professor who is still teaching about the soul and apparently he has many students..
Introduction to Theistic Psychology by Leon James University of Hawaii
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 29 Jun, 2008 12:37 pm
@Ron C de Weijze,
Interesting link, Ron. Thanks.

Quote:
The study of theistic psychology starts and ends with human mental anatomy. Non-theistic psychology has nothing to say about mental anatomy because it equates the mind with the brain. Mental states involving sensations, thoughts and feelings are equated with physical neural or electro-chemical operations in the physical brain. Non-theistic psychology denies that the mind exists. It asserts that only the brain exists. Since non-theistic psychology adopts this materialistic perspective without proving that it is correct, we will call it the negative bias in science (see Section xx).
In contrast, theistic psychology asserts that there are two separate but interacting worlds, namely, the physical world of time-space-matter, and the mental world of sensations, thoughts and feelings which are operations of the mind that are not in time, not in space, and do not involve physical matter. This separate world outside time-space-matter is in the mental world of eternity, which is also called the spiritual world. In other words, when we are conceived and born we come into existence with two bodies, one physical and the other spiritual. The physical body and spiritual body are tied to each other by functional laws of correspondence, which we will study later. These laws of correspondence are actually cause-effect laws that tie together the two worlds. Nothing can happen in one world that is not tied completely to something happening in the other world.




Sounds like out-dated dualism to me. What do the rest of you make of this?
 
Ron C de Weijze
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 06:18 am
@de budding,
[quote=de_budding]Hah! I use to think something like this, but I gave it up because I thought I didn't know enough about the brain. So if this is the case, what kind of cross-referencing software would we need installed on a computer to allow the computer consciousness? Or more often I wonder what algorithm or software would need to be introduced on the Internet to allow become self-aware. Are we any where near answers to these questions?[/quote]
We should not be put down by the sheer number of cross-references that our minds hold, supposedly to create consciousness. Remember they are bundled into ever higher structures and finally into the corpus calossum binding the left brain (LB) to the right brain (RB), which makes it sort of binary. When one half drops away by injury, then we either become more creative in RB or more analytically-structured in LB. But the point i would like to make here, is that these bundles are like relations between entities, such as highways relating one city to another. I believe these highways exist in our minds and they are either more associative non-logical (irrational) or more logical, like "leads to", "assumes", "consists of" etc. And the entities are mental notes we make, either of experiential facts or of pointed ideas apriori that we have not realized yet. Anyway, all these entities can get connected through brain activity (thinking, learning or conditioning). This happens in contexts or concepts. Of each one we can make maps and maps can reuse entities and relations so that they become more theory-laden. The more meaningful each entity (I like to call them "notes") becomes in each meaningful context or concept it plays a role in, the more likely that it starts 'a life of its own', having all these connections, properties, behaviors (logical operators of their relations). That is when there is a bit of soul. I believe I can sometimes look at it immediately when I nearly fall asleep or just got awake, and can assess what is happening in my mind, 'autonomously'.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 06:46 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Sounds like out-dated dualism to me. What do the rest of you make of this?


Dualism; for sure. Outdated; Probably.

But I'm not sure it's 'current-ness' is particularly relevant since many good people - good thinkers - still adhere to it; and in so doing, validate it as a concept worthy of discussion. I personally find notions of the separate 'soul' or mind (as separate from the physical and neurological components) unsubstantiated and perhaps even a form of mystic self-aggrandizement.

Still... nice to kick around now and again.
 
de budding
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 07:41 am
@Ron C de Weijze,
Ron C. de Weijze wrote:

We should not be put down by the sheer number of cross-references that our minds hold, supposedly to create consciousness. Remember they are bundled into ever higher structures and finally into the corpus calossum binding the left brain (LB) to the right brain (RB), which makes it sort of binary. When one half drops away by injury, then we either become more creative in RB or more analytically-structured in LB. But the point i would like to make here, is that these bundles are like relations between entities, such as highways relating one city to another. I believe these highways exist in our minds and they are either more associative non-logical (irrational) or more logical, like "leads to", "assumes", "consists of" etc. And the entities are mental notes we make, either of experiential facts or of pointed ideas apriori that we have not realized yet. Anyway, all these entities can get connected through brain activity (thinking, learning or conditioning). This happens in contexts or concepts. Of each one we can make maps and maps can reuse entities and relations so that they become more theory-laden. The more meaningful each entity (I like to call them "notes") becomes in each meaningful context or concept it plays a role in, the more likely that it starts 'a life of its own', having all these connections, properties, behaviors (logical operators of their relations). That is when there is a bit of soul. I believe I can sometimes look at it immediately when I nearly fall asleep or just got awake, and can assess what is happening in my mind, 'autonomously'.


What an interesting perspective, when I wake up tomorrow I will be sure to check to see what my mind is up to. Very Happy What makes this and related ideas so attractive to me, is that the arousal of the soul- or whatever conscious aspect we are mistaking for a soul, is to be random; simply to fit with the evolutionary idea, it would make sense that our brain took an evolutionary path where the sheer power, connections or structures of the brain gave rise to this very confusing level of autonomous consciousness.

As you describe it, it would seem a structural change led to a certain level of connectivity which allowed the brain a distinct type of self communication between the RH and LH; as communication seems to be the key in your description, I find my self quite willing to accept such explanations.

Dan.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 03:00 pm
@de budding,
Khetil - I agree, there's nothing wrong with considering dualism from time to time; makes for interesting conversation. But the source is trying to impose dualism on psychology, a science.

I am suspicious of applying metaphysical ideas, especially out-dated metaphysical ideas, to modern science. Metaphysics deals in the unobservable, science deals with what we can observe and test. The mix seems a little dangerous, especially if this instructor is teaching his questionable mix of metaphysics and science to impressionable young students.

Quote:
An honest discussion here when it comes remotely close to Christianity is called, Christian baiting,


That's not at all the case, boagie, and you, of all people, should know better.
 
Ramsey phil
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 03:19 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Personally I would say Cartesian Dualism is still a good source in the search for an afterlife. I would hardly say it is outdated. But then again I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not very aware of the theories put forward in that area of field.

But the way I see it, to describe a pure, soul, which can live on, after death, we must begin to look beyond the regular theories, beyond dualism and into a three way state of soul, body and mind.
 
Doobah47
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 05:38 pm
@Ramsey phil,
Ramsey wrote:

But the way I see it, to describe a pure, soul, which can live on, after death, we must begin to look beyond the regular theories, beyond dualism and into a three way state of soul, body and mind.


Well the way I see it the soul is beyond perception, thus beyond language, thus not worth wasting important time over.

Put it this way, you've either got it or you haven't
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2008 05:45 pm
@Ramsey phil,
Ramsey;17497 wrote:
Personally I would say Cartesian Dualism is still a good source in the search for an afterlife. I would hardly say it is outdated. But then again I'm not a psychologist, so I'm not very aware of the theories put forward in that area of field.

But the way I see it, to describe a pure, soul, which can live on, after death, we must begin to look beyond the regular theories, beyond dualism and into a three way state of soul, body and mind.


Yes but do you think that the Soul is an ego based entity? I dont subscribe to the notion that I will enter paradise after death to live in some verdant lands, its just too absurd a notion for if that's the case why would a Creator design such a world as this? For his own amusement? Hmm? I don't think God is into S&M.

And yes your right about moving beyond dualism, the Buddhists have such an approach its called the Middle Way, but there are other non dualist thought structures, if you haven't read some Deleuze. A Thousand Plateaus.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 12:17:24