Comments and Inquiries on the soul

[Shenpa]

I have a few comments on theories of the Soul. First, I would like to comment on out-of-body experiences. Many reports have been made of people near death or who have died that leave the body. These people often claim that they can 'look' down at themselves. This is very interesting. It can be looked at in generally two main ways.

First, if these reports are true, it would mean that the soul retains some of the five sense without the body to process it. You wouldn't need your eyes to see, or your ears to hear. I don't know if any other senses were reported. Now, I have a few comments on this. If the soul does exist and can retain these senses, how come they are still bound by physical limitations? People report seeing themselves with their normal depth perception of forward facing vision. Perhaps the soul is accustom to seeing this way, but if the body were removed from the body and somehow could retain its vision, I would think that it would be a global type vision because there would be no eyes to turn. It would be more of an awareness, right?

Another theory which has been claimed about the soul is that it has weight. There was a study done (I am not sure how credible or if I should even bring it up, but if it were true) that the body loses weight at death which can't be accounted for. This would mean that the soul has substance and, therefore, bound by the same laws which govern material things. The soul could then decay over time.

Now, I have a few questions for more discussion because I would like to hear other interpretations of the soul before I comment on them.

Does the soul exist?
Is the soul dependent on physical senses?
Is the soul immortal?
What are the major claims for the theory of the soul?
Where do these claims go right and wrong?

[the_aphid]

I have a few comments on theories of the Soul. First, I would like to comment on out-of-body experiences. Many reports have been made of people near death or who have died that leave the body.There are also many reports that people have 'out-of-body experiences' during their dream state. It is a belief amongst many oneironauts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneironaut) that during a lucid dream one can become a character in someone else's dream, or that you can 'oversee' events that are going on in the 'real' world.Perhaps the soul is accustom to seeing this way, but if the body were removed from the body and somehow could retain its vision, I would think that it would be a global type vision because there would be no eyes to turn. It would be more of an awareness, right?Well like you mentioned, I believe that the 'soul' would become accustomed to seeing things via binary vision, hearing things within the limits of the human body...at first. However, perhaps as the 'soul' become aware it is 'out-of-body' the perceptions would become limitless. Once again, some lucid dreamers suggest in dreams that they can experience things which are impossible in waking life, like seeing ultra-violet wavelengths or 360 degree field of vision. I think the 'body image' would help explain why a mind would become accustomed to experiencing things in a way which is determined by our physical makeup. Once you are no longer restrained by the body, the mind might have to adjust to this view, which might take time.Another theory which has been claimed about the soul is that it has weight. There was a study done (I am not sure how credible or if I should even bring it up, but if it were true) that the body loses weight at death which can't be accounted for. This would mean that the soul has substance and, therefore, bound by the same laws which govern material things. The soul could then decay over time.According to Dr. Duncan MacDougall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_%28doctor%29), the soul has weight, approximately 21 grams.Now, I have a few questions for more discussion because I would like to hear other interpretations of the soul before I comment on them.Does the soul exist?
I personally don't think we have eternal souls. I think the 'soul' is an attempted explanation of how a mind can manifest itself in an immortal form, and I don't necessarily believe that we have eternal minds...but then again my opinion on these things changes very frequently.

Is the soul dependent on physical senses?
Well continuing with the above comment, the soul would simply be the immortal manifestation of the mind, which is dependent on physical senses yes, but yet the mind also has properties like intuition, imagination, creativity...so, perhaps the soul would not be limited to perception in the physical senses. Like above, if there is a soul, it seems more logical that it would simply become accustomed to the senses of the shell, but once it is free of the shell, it could learn to adapt.

Is the soul immortal?
Well, I already mentioned my opinion of this one, so next question.

What are the major claims for the theory of the soul?
The existence of the 'mind'? Humans seem to be afraid of death, afraid of non-existence and impermanence. So, it would almost seem (to me anyways) that the claim for the existence of a soul is founded in the desperate hope of some form of immortality.

