Existence of the soul

If we play the devils advocate (Man if ever there was irony)then in order for there to be a spirit/soul/mind which is seperate from mere matter then we should be able to detect the presence of a form of energy which directs the biological workings of the brain if the brain is indeed controlled to any extent by the spirit /soul/mind.
We have four fundemental forces which we have detected and they are in order of relative strength(electromagnetism,strong nuclear force,weak nuclear force,and gravity).We shall rule these out unless someone can give justification of such so we are left wondering what could possibly be the means of interaction. We can rule out a force stronger than electromagnetism as well as a force weaker than gravity however the strong nuclear force only works within the nucleus of atoms and the weak nuclear force is that which is reponsible for radioactive decay.Is it possible for us to be missing a new force undiscovered by science? In all probability no but we are after all only human and prone to error.However,and this is the crux of the matter,if proponents of the spirit /soul/mind hypthesis wish to be taken seriously they must do the work and not merely conjecture and assume.I therefore challenge any living scientist who adheres to this idea to get off your ass and do yourselves a favour and instead of snapping at empty air in the vague hope of nourishing yourselves go out and kill something and feed your starving collegues. I await the feast but not forever

Ah c'mon Guys I'm STARVING. Surely you can present some real tangible evidence?

As so often happens in these debates: Evidence based argument often results in silence among our esteemed opponents. I can only hope this means that they have been stunned by our brilliance or have retreated for the purpose of further study. All that remains is the softly moaning spirit (wind) coursing through these hallowed halls. Rather disappointing, I know, but be patient.There's one born every minute. ------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

Aw, c'mon, gimme a break! I get back in the office today and check up on the forum and I find that my temporary absence has been interpreted as a concession? What gives? Fogive me for actually having plans over the holiday weekend. I have read the replies awaiting responses from me and I intend to have them up by this evening or tomorrow.Patience is a virtue. Blessings,::

You are forgiven.Some us are more or less stuck in the mud. ------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

I forgive you too. We who work our asses off on holidays to clear months end have very poorly developed social skills. Without you guys I would have to watch TV (Brrr..)Not that there isnt the occasional gem but the mind candy sometimes has me bordering on diabetes.

In my daily work, social skills are essential but in my hobby: Biblical Education; politics seems to be more important. It is the occasional gem that keeps us coming back. Try PBS, if you haven't already. Mostly gems.------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

That's funny because that's exactly what everyone else around here seems to be arguing is false. Perhaps it would help for you to explain it to them? Some, yes indeed. However, when trying to theorize about the nature of consciousness, strict adherence to ontological materialism falls short. I'm talking about consciousness in general, not a particular mind. I think we can certainly develop a consesus about that. But it is the rest of the materialists on this board who are arguing that it is possible know the contents of an individual's mind given enough material facts. If you don't disagree that there are mental facts that cannot be entirely expressed in material terms, doesn't that necessarily mean that ontological materialism is plainly false? Please see your the first statement of yours which I quoted above. It is inconsistent with your last claim here that materialism explains minds. Materialism does not explain minds, it describes behavior in objective terms. "Objective" = "independant of any mind." You see, it simply supposes that minds do not exist, then redefines "mind" to equal "exhibiting certain patterns of behavior which resemble my own."Also, which entity have I proposed which you do not believe exists?Blessings,::

