The Soul

[Justin]

Originally Posted by nameless

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]

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]

Interesting link, Ron. Thanks.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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]

Originally Posted by Ron C. de Weijze

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. 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]

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Ramsey

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]

Originally Posted by Ramsey

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.