Where do these claims go right and wrong?
Well, they can 'go right' if this view provides comfort, provides one with purpose to their current life, provides them with a reason for behaving morally. They can 'go wrong' if you become dependent on this view, if you cling to it in some way, and become fearful of the alternative.

I think it is more beneficial to become content with either possibility (mortal or immortal 'soul'), because you can still find a purpose for life without fearing death.

[scameter]

Shenpa:Does the soul exist?

Not physically or objectively, but yes. The soul is what makes people capable of having a subjective self and experiencing life with it. The soul can be deduced to exist through logic, but logic, as usual, is sketchy, and the best way to come about realizing it's existence is personal, subjective experience.

Shenpa:Is the soul dependent on physical senses?

Not at all. The soul is not really dependant on anything, nor is the body really dependant on the soul, except that without a soul, we would not realizing we are specifically in life, and would merely live.

Shenpa:Is the soul immortal?

I think so. The soul was put into existence specifically, I don't think it will die with the body.

Shenpa:What are the major claims for the theory of the soul?

The fact that things with souls realize that are experiencing life, and don't simply experience it. Without a soul, that realization is impossible, for such a realization acts as if there is something besides existing, which a physical mind could not deduce except, as I said, through logic, partially.

Shenpa:Where do these claims go right and wrong?

Well, usually peoples' claims about the soul that are wrong are one, that it has a moral character; two, that it interacts with life in any other way but the subjective; and three, that it can be identified objectively except through abstract logic. Those are the usual erroneous claims about the soul. And, soul claims go right when the soul's nature, and indeed the nature of subjectivity, is understood and considered through logic and subjective experience.

[Thomas Knierim]

Shenpa: Now, I have a few questions for more discussion because I would like to hear other interpretations of the soul before I comment on them.

These questions haven't been answered by science yet. Science doesn't have a proper theory of the self, not to mention of the soul. Science doesn't even know whether these ideas make sense at all. The only way to answer the question is then either by acquiring super-knowledge through enlightenment, or by hypothesizing. Allow me to follow the second path.

shenpa: Does the soul exist?

I believe it doesn't exist, because the soul is simply a conceptual extension of the self, an immortal version of the self so to speak. Since the self doesn't exist as a solid entity (which can be verified by introspection), why should we assume that the soul exists?

Shenpa: Is the soul dependent on physical senses?

Perhaps it is more pertinent to ask whether the self depends of the senses. I think it does. The self appears to be the result of the (supposed) continuity of experience. It is constructed by self-perception, thought and the memory thereof. Ultimately, the self is a function.

Shenpa: Is the soul immortal?

No, it is entirely transient. The self (or mind) is subject to continuous change just like the body, yet the individual body and mind retain certain identifiable characteristics throughout lifetime, which leads to the illusion of a solid entity. There is no entity, however. What gives rise to this idea are causally related processes.

Shenpa: What are the major claims for the theory of the soul?

NDEs and OBEs are often cited in support of the existence of a soul. However, I doubt that the inference of a soul from such experiences is valid, even if we give NDEs and OBEs credit as "authentic" experiences, rather than viewing them as hallucinations. What these phenomena seem to suggest is the existence of a transpersonal realm, or at least the existence of some very interesting properties of consciousness.

Shenpa: Where do these claims go right and wrong?

With a small degree of insight into psychology, it is not too hard to understand that the concept of a soul is fed by the ego, or rather by the human desire for immortality. Unfortunately, many people allow this desire to overrule reason and religious dogma and superstitions support this tendency. That's what goes wrong. On the other hand, there are certain things which speak in favour of not of a soul, but of a transpersonal reality (see above). Since, this is a complex issue I would prefer to address this at another time.

Scameter: And, soul claims go right when the soul's nature, and indeed the nature of subjectivity, is understood and considered through logic and subjective experience.

Interesting statement. Could you expand on that?

Cheers, Thomas

[Shenpa]

Unfortunately, many people allow this desire to overrule reason and religious dogma and superstitions support this tendency. That's what goes wrong. --Thomas--

My thoughts exactly. I was half expecting people to side with the existence of the soul, so I could have philosophical dialogue with them.