Please see my initial posts which began this discussion. I believe they begin on the 2nd or 3rd page of this thread.Indeed, subjective experience is definitely evidential of a non-physical basis for consciousness. Please take some time to inform yourself of the robust arguments advanced by David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, J.R. Lucas, William Seager and others. You can find quite a repository available here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html.Essentially, they will argue first that qualia (being necessarily subjective) are unassailable in objective terms, and further that Gdel's Incompleteness theorem precludes any complete knowledge that any material processing machine can entirely represent human cognitive capabilities. In order to assert that one does, it requires the presupposition that mind is an emergent property of matter, which blatantly begs the question. And that's because all those observations began by presupposing ontological materialism which blatantly begs the question. Where did I indicate that I thought it would? Where did you get the idea that I would expect it to? And...? Why do you think that this refutes anything that I've asserted this far? Indeed, all of these effects would still be expected within a panpsychic ontological framework. Affecting the material image of the mind would certainly be expected to produce changes in our observations of it. Moreover, there exist aspects of these changes that cannot be explained in material terms, namely, the qualia associated with these experiences. This evidence only points to that basis if it is assumed to begin with. If you like, I can copy and paste one of the arguments from Chalmers' online repository of papers on consciousness. Again, you can reference the articles I originally supplied to PaulK earlier in this thread. Not at all. It should be obvious that subjective experience cannot be assailed in obejctive terms. That's like trying to explain circles in terms of right angles. I agree, however up to this point you've ignored the knowledge we do have with regard to subjective experience in order to draw inferences which presuppose ontological materialism. Where did I say that this had anything to do with supernaturalism? Naturalism does not exclude panpsychism. Naturalism is not equivalent to materialism. Excuse me? What? Any and all claims you make which assert that mind is an emergent property from a physical brain are also claims to the basis for subjective experience ultimately asserting that said experience is illusory. So would I. Good thing that's not my position.Blessings,::

Okay, well that's a start, however it is important to note that a person could not falsify the zombie hypothesis with only objective evidence. That is to say, you have no way of being certain that other's have subjective experience, and if you encountered a zombie human (a normally behaving human without subjective experience), you would have no way to know it. That is the insufficiency of materialism with regard to consciousness. That is the heart of the matter (pun intended) indeeed. I think it is coherent to discuss subjective evidence since all of those with subjective experience can observe it and thereby have said evidence. Indeed, even so-called "objective" evidence is deemed so based on an a priori rejection of solipsism. RE #1: I disagree that inventing new illusions qualifies as assailing subjective experience. IMO, it only tricks the physical interface of the mind which, as you indicated, can be predicted according to our knowledge of the brain's visual processing. What it is like to be tricked is entirely subjective and unassailable through objective evidence.RE #2: Disagree. Science is methodolgically naturalistic, not methodologically materialistic. I think it lays some foundations for theories which resolve some peripheral issues related to evolution, first and foremost being abiogenesis. In addition, I think there may be predictive power in explaining quantum state reduction and especially in the context of the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory. I don't have well formulated theories at this point, but that's beside the point.Blessings,::

First, a quick lesson on the distinction between rebuttals and refutations. A rebuttal is a response in opposition to some set of assertions. A refutation is a rebuttal that shows the opposed assertions to be false. You may think that my rebuttals do not constitute refutation, but to assert that no rebuttals exist is simply ignorant.Next, I do not agree that embodied minds have an intrinsic need for the corpus callosum. The absence of one surely affects the interaction of the mind with physical reality, but I do not agree that it necessarily affects any fundamental attributes of the mind itself. To recall Crash's bridge crossing analogy, knocking out a bridge in front of someone doesn't mean that the person is no longer intrinsically capable of crossing a bridge, there is simply no bridge to cross. Not at all. Please read my statements more carefully in the future. It seems to me you are asserting that the intrinsic ability is lost when the CC is severed in parallel to the analogy that a person would be instrinsically incapable of crossing a bridge when there is simply no bridge present to be crossed. Not hardly. The replacement is necessary only to restore the objective measurability of the instrinsic capability. I don't deny that the CC is necessary for inter-hemispherical communication, I deny that this is an affect to the fundamental properties of the mind itself. To conclude that it is presupposes ontological materialism and begs the question. Your evidence is not evidence of what you think it is. You think it is evidence for a materialistic basis of mind only because you presuppose ontological materialism in collecting what you think is evidence. Your evidence can also be perfectly accounted for under a different ontological framework which is why it cannot differentiate the two. You need also to show how this evidence CANNOT be accounted for within a framework with mind as the ontological foundation, and so far nothing of the sort has been supplied. Please see the opening lesson on the distinction between refutations and rebuttals. As I said, the "evidence" which you supplied fails to distinguish between the proposed ontological frameworks. It can be completely accounted for in either one. Therefore, I have no need to dispute it, but rather your interpretation of it. That's why I'm focusing on the preusppositions which lead you to interpret it this way. Where have I said something which is demonstrably false and how can you demonstrate that I knew it to be false when I said it? That is what constitutes dishonesty, my friend, so to accuse me of it without such a demonstrable instance is itself dishonest. Pot, meet kettle.Blessings,::

