Does Belief In Evolution Automatically Mean There Is No Soul?

[Antlerman]

You're entire response above is absurd. It either demonstrates you simply are unable to grasp the concepts of what I'm saying, or you're being a insincere in this discussion, deliberately just trying to keep it going for the sake of whatever. I vote for the former.

 

This is an example of what I wrote above. I personally think MWC makes sense, but I often think that. Since guys like I and MWC don't get what you are saying, you are going to have to adjust your explanatory style to the way our brains work, not the way yours does, if that's possible. Again, we think in practical terms. I'm not stubborn enough to hold that practicalities are the end all, but clearly, if we are to understand the points you are trying to get across, you need to adjust your style if you can and use things we can relate to because honestly, I don't know what you are saying most of the time and I'm not usually easily confused.

I'm not exactly sure it can be put within another framework of reference. Some of the words can be used to relate to it, but understanding it is in fact another framework of reference. I've already given a ton of examples and references, and there are those who in fact very clearly do understand what I am saying, and those who just don't. If someone has never looked at things other than what is immediately 'obvious' to them for example, they won't see it. I'm sure you could easily find examples of this with others in your life as well. Frame of reference.

 

As a brief example, I just had lunch and a couple beers with someone who is interested in these sorts of ideas. As I explained to him exactly everything I have explained in this thread, he was tracking with it every step of the way. It offered some new ways for him to look at these things, but he 'got it'. It's really shifting how you think about all your conventions. And it's my belief that doing that is important, otherwise we are 'stuck' with what is 'obvious'.

[Galien]

I think what Antler says makes perfect sense, but to understand it you have to be open to it, not have a closed mind or soul This is why I should not get into these discussions because people who think science has an answer for everything will not even consider anything they believe comes under the banner of "humanities". It is like trying to compare apples with oranges when the thing is a nectarine in the first place.

 

I have spent so many years of my life trying to explain this stuff to people who just don't get it I am either frustrated by what I perceive as their stupidity, or just plain tired of trying to explain something that to me is as plain as the nose on your face. It is very very frustrating. There are some things I just know, I cannot tell you why.

[Antlerman]

I think what Antler says makes perfect sense, but to understand it you have to be open to it, not have a closed mind or soul This is why I should not get into these discussions because people who think science has an answer for everything will not even consider anything they believe comes under the banner of "humanities".

To be fair, I would say that most everyone in this discussion has shown an effort to try to understand what I'm presenting. Naturally, there will be knee-jerk reactions to things that sound like what came from the superstitious-religious past, and as I said earlier, simply frames of reference as well. But I have really appreciated what I've seen in this thread. I've been really enjoying exploring new ways to try to talk about all of it, and I've gained some new realizations as part of that process. So it's all good in how I see it. I appreciate this discussion.

 

It is like trying to compare apples with oranges when the thing is a nectarine in the first place.

A similar analogy I've heard is apples and orangutans.

 

I guess I try to look at these discussions this way, we all are part of the world and experience it. Everyone tries their best to relate to reality in whatever ways avail themselves, through their culture, their family, their languages, experiences, personalities, beliefs, knowledge, etc. There are many legitimate ways of looking at and relating to reality, and most of them are partially true, are partially incomplete. I strongly advocate loosening any exclusive claim to reality or the keys to it - be that someone's science or someone's religion, culture, tradition, belief, etc.

 

We eat both apples and oranges.

 

I have spent so many years of my life trying to explain this stuff to people who just don't get it I am either frustrated by what I perceive as their stupidity, or just plain tired of trying to explain something that to me is as plain as the nose on your face. It is very very frustrating. There are some things I just know, I cannot tell you why.

That's the frustration of the inadequacy of words! Once you moved to areas beyond words, then what is left? Poetry comes closer, but ultimately it is simplicity itself: breath. The sun on the face. Silence. Love.

 

That is the freedom, the release, the salvation from all that we create to bind us to 'reality'.

[Vigile]

Let me know if this makes any sense and I'll keep going, or take a step back to see if there is another way to talk about it. Bottom line however, when Rev R says its way to view the experience of living, this is a small bit of the backdrop as to why that is true. At the end of it all is profound simplicity.

 

I get it and generally agree. I might have some questions, but I just wanted to let you know I'm leaving in a bit to catch a plane and will be traveling and suffering jet lag over the next couple of days so I may not be able to get back to this for a short while.

[mwc]

You're entire response above is absurd. It either demonstrates you simply are unable to grasp the concepts of what I'm saying, or you're being a insincere in this discussion, deliberately just trying to keep it going for the sake of whatever. I vote for the former.

 

Before I'm willing to continue responding I need you to demonstrate for me how you interpret the use of words like "self". I've asked this repeatedly of you and gotten no response. Can you show me scientific evidence of "self"? Your response to me above can equally be applied to someone speaking of their "self". Do you view that as some external object, like an invisible Pink Unicorn?? Perhaps you do.

 

Then let's expand that invisible ghost you image it as, that "self", and talking about our primal self, our civilized self, our advanced self, our higher self. Of course these are just all different shades of an invisible Pink Unicorn. Or are they ways to talk about experienced subjective reality in objective terms using linguistic symbols? Clearly that entire discussion I provided above went sailing straight past you.

 

Id, ego, superego. Freud believed in invisible unicorns! Thank you MWC for clarifying this for all of us.

My response was absurd? At lest you've clarified how my response was absurd and we can move on to...wait...no...you just declared it absurd and therefore it is. This sort of thing happens a lot in this thread.

