Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence of the soul
:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 91 of 106 (53714)
09-03-2003 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by sidelined
09-02-2003 10:03 AM


sidelined writes:
Ah c'mon Guys I'm STARVING. Surely you can present some real tangible evidence?
I've read your previous posts, and since I seem to be the only one trying to falsify ontological materialism in this thread I can only suppose that you are directing your requests to me. The problem is that you're requesting evidence for a position I do not support -- specfically dualism. Instead, I advocate a type of monistic idealism or panpsychism. For that I do have the beginnings of evidence in support of it. Your own exclusively subjective perspective is plain evidence for it, as are the qualia which permeate that perspective, as well as is the necessity for an a priori rejection of solipsism in order to suppose that a material world exists at all. Gdel's Incompleteness theorem precludes any complete knowledge that some formal system entirely underlies our cognition, so any conclusion to that end necessarily begs the question. Since it is thus demonstrable that there exist mental facts which cannot be explained in material terms, ontological materialism is therefore false. The falsification of ontological materialism has really been my only purpose in this thread, as I think this is where we must begin before attempting to sort out its alternatives (dualism, idealism, etc...). I'm open to a dualistic model, I simply think it is unlikely, but at the moment not much can be said to differentiate the two.
Does that help?
Blessings,
::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by sidelined, posted 09-02-2003 10:03 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Zhimbo, posted 09-03-2003 2:57 PM :æ: has not replied
 Message 101 by sidelined, posted 09-05-2003 10:30 PM :æ: has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 92 of 106 (53718)
09-03-2003 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulK
09-03-2003 1:51 PM


Re: New evidence has come to light
Actually, I apologize, but I will need some clarification in order to gather the meanings of your statements which follow:
PaulK writes:
I am so sorry, I thought you were complaining that I was ignoring substantive points raised by you. If they were not...
"They were not"? Which "they," and "were not" what? Do you mean to assert that my points were not substantive? Please clarify.
PaulK writes:
...then your claim that I inored them is unjustified.
Why would I suppose that my own points were not substantive?
PaulK writes:
Indeed if you only make unsupported assertions - and misrepresent my points into the bargain an out-go-hand dismissal would be warranted.
Which assertions were unsupported? How exactly have I misrepresented your position?
quote:
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.
PaulK writes:
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.
Which part of "It seems to me you are asserting..."(emphasis added) implies a description of my own claims?
PaulK writes:
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.
Oh, the irony is so sweet. Did you not see where I directly addressed the evidence and its irrelevance?:
:: writes:
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.
:: writes:
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.
And yet, no response from you to these statements. Curious.
Blessings,
::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2003 1:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2003 7:14 PM :æ: has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 93 of 106 (53720)
09-03-2003 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by PaulK
09-03-2003 1:54 PM


Re: New evidence has come to light
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.
PaulK writes:
I propose neither that argument, nor that conclusion in ANY of my posts.
Let's work backwards then since my understanding of your argument is predicated on my perception of the conclusion you're advocating. If I understand your denial here, then you are NOT asserting that the contents and function of the mind are determined by the state of the brain. Is this correct? If so then I do apologize because that is the assertion which I have been opposing, which up unto this point I had thought was your position, and to which it appears now you do not adhere (which is curious since, if this is indeed the case, you've spent quite a lot of time opposing me when your yourself hold a position which I do not contest and is no where contradicted by my arguments).
Which post of yours should have made it clear that this was not your position? Honestly, I must've misread it.
Blessings,
::

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2003 1:54 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 09-03-2003 7:18 PM :æ: has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 94 of 106 (53721)
09-03-2003 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by :æ:
09-03-2003 2:02 PM


quote:
"Gdel's Incompleteness theorem precludes any complete knowledge that some formal system entirely underlies our cognition"
I think the lesson for philosophy of mind from Godel's theorem is that either our mind is 1) not a formal system; or b) it is not both "complete" and self-consistent. This is not enough to make any claims about materialism, etc.
quote:
"Since it is thus demonstrable that there exist mental facts which cannot be explained in material terms"
I think this is the leap that no one is willing to go along with. I don't see the justification for this leap at all. I can't see the proof that something must exist without a material basis, that if all matter were gone that there would be "something" left.
quote:
"The falsification of ontological materialism has really been my only purpose in this thread"
Well, I don't care much for ontologocal materialism, only methodological materialism floats my boat. So I think I "reject" ontological materialism. I don't, however, see that it's "falsified".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by :æ:, posted 09-03-2003 2:02 PM :æ: has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 95 of 106 (53754)
09-03-2003 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by :æ:
09-03-2003 2:34 PM