Scameter: And, soul claims go right when the soul's nature, and indeed the nature of subjectivity, is understood and considered through logic and subjective experience.

Interesting statement. Could you expand on that?

I would also like you to expand on this statement, if you would. It would seem to me that subjectivity and logic don't always fit together because subjectivity is often influenced by personal bias. This takes the issue of a soul a bit further, unless I am reading into it too much.

For the soul to exist, we must first look at whether there are things the physicalists can’t explain that would require posit of a soul to do so, right? Yes, no? Can the soul be reasoned to exist where human contamination can often play a more logical role in its explanation? In the past, scientific tools weren’t yet implemented to extend the senses for us to see the actually causes of natural events. Sickness could have been the work of the devil and it would have been just as valid, if not more so, than germs. Superstitions were often caused by such beliefs.

Could this have been the start of the true soul? Perhaps, but this is not the only argument for the soul. It seems that as our understanding of the natural world increase the soulists (new word?) just fall back to other arguments without showing logical objection. It reminds me of alien conspiracy theorists. They will take anything that comes without sorting between bull-honky and valid information.

The reason why I am so interested in theories of the soul is because I tried explaining some eastern thought in one of my creative writing works and a Christian boy in my class plugged his ears. I believed any evidence against the soul was detrimental to his beliefs because he would question his belief. I have noticed this stigma growing as of late, in my area at least. It seems that most Christians avoid arguments against Christian theology because they can’t answer the questions. I respect the right for someone to believe what they will, but when someone’s faith is dependent of how well he or she can ignore evolution, the natural sciences, etc then it is not strong enough.

What will it take for the soul theory to survive the twenty-first century?

P.s. Sorry about the lousy writing. The kids are sick. I am running between them (whenever they wake up) and the computer, so I have no time to spell check/revise :lol: :think: :thumbsup:

[scameter]

Thomas/Shenpa:Interesting statement. Could you expand on that?

Certainly. The soul has been considered and contemplated throughout history, using many different methods, goals, and backgrounds in mind, including different religions, science, etc. But, I think that the study of the soul and it's nature is best pursued by use of methods of logic and through personal, subjective experience, but only after those two are understood. Logic of couse is understood merely by studying it's nature as described in philosophy and mathematics, such as deductive logic, inductive logic, inference, geometry, etc., and this only needs to be applied to the soul in accordance with evidence from life, common sense, intuition, discussion, and other reference points by which logic bases it's conclusions - but logic is usually capable of being doubted by at least someone. Subjective experience, on the other hand, is usually not doubted, at least not beyond small, general doubt, by the person who experiences it, secondhand experience being irrelevant and objective rather than subjective. Subjective experience is the living of life, in all it's manners, by the individual through their own mind and body. When these two are used towards an investigation of the soul, and alone without any other bias or reference point, the soul's nature and existence can be discovered.

Shenpa:For the soul to exist, we must first look at whether there are things the physicalists can’t explain that would require posit of a soul to do so, right?

Not really, since the soul is not physical. It is an abstract, subjective quality of the person, their self and identity, which makes the individual capable of realizing they are experiencing life, rather than just experiencing it without said realization and usual subsequent contemplation. Thus, it must be studied by abstract logic, and subjective experience.

Shenpa:It seems that most Christians avoid arguments against Christian theology because they can’t answer the questions.

That's because they general either don't know their own theology, or misunderstand it.

Shenpa:What will it take for the soul theory to survive the twenty-first century?

Logic. If people can retain the capacity for logic, then they will continue to be capable of deducing the soul's existence. Without logic, the subjective experience of life will not give them enough reason to realize the soul's truth.

[Thomas Knierim]

Shenpa: A Christian boy in my class plugged his ears.

I find it very strange that a boy would plug his ears merely upon hearing Christian ideas being questioned. Why? It seems to indicate that this boy has been indoctrinated. - Any ideas?

Shenpa: I believed any evidence against the soul was detrimental to his beliefs because he would question his belief.

Of course, there isn't any evidence against the existence of a soul, just as there isn't any evidence against the existence of a creator god. So what? There also isn't any evidence against invisible pink unicorns. The burden of proof clearly rests with those who claim the existence of undetectable entities.