Solipsism says that the only thing which can be truly verified is the personal mind. Recall Descartes systematic doubting which resulted in this epistemological foundation. No one can falsify solipsism. Instead, it must be presupposed false a priori. The entire notion of the existence of an objective material world is founded on this completely subjective supposition. This is where the question is begged in the mind/body debate, specifically that the gathering of so-called "objective evidence" rides on the a priori supposition that solipsism is false.Qualia are the phenomenolgy associated with subjective experiences. Qualia refer to the "introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives" as stated here: Qualia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Essentially what it is like for you to taste, smell, see, etc... Consider this illustration:A neurobiologist has made an incredible breakthrough: She has designed an apparatus which, when implanted in the appropriate part of the brain, enables the patient to see infrared with his eyes along with the rest of the visible spectrum. Now, being the inventor of it she may know everything that there is to know about the construction of this device, the parts of the brain which it affects, and exactly how the brain reacts, etc... but unless she actually implanted the device in herself so to experience the sight of infrared, she would never know what it is like to see infrared by virtue of this device. She could not access the qualia unless she herself were the subject. These are the real phenomena which purely objective material explanations cannot assail. Your point being? Obviously changes to the state of the mind's interface with physical reality will affect how the mind interacts with that reality. Obviously the mind's reading of the bodily state will affect its reaction. This is entirely permissible and even expected within a panpsychic framework. I'm concentrating on aspects of those phenomena which lie beyond the reach of material explanation. Associated, yes. Entirely attributed, no. Moreover, values may have the first effect on the formation of those states making the values actually primary. One quale, many qualia. See the link I offered above.Blessings,::

I invite you to read PaulK's posts more thoroughly, then. He has argued that our inability to observe communication between the hemispheres of the brian once the corpus callosum is severed indicates that this ability no longer exists, and that therefore this indicates that the mind is entirely dependant upon the state of the brain. Which are those? Note: Watch the question begging with your response, please. The fact that they are unanswerable in material terms does. Regardless, we have a brain which is entirely inoperative, yet meanwhile subjective experience for the subject (allegedly) continues. That life signs can be subsequently restored does not diminish that fact. Please understand that I find your appeal to future discovery wholly unconvincing. I invite you to browse the online repository of papers here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html If you would like to discuss one in particular, I'd be happy to copy and paste one, but they are somewhat lengthy. I might recommend something in the section on pansychism by William Seager, or something on the topic of Gdel's Incompleteness theorem. I think you may have misconstrued my intent then. Could you be more specific?Blessings,::

I am so sorry, I thought you were complaining that I was ignoring substantive points raised by you. If they were not then your claim that I inored them is unjustified. Indeed if you only make unsupported assertions - and misrepresent my points into the bargain an out-go-hand dismissal would be warranted.If your "rebuttal" is supposed to be simple denial - which is all you have managed - then your complaints lack merit. If you are asserting any more then my objections stand.

quote:

---

quote:

---

PaulL writes:
Instead you for some strange reason assume that I am asserting that the the ability to communicate GIVEN a channel like the corpus callosum is lost.

---

Not at all. Please read my statements more carefully in the future. It seems to me you are asserting that the intrinsic ability is lost when the CC is severed in parallel to the analogy that a person would be instrinsically incapable of crossing a bridge when there is simply no bridge present to be crossed.

---

I notice that immediately following the "not at all" you give a description of your claims that is fundamentally in agreement with the point you just denied. I suggest that you read more carefully rather than producing such obvious contradictions.Again you refuse to address the evidnece instead preferring to make unfounded and false assertions about my assumptions.Obviously you evade the subject becaue you have no adequate answer.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-03-2003]

Well here's an example of an outright lie

quote:

---

I invite you to read PaulK's posts more thoroughly, then. He has argued that our inability to observe communication between the hemispheres of the brian once the corpus callosum is severed indicates that this ability no longer exists, and that therefore this indicates that the mind is entirely dependant upon the state of the brain.

---

I propose neither that argument, nor that conclusion in ANY of my posts.And since you obviously claim to have read closely there is no way you can claim an honest misunderstanding.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-03-2003]