Re: New evidence has come to light
Well it seems that your reading problems continue. Most of your questions can be answered by reading the post you were replying to carefully. You might note that the points I did not reply to were simply repeats of unsupported assertions - which did NOT address the evidence. So no tere is nothing ironic in my ignoring them - but since you insist I'll point out that they're just another example of your evasiveness.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by :æ:, posted 09-03-2003 2:34 PM :æ: has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 96 of 106 (53755)
09-03-2003 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by :æ:
09-03-2003 2:52 PM


Re: New evidence has come to light
Since the conclusion you attrbute to me is as much your invention as the argument I fail to see how you can reliably work back from it. Nor do I see how ignoring my explicit points to the contrary - as you have done - is going to aid your understanding.
Perhaps the posts pointing out that your "leg" "analogy" actually supported my case might have clued you in ? Indeed so far as I can tell your misepresentation of my position was an invention to pretend that your alleged analogy was somehow relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by :æ:, posted 09-03-2003 2:52 PM :æ: has not replied

stevo3890
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 106 (53947)
09-04-2003 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
08-19-2003 6:41 PM


It's more apparent in situations like bee-hives, where worker siblings are far closer genetically than you are to your siblings. It's there, nonetheless - it has a real statistical effect that goes up the closer related you are to whoever you're saving.
what Altriusm being a gene? I don't know what you are talking about here but, if you mean them working together,and stinging us when we threaten that a colony of bees is different than a person, as a stinging bee because they do not reproduce. the queen does and the worker bee is acting in defense of his(hives)instinct to reproduce. So in effect the the bee is not "altruistic" because of a Altruism gene but his instinct to reproduce (agian his hives instinct to reproduce.)
As for the bag poor analogy.
"we should be able to perform tests on souls." many things cannot be directly tested. (black holes for example)
"I say that the purpose of bags is to keep things out, not hold them in." by bags here i meant people, animals, living things. and the purpose of those bags is to keep your innards in while at the same time other things out. And this leads into a different argument (purpose versus non purpose)(The purpose of the bag is a tool of the soul, the purpose of the soul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2003 6:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2003 1:41 AM stevo3890 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 106 (53957)
09-05-2003 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by stevo3890
09-04-2003 11:30 PM


the queen does and the worker bee is acting in defense of his(hives)instinct to reproduce.
But the fact that his instinct to personally reproduce is turned into an instinct to work for the hive's reproduction could be considered a genetic basis for altruistic behavior.
I think we're agreeing on this. You and I agree that the bee stings invaders at the cost of her own life because it passes on more of the genes she shares with the queen than if she didn't, because she's sterile. It all comes down to the gene.
many things cannot be directly tested. (black holes for example)
Ah, but we can observe the effects of black holes. For instance, the Hawking radiation that is emitted around the event horizon. Or the gravitational tug on nearby luminous objects.
But souls, apparently, have no percievable effect on the physical world. After all there's no qualitative difference between animals - generally considered not to have souls - and humans, who may have souls. Ergo the soul can't be said to have any effect on the real world. If it has no effect, is it fruitful to suggest that they exist? I don't think so.
by bags here i meant people, animals, living things. and the purpose of those bags is to keep your innards in while at the same time other things out.
What I was trying to get at is that "purpose" is not an inherent property of objects but rather a subjective quality that you associate them with in your mind. I mean, the purpose of a screwdriver is to drive screws. But in a world of only nails, does it still have that purpose? Not to anybody who doesn't know what a screw is. It's pointless to try and derive truths about the physical world from what you think the purpose of this or that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by stevo3890, posted 09-04-2003 11:30 PM stevo3890 has not replied

doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 99 of 106 (54019)
09-05-2003 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by :æ:
09-03-2003 1:33 PM


Re: New evidence has come to light
:ae: writes:
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.
Regardles of PaulK's conclusion, if you cut the Corpus Callosum, the brains cannot function in unison as before. If the mind were capable of linking them in such a way that they function normally, then there would be evidence to support your view.
doctorbill writes:
quote:
The fact that questions remain unanswered does not constitute falsification.
The fact that they are unanswerable in material terms does.
This is, of course, your assertion, You invoke a barrier of impossibility.
quote:
No signs of life detected by current technology. But even so, true death has not occurred. "Clinical Death" is not Real Death but may become real death if the procedure falls short of success.
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 am glad you recognize the alleged nature of the subjective experience.
Interesting that you assert the brain to be inoperative; a conclusion based upon materialistic phenomena observed by material technology.
I am not appealing to future discovery. I am merely pointing out historical fact: Technological advances have claimed territory from the "spiritual" provinces before and will likely continue to do so in the future.
quote:
Please share those arguments here.
I invite you to browse the online repository of papers ...
Surely you can do better than to simply point to a library. Surely you are capable of summarizing the evidences which most convince you. Or have you done that already? If so, then I remain unconvinced.
quote:
Even so, you cite objective tests in support of your hypothesis claiming the lack of objective evidence as confirmation of your assumptions. This seems illogical to me.
I think you may have misconstrued my intent then. Could you be more specific?
I do not speak to your intent. I speak to your reasoning. You invoke materialistic "evidence" of suppressed brain function in a surgical procedure during which the patient is alledgedly conscious and capable of recounting the experience afterward. You depend upon the limitations of current (material) technology to confirm the alleged nonexistence of brain function during surgery; and you depend upon anecdote to confirm the alleged subjective experience of the patient. You claim the result of all this to be evidence that the mind is independent from the brain; a conclusion both improbable and unverifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by :æ:, posted 09-03-2003 1:33 PM :æ: has not replied

Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 100 of 106 (54024)
09-05-2003 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by :æ:
09-03-2003 1:19 PM


Re: mind/brain and dualism
quote:
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.
Two possible responses:
1. So? Inability to accomplish a task allows you to conclude what? If you reject materialism, can you suddenly be certain if someone is a zombie or not?
2. You can't possibly falsify materialism with a "zombie" argument, for zombie arguments assume as a premise that materialism is false. If materialism is true, then zombies can't exist - any collection of matter that is organized like a human and acts like a human and is indistinguishable from a human would be conscious. If it isn't true, then a zombie could exist. But you can't start with this assumption in an argument to falsify materialism!
The rest of your post is worthy of a reply as well, but not now...I'll try to continue later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by :æ:, posted 09-03-2003 1:19 PM :æ: has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 101 of 106 (54123)
09-05-2003 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by :æ:
09-03-2003 2:02 PM


:ae: I must say that you completely floored me with post #91. As I am not a man of huge word's I am unable to fully appreciate the level of profound revelation that may or may not be present. I am aware of Godel's incompleteness theorem since it was explained simply to me. The essence of the theorem is that any map of the universe cannot ever fully describe the universe since the map is a part of and less than the universe it tries to descibe. Would you be able to translate the following words for me?
1) monistic idealism 2)Qualia 3)A priori solopsism and the one I could not even find in a dictionary Panpsychism.
Since I am not in your league could you please try to simplify the english since,after all, the purpose of language is to communicate.
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 09-05-2003]
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 09-05-2003]
[This message has been edited by sidelined, 09-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by :æ:, posted 09-03-2003 2:02 PM :æ: has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by wesir1, posted 10-07-2003 10:22 AM sidelined has replied

wesir1
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 106 (59889)
10-07-2003 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by sidelined
09-05-2003 10:30 PM