Shenpa: What will it take for the soul theory to survive the twenty-first century?

The idea of a soul has survived the 20th century, so it stands to reason that it will also survive the 21st century (and perhaps also the following centuries). In America, roughly half of the population believes that the Earth is 6000 years old. Given this staggering amount of people completely ignoring science, one wonders if religious superstitions can be eradicated at all.

Scameter: Certainly. The soul has been considered and contemplated throughout history, using many different methods, goals, and backgrounds in mind, including different religions, science, etc. But, I think that the study of the soul and it's nature is best pursued by use of methods of logic and through personal, subjective experience, but only after those two are understood. Logic of couse is understood merely by studying it's nature as described in philosophy and mathematics, such as deductive logic, inductive logic, inference, geometry, etc., and this only needs to be applied to the soul in accordance with evidence from life, common sense, intuition, discussion, and other reference points by which logic bases it's conclusions - but logic is usually capable of being doubted by at least someone. Subjective experience, on the other hand, is usually not doubted, at least not beyond small, general doubt, by the person who experiences it, secondhand experience being irrelevant and objective rather than subjective. Subjective experience is the living of life, in all it's manners, by the individual through their own mind and body. When these two are used towards an investigation of the soul, and alone without any other bias or reference point, the soul's nature and existence can be discovered.

What on earth are you talking about? Could you be any more evasive? We already know that the soul has been talked about throughout history. We also know that you think it can inferred from logic. But how? How exactly do you accomplish this? What role does logic play? What role does common sense play? What role does intuition play? How do you investigate soul?

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Thomas:What on earth are you talking about? Could you be any more evasive?

:o Thomas... I'm trying to understand you. Evasive? I have never, ever, throughout my entire time on this forum, intentionally used any sort of circular logic, fundamentalism, dismissal or denial of questions, or any sort of evasion, and I have also been very careful to make sure I didn't do it unintentionally. I replied to your and shenpa's request for elaboration, and you patronize and demean it as if I am speaking jibberish and evasion, simply trying to avoid actually answering. I don't understand you, or Taeguk for that matter. I know that you are so powerful that every thought and word you utter is perfectly clear and intelligent and concise and based in truth, but I am not so perfect. Please try to at least consider my words without demeaning them, though that seems hard for you to do.

Thomas:But how? How exactly do you accomplish this?

Here, I'll use a chart for you. Maybe you'll prefer business:

Logic:
Deduction-
Physical reality is experienced. Some of those individuals who experience reality realize they are experiencing it; some simply live, without said realization. Some of those individuals make their realization of subjectivity intelligible to other experiencers through lingual communication. Thus, the realization of experience of life is possible by certain individuals and can be communicated.
Induction-
Some individuals are capable of realizing they experience life.
Some individuals can communicate their realization to others.
Thus.....
Not all individuals realize they experience life and simply experience it.
Not all individuals who realize they experience life can communicate it.
Realization of subjective experience of life is possible.
Communication of said realization is possible.
Inference-
Life exists.
Abstract information is apart of life.
Some individuals with brains can learn that information through experience and thought and create their own information as well.
Some individuals can realize, through their informational experience and informational thought, specifically that they experience life and with that realization no longer simply live life, but rather are aware of their being and experience in life.
Therefore...
There are individuals who can realize they experience life, while some cannot realize that.

Subjective Experience:
Feeling-
Through the sensory sensations of physical interaction with life, one may realize that they experience life.
Contemplation-
Through contemplating one's experiences of life, oneself, and other people, one may realize that they are apart of life and experience it, and no longer simply act in life without awareness but with it.
Consideration-
Through considering one's environment, internal experiences such as emotions, thoughts, dreams, etc., other people, and the rest of life, one may come to specifically realize that they experience life, and no longer simply act in it with singular, materialistic focus but also with awareness.
Intuition-
Through intuition, one may ask oneself philosophical questions, such as what is life, what am I, why am I here, etc., and intuitonally feel/see that they are in life and experience it, and may then live in awareness rather than ignorance.
Social Interaction-
Through social interaction such as discussion, emotional relationships, suffering and happiness caused by other people, etc., one may come to see that they experience life and will no longer simply function in ignorance.
Realization-
Through experience and logic, as I have explained it, one may come to realize/see that they are apart of life and experience it, and through awareness of those facts, they may continue with said awareness and incorporate it into their feeling toward life, rather than simply functioning. The realization of this is in fact the realization of the soul, which is one's capacity for subjective experience in life.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter, I have the greatest difficulties following your thoughts here. What you have written above is convoluted to a degree that I can only take a guess at what you are trying to express. Pointing this out to you is not demeaning or patronizing. I don't criticise you as a person; I criticize the argument you make. I hope you understand the difference. I could point out the sentences that appear nonsensical to me and the lack of argument structure, but I desist from it to advance this thread into a more fruitful direction. So please allow me to guess what you are trying to say.

You make an argument in favour of the existence of the soul, and the argument involves experience and logic. In the previous post you say a lot of things about logic, inference, intuition, contemplation, yet the word "soul" appears only once:

Scameter: The realization of this is in fact the realization of the soul, which is one's capacity for subjective experience in life.

You appear to say that the soul provides us with the capacity for subjective experience and the fact that we do have subjective experience points towards the existence of a soul - is that correct?

One could state that because there is experience, there must be an experiencer (a self/soul), thus deriving the subject from the object. Is that what you are saying?

Cheers, Thomas

[Shenpa]

One could state that because there is experience, there must be an experiencer (a self/soul), thus deriving the subject from the object. Is that what you are saying? (Thomas' interpretation of scameter's argument)

Cheers, Thomas

That is clearer. Couldn't the Experiencer theory, however, be explained in a more intelligibly from a physicalist’s perspective? Take the harmony perspective, for instance. This perspective goes something like this, all the parts of the body work together to create a harmony, which allows people to create a gap between stimulus and response.

I think the objection of this was that harmony doesn’t know that it is harmonious and harmony can’t affect itself. It just is.

This example isn’t perfect, but I think it works well to explain the physicalist’s perspective. For instance, if you pluck one string, vibrations are sent out across the harp, so one string does affect the other. The human mind is like harmony. Three distinct sections (my knowledge on this is very limited) of the brain work separately and together to create free agency. It has also been proven that the body has an intelligence and knowing of its own.

Could the ‘Soul’ have been posited to explain the idea of free agency and experience caused by the harmony of the body/mind?

[j000han]

The big-bang theory assumes that the universe as we know it, derrives from an incredible intensive excentric movement.
Thus this provides for the most fundamental concept of excentric or centrepital;
a directionated force/movement going outward.
Common sense tells me that, if then apparently a most fundamental excentric movent is possilbe then it is only fair to consider that it is also possilble that a most fundamental concentric movement exists.http://www.thebigview.com/forum/images/smilies/wallbash.gif
:wallbash:
Thus it seems not on reasonable to presume that this universe existing as possiblity, was preceded by a concentric movement/ force that brought about the condition on which the socalled big-bang.could happen.
So..
we seem to be confronted here with the classical chicken-egg dillemma in it’s most fundamental form.
What happened first contraction or expansion?http://www.thebigview.com/forum/images/smilies/unsure.gif
:unsure:

Notice that two concepts concentric and excentric,
are concepts that derive from the property of imagination.
Notice also that by nature we can more easily imagine a balloon that becomes bigger and bigger as it expands to the very bounderies(if it has any) of the universe.
Hoever to imagine that it becomes smaller and smaller proportionally to that greatness,
we first must take that aquired visual image of that large universe into a concept of greatness.
We then must compress it and then project it into the smallest that we can perceive.
In order to be fair it must be the smallest that we can perceive without any use of technological support, thus a grain of sand will do..
Another part of this deal (to be fair to imagination) is that this entire mini
universe must actually contain all the properties of experience.
To name them:
That single one grain must contain all the objects that can be perceived (cars people planets), all the events that happen here to, wit wars, television broadcasting, wedding parties, divorces aso and most importantly, the movement of time.
Even more important may be that as it must contain conceptually cars,
people aso., i must not forget to inlcude myself with that.
The last part of this fair deal with imagination entails,
that also the projection must be done not only on every grain of sand,
but also to the entire image derived from visual perception.
The image must be grainulized or even better pixlerated and each one of these pixels must be transformed in the aquired image of ‘’greatness’ hence muliplied with x (x fairly can be considered as an infinite large number).
Needless it is to say that in order to do this the brain has to make a very special effort.