Hi
I have only looked at this thread with a passing eye...and find
it very intresting, partly also has I have just had a debate of this with someone else... this is a apart of what I wrote in responce to someone..(not in this forum)
note: I am the one responding...thus the qoutes are not me.
Qoute:
Correct. You are claiming that two things are different and yet a unity ... "they are one." I am making the same claim of mind and brain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am saying that’s a yes and a nobecause they are interact with each other.. so at some point they are in union a collective whole, and should not be treated separately.
Has for the mind and brain. You was trying to make that point — but what you frist wrote was incorrect. Coz what you wrote in part to get to there.was a lot of rubbish. And different to what you meant — again nothing to do with me.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yet they are one. If you change the brain, you change the mind
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think this is a good test simply coz you alter 1 you alter the (apparent other — I say apparent, coz I am taking you view into account that they are in fact one in the same)
its quite possible that because they interact. Simply altering (one) would thus alter the other! Which is why all the examples you show, don’t really thus assert your claim. ( they do assert that effecting the brain does alter the mind those)
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course for religionists there must be some kind of supernatural detaching of the brain from the spirit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don’t have to be religious to believe in the soul, and you assert far to much, I have already addressed, in anther thread, that I believe the terms supernatural and natural are in themselves a human construction fundamentally has a result of the scientific knowledge of the time, and lack of.
And has for the specific case in this thread, like I said before simply coz we can map out the workings and specifics of the brain..doesn’t thus eliminate the soul has they BOTH interact with each other.
In matter of fact so far it is you — whoms failed to display a sound argument, because I already addressed why your comments — that is alter the brain and thus the mind (same thing) doesn’t nesscerly equal or mean, thus there is no soul, coz the brain soul are interacting! So the altering of the brain — and thus the mind would be what one expects for both arguments! In short this isn’t a good test, all it shows is that the we can alter functions of the brain, and has a result the mindand or what goes with it. (which COULD inc a soul)
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
without it there would be nothing to "travel" to the afterlife...without it, there wouldn't be a special place to store your memories ... your identity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And like I said a possible way is like I said about the type of electromagnetic/neuron field (and photoelectric field) - using a process called Quantum tunneling the body is not required. — BUT I am not saying this is the soul, and you know why, coz if you recall I never actually dismissed your idea.
That the brain and mind are in fact one of the sameso thus the idea of the soul is a product of the brain because its equally possible that this field is again a product of the brain and the rest of the body’s functions, also this field — would need to show some form of persona
What I did and have disagreed apon is that fact that we can alter the brain. And that the brain does alter the mind doesn’t mean the soul is out of the window — coz this test or type of tests DON’T take into consideration that they (soul/body) are interacting and sowe would in fact expect alteration. — like I said above!
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other problem with these ideas is that they work backwards -- they begin with assertion of their existence and then follow up with (mostly failed) attempts to gain evidence to support them. Mental gymnastics ensue with attempts to link underdeveloped but yet scientific speculations to old belief systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the mental gymnastics hero is you, I never assert the soul does exist, rather there is evidence that may or may not even apply to it, the so called alter-brain thus mind tests, don’t rubbish the idea of a soul, specially within the framework stated above, you are right in that that the idea is working backwards however (this doctrine was not science, but your claiming your view is) — but I never assert there is a soul. You however are jumping the gun, by says it does not exist despite the fact your tests say little whatsoever to this effect.
Has it so happens I am mega surprise you haven’t even bothered to mention the famous experts or rather series of experiments that, have shown that under electromagnetic and even cold stimuli (or people in a centrifuge) they experience near death episodes in fact an interesting result of the electromagnetic oneis they tend to feel some mystical force is looking over them! Or even experiments were people with oxygen starvation in the brain see a white tunnel - none of these you mention!
Again the believe in the soul in the doctrine I explained doesn’t go against these. Simply due to the fact that
Its doctrine claims an interaction of both..so rather the mind.. Is this interaction.
HOWEVER!!! These tests I showed above which you omit, also open us to the very possibility that all or at last most out-death-body experience etc could in fact be a result of the brain being under extreme stress.
(Anther experiment is a neurotransmitter, name excpes me, that at certain level effects the brain and prone people in higher quantities to supernatural experiences but has my dear friend and colleague whom worked with it.pointed out is it that these people have to much or we have to little.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by sidelined, posted 09-05-2003 10:30 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by sidelined, posted 10-07-2003 12:44 PM wesir1 has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 103 of 106 (59931)
10-07-2003 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by wesir1
10-07-2003 10:22 AM


Re: Hi
wesir1 While I would enjoy taking up a discussion with you on the finer points of soul/mind /brain I am obviously not the one to whom you wish to speak.You are new to the forum so I will help you out. When you read one of these posts and wish to respond go to the bottom of that post and click on the reply button. You clicked on the reply button on the bottom of my post since I was the last in line.
It has been over a month since I placed this post so it is hard to say whether you will get a response or not .Good luck and hope to see you around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by wesir1, posted 10-07-2003 10:22 AM wesir1 has not replied

Dread Pirate
Guest


Message 104 of 106 (72221)
12-10-2003 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jim D
08-18-2003 6:45 PM


What?
Crash, with all do respect get over yourself. Killing oneself is almost never altruistic. Altruism is not even accepted by many professionals. Jim you gave some great examples. More power to you man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jim D, posted 08-18-2003 6:45 PM Jim D has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 12-11-2003 1:11 AM You have not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 105 of 106 (72231)
12-11-2003 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dread Pirate
12-10-2003 11:01 PM


Re: What?
Dread Pirate responds to crashfrog...sorta:
quote:
Crash, with all do respect get over yourself.
And this helps engender a constructive debate how?
quote:
Killing oneself is almost never altruistic.
Why does it matter if it is a rare occurrence of altruistic behaviour if we can observe it happening at all?
You're absolutely right that a person wallowing in self-pity, thinking that there is no hope, and killing himself isn't very altruistic. But if one sees a car bearing down upon your siblings and you rush to push them out of the way even though you are putting yourself in danger of getting run over, that isn't really of the same category as suicide, don't you think?
Isn't saving another person at the cost of your own person an altruistic act by definition?
quote:
Altruism is not even accepted by many professionals.
Indeed, because they tend to think that everything that a person ever does is for selfish reasons: A mother goes hungry so her child can eat isn't doing it out of love for the child...at least, not totally. The claim is that at least in part, the mother is doing it so that she can feel that she is a "good mother" by doing that.
Such an attitude seems simplistic and very nihilistic.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dread Pirate, posted 12-10-2003 11:01 PM Dread Pirate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by marco_ns, posted 12-13-2003 3:22 PM Rrhain has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024