Consequently inside every grain of sand or pixel the big-bang has happened and i/you am/are there(where the action is)..
When you drink a glas of water in all the alledgedly existing molecules,
A big-bang has happened and i/you am/are there.
Thus it seems to be far more reasonable to consider this universe (as we know it)
to be a multiverse with a particular property that enables it to exist as a multiverse.
This property can be refered to as a property,
however it can not be be known from what/where that property arises
nor can it be known what causes it to arise.
All that can be said is that the mentioned property
*cannot be otherwise* then being intrinsic to my and yours very existence.
Is it this intrinsic property which is the very foundation of the multiversity of consiousnes or the multiverse what perhaps could be called soul.http://www.thebigview.com/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
;)

[scameter]

Thomas:You appear to say that the soul provides us with the capacity for subjective experience and the fact that we do have subjective experience points towards the existence of a soul - is that correct? One could state that because there is experience, there must be an experiencer (a self/soul), thus deriving the subject from the object. Is that what you are saying?

Thomas, perhaps you have less self-confidence, or perhaps confidence in other people, than you realize, because that is exactly what I'm saying, and it's what I've been saying in this topic thus far. And yet, you said you have "the greatest difficulties" following me, when it's obvious you understand what I'm saying perfectly. But, yes, that is what I'm saying. To me, the fact that we experience life and realize it and are capable of contemplating experience itself, rather than merely functioning mechanically in life, shows that there must be something more to it, most likely a soul.

Shenpa:That is clearer. Couldn't the Experiencer theory, however, be explained in a more intelligibly from a physicalist’s perspective?

I tried stating it simply, but that was understood. And, as I have also said, the experiencer theory as you call it is not physicalist in nature, and thus cannot be explained by it. Our subjective experience, which a physicalist, materialist or scientist, and probably also an objectivist or relativist, would simply call us being alive and intelligent enough to recognize it because of our physical brain, is not adequete, because it excludes the abstract nature of our brain that allows us to contemplate things, including the mere fact that we *are* and that experience reality, with objectivity despite out attachment to it. Other animals never contemplate those things in that way; they merely function, regardless of how intelligent, emotional or social they are. Or, if they do contemplate it, unfortunately they don't have the language capacities to communicate it to us.

[coberst]

We constantly make subjective judgments regarding abstract things, such as morality, difficulty, importance; we also have subjective experiences such as affection, desire, and achievement.

The manner in which we reason, and visualize about these matters comes from other domains of experience. “These other domains are mostly sensorimotor domains…as when we conceptualize understanding an idea (subjective experience) in terms of grasping an object (sensorimotor experience)…The cognitive mechanism for such conceptualizations is conceptual metaphor, which allows us to use the physical logic of grasping to reason about understanding.”

Metaphor is pervasive throughout thought and language. Primary metaphors might properly be considered to be the fundamental building blocks for our thinking and our communication through language.

The theory of primary metaphors has four parts:
1) Johnson’s theory of conflation—in the early years of childhood the sensorimotor experiences are often conflated with the subjective (nonsensorimotor) experiences and judgments. An example might be when a newborn experiences the warmth of the embrace by its mother and that literal experience becomes conflated with a later subjective experience of affection. That is why our feeling of affection is accompanied by a sense of warmth. “During the early period of conflation, associations are automatically built up between the two domains. Later, during a period of differentiation, children then able to separate out the domains, but the cross-domain associations persist.”

2) Grady’s theory of primary metaphor—complex metaphors are like molecular structure with primary metaphors as the atomic elements.

3) Narayanan’s neural theory of metaphor—the associations made during conflation “are realized neurally in simultaneous activations that result in permanent neural connections being made across the neural networks that define conceptual domains…that constitute metaphorical entailments.”

4) Fauconnier and Turner’s theory of conceptual blending—Distinct separate conceptual domains can be coactivated thereby creating a blending, which creates new and unique conceptual blends.

“The integrated theory –the four parts together—has an overwhelming implication: We acquire a large system of primary metaphors automatically and unconsciously simply by functioning in the most ordinary of ways in the everyday world from our earliest days…we all naturally think using hundreds of primary metaphors.”

In summation, we have many hundreds of primary metaphors, which together provide a rich inferential structure, imagery, and qualitative feel. These primary metaphors permit our sensorimotor experiences to be used to create subjective experiences. Thus abstract ideas are created that are grounded in everyday experiences.

Do you have any idea how abstract ideas might be created other wise?

Quotes from Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson

[Thomas Knierim]

Shenpa: Couldn't the Experiencer theory, however, be explained in a more intelligibly from a physicalist’s perspective?

I doubt it, because the argument is principally Cartesian and doesn't concern itself with the physical or with emergence. The deduction from experience (object) to an experiencer (subject) is nothing else but a restatement of Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum." One could call it a "grammatical" argument. The argument is problematic, because the subject-object dichotomy is imposed by the language/mind and therefore the inference from the occurrence of thinking to the existence of a solid entity (the self) is not valid without adding the premises (1) if experience occurs then existence occurs, and (2) existence belongs to entities.

Scameter: That is exactly what I'm saying, and it's what I've been saying in this topic thus far. And yet, you said you have "the greatest difficulties" following me.

Call it a lucky guess or good intuition.

So you say that the soul provides us with the capacity for subjective experience and the fact that we do have subjective experience points towards the existence of a soul. I doubt your premise, namely that subjective experience requires a soul. I agree that subjective experience requires a mind, i.e. sense apparatus and consciousness... but a soul? Why? Care to explain?

What concerns the Cartesian argument which I mentioned above, I doubt that you have a case for the existence of the soul. Even if we agree to the implicit premises (the ones stated above) making the Cartesian argument a complete syllogism, this is not sufficient to deduce the existence of soul; it is just sufficient to deduce the existence of an entity (call it "I" or "self" or "subject"), but such an entity could be explained in phenomenological or physical terms.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

coberst: Do you have any idea how abstract ideas might be created other wise?

Abstract ideas are created in the brain through neurological thought processing combined with memory, and a subconscious capacity to allow for the formation of references, connections, mataphors, summaries, and all other imaginative alternations of mental information while still in the brain. Thought computes one's memory, while the subconscious, perhaps intuition, searches through one's memory and offers up connections between memories and ideas in one's mind. That is how abstract ideas are formed, and essentially the entire process of abstraction takes place in that way.

Thomas:The deduction from experience (object) to an experiencer (subject) is nothing else but a restatement of Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum."

Well, perhaps, but that is not entirely accurate in my usage of that deduction. To say, I think therefore I am, is to say, since I experience thought, it means that I exist, and, as some more extreme thinkers have interpreted it, my thought literally creates and is the center of my existence. I don't think that thought is anymore a pointer to the soul than emotion, both of which are physical. But, experience, while still processed by the brain, is something that transcends itself. Experience of life means that one is here, that one is alive and experiencing life, that one is individual, and that one is not merely an impersonal, functional machine in physical existence, like rocks or light. And, as I have said before, experience is not physical; or, perhaps, a better word would be, being is not physical. (As a note, this is a relatively new theory of mine and I still haven't articulated it entirely, or even understood it entirely, yet.)

Thomas:Why? Care to explain?

Hmm... actually, I think thus far, I may have made a mistake of not entirely clarifying what I mean by experience, and subjective experience. By those, I don't merely mean just normal, everday experience. I mean the experience of being, realizing that one *is*, and gaining that realization through experience of it in daily life and/or through logic. Maybe that'll clarify.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: I don't think that thought is anymore a pointer to the soul than emotion, both of which are physical.

In what way are thoughts and emotions physical? Are you refering to neural correlates? Researchers have explored what they call neural correlates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlate) of certain contents of experience. However, it proved extremely difficult to pinpoint these correlates. For example, it is impossible to say what the neurobiological state of the thought "flower" might be. Do you think that thoughts and emotions can be reduced to neural correlates?

Scameter: Experience of life means that one is here, that one is alive and experiencing life, that one is individual, and that one is not merely an impersonal, functional machine in physical existence, like rocks or light.

This is usually called consciousness. It is the subjective quality of what it is like to have a certain experience. The word consciousness is used to distinguish it from so-called qualia, which are the contents of consciousness, the subject matters of experience, so to speak. -- So you appear to be saying there are neural correlates for qualia (such as thoughts and emotions), but there is no neural correlate for consciousness. Is that correct?

Scameter: As a note, this is a relatively new theory of mine and I still haven't articulated it entirely, or even understood it entirely, yet.

This may be the reason why I have difficulties understanding what you say.

Scameter: Maybe that'll clarify.

We are coming close. My question was: why would -according to your theory- a "soul" be required for experience rather than just a "mind"? You haven't really answered this question, but I can guess what it boils down to. You seem to understand the mind as something physical which would function much like a machine if it wasn't for the soul which affords us conscious experience... is that correct?

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Thomas:Do you think that thoughts and emotions can be reduced to neural correlates?

Perhaps, or something else physical, though the most probable thing seems to be some organization and function of neurons with one another, in whatever way that may be, and other parts of the brain. But, regardless of what particular thing it is, I think it is definitely physical.

Thomas:So you appear to be saying there are neural correlates for qualia (such as thoughts and emotions), but there is no neural correlate for consciousness. Is that correct?

Somewhat. Though, as I said, it is specifically the experience of being itself and the realization/consideration of that experience that I think points to something beyond the physical, the idea of the soul seeming to fit best in there, though certainly not the only possible explanation.

Thomas:You seem to understand the mind as something physical which would function much like a machine if it wasn't for the soul which affords us conscious experience... is that correct?

Mmm, sort of. I what I'm saying, and I'll try to organize my thoughts here a bit, is this: the fact that the individual human is capable of realizing, objectively, that they exist and that they experience life, via whatever means that may be (most likely physical, though I won't dispute some theories that physical existence is an illusion or whatever), and is thus capable of viewing their being from a position beyond that of being and functioning in life, shows that there is something more than just what exists, including our physical body, and it further points to the fact that something more exists for/in us, since we ourselves are capable of that objective, detached viewing, and yet still being entirely attached to life and living in it, and even gaining that conclusion from personal experience and logical conclusion of being.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: ...though the most probable thing seems to be some organization and function of neurons with one another, in whatever way that may be, and other parts of the brain.

That is exactly what the term neural correlate means, as opposed to neural substrate, a biophysical (electrochemical) state, rather than a substrate or a single physical phenomenon.

Scameter: Though, as I said, it is specifically the experience of being itself and the realization/consideration of that experience that I think points to something beyond the physical, the idea of the soul seeming to fit best in there, though certainly not the only possible explanation.

Your position essentially amounts do dualism.

You are talking about two different realms of reality, the physical realm and the realm of the soul. It's somewhat unsurprising, given your Christian views and the Cartesian type of argument you cited here.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Thomas:Your position essentially amounts do dualism.

Perhaps. Though, I have also contemplated that physical life may simply be an illusion, like an illusory maze that our soul traverses and explores, and that it is also possible our soul, and all of spirituality, is created by existence, whether it was created itself or not, and is thus not dualed or separate really, but more like a parent and child. But, as I have said, this is a new exploration for me.

Thomas:It's somewhat unsurprising, given your Christian views and the Cartesian type of argument you cited here.

Well, I actually said and explained that my views are not actually Cartesian, or not entirely at least, and I do hope that, since I'm Christian, you're not simply qualifying me based on that title, for there is much variation within that group.