 

"Before [you're] willing to continue"? Seriously? You want *me* to define something for you when you've yet to actually do this for me? And now you're making this discussion contingent on my giving you a definition? Where have you asked for this "repeatedly?" Nowhere. You've mentioned various "concepts" like "maturity" that you've wanted me to "think about" (or something to that nature) but nothing where I'm to give you a definition of "self." If you want to speak to absurd you're circling it with this.

 

The "self" lies strictly in the brain. Nowhere else. It is chemicals. It is electrical impulses. Whatever misuse or misunderstanding a person has about "self" would arrive from the fact that they get input from outside the brain via the other senses thus conflating those items with "self." My body is also "self" but only because it sends the input to my brain. If brain transfers were possible then that new body would be considered "self" because that body would send the input into the brain. Destroy the brain you destroy the "self." Clone (meaning make an identical copy not a proper clone) the brain and you clone the "self" (to that point then it diverges). Alter the functioning of the brain and you alter the functioning of the "self." Transferring the brain into a computer would transfer the "self" but the "self" that is transfered may not be identical to the one that was inside the brain (as the computer may not provide an identical environment in which to operate). This is the "self."

 

Freud built a model with the information he had to work with. Freud was mistaken with a great many things if we take into consideration all the knowledge we have acquired since his time. If we choose to ignore that knowledge then perhaps women still have a great deal of penis envy to work through? Freud put out a theory of mind that you're trying to equate to your, so far, theory of nothing. You're then trying to make it seem like I've accused Freud of something I haven't to discredit the criticism of what you've put forth so far.

 

Now tell me I am wrong, in whatever terms you choose to say the concept of "wrong," and we can hopefully move along to whatever is next.

 

I stand by what I've said. You've presented an explanation built, so far, on faith. The Invisible Pink Unicorn that you don't wish to call "Invisible," "Pink," nor a "Unicorn." But it's still somewhere within the room and I first need to accept that it is here before we can seriously get down to talking about whatever this "thing" is.

 

I've explained all this in great depth, and based on your responses your problem appears to be an entire conceptual framework, as it says in my signature line below. I don't imagine how we can discuss these things if you don't follow my thoughts. If you were to respond saying, "I understand concepts such as self, higher self, soul, spirit, etc, but I don't see a need to assign them to things like "God" or other religious symbols," then you would be demonstrating we are at least looking at the same thing! No, however, you imagine this is invisible unicorns, which shows you don't see it at all. Again, what is "self"?

 

As far as the use of "true science" as you just challenged me on, why don't use ask that question of Einstein who was the one who used it and I borrowed it from. What did he mean by it, and why do I feel that entire quote supported everything I'm saying?

At best I can concede that you've explained something in what you perceive to be "great depth" but it's been a rather meaningless jumble of nonsense from end.

 

I don't know if you've taken the time to notice but when I say "What I'm seeing here is ..." and I repeat something back, well, I'll be blunt...That's what I fucking see in that mess of words. That's my take-away. If you've not managed to catch my all too plain attempt to say to you "What I'm seeing here is ..." I'm not sure how else I can tell you what it is that I am seeing on the written page before my eyes. Something I am doing in some vain attempt to make sure that we are on the same page during this excruciating exercise. And yet we are not on the same page.

 

What I refuse to do is what you're asking. I will *NOT* simply concede to a common understanding of the concepts you mention. We do not use them the same way. We do not have the same understanding of them. I cannot do what you ask. It will not happen. They must be defined for any meeting of the minds to occur. This has nothing to do with a "god" but everything to do with communication.

 

This is exactly invisible pink unicorns. If I must simply accept something that I cannot see but I am told that it is there then that is invisible pink unicorns. You know it's there. You apparently can describe it. You know what it is. You seem to know what it's not. I need to just accept the concepts without proper definition to demonstrate that we are "looking at the same thing" (laughable since this would be impossible to ever actually know without definitions). So you know of this animal and you might be able to get me to see it if I will just admit that I see it too. Then you can finally explain it to me. Which will be easy since, by then, I'll see it. Not that there's anything to see.

 

The conceptual framework in your signature? Was that referenced? Was I supposed to know this? I don't recall this being in anything directed towards me. Same with this quote of Einstein. But if the quote of Einstein is all that important why don't you explain it to me? Why should I try to figure out what it means to you as-if I can read your mind? Is that what I'm supposed to be able to do? Because I'll concede failure right now if it is. I simply do not possess that power.

 

I question whether you've read/followed much of what I've posted here. I clearly stated that soul is superseded by spirit, which would be Union with all or the All.

You said "P.S. Can it be defined and demonstrated? Yes. It is defined as the Unity of all things."

 

So I said "So 'soul' is the unity of all things."

 

I see a response to where I say this can be defined or demonstrated. Lots of stuff is said. Final paragraph mentions stuff about "spirit." Then a post-script. The p.s. is to the final paragraph? So I'm the one who screwed up in connecting the post-script about defining and demonstrating to the whole response instead of the last little bit? Guess that's all on me. Anyhow, where is this "clearly" said? I have to ask because "clearly" appears to be another word we use differently.

 

We're not talking physics in any of these definitions of "self", "soul", or "spirit". How would you imagine I'm speaking, like Brundel Fly fused with his telepod? Yes however, I do believe in the physical interconnectedness of all things, but more specifically the spiritual is awareness, and internal, conscious, identification, or recognition. That is what this discussion is about - the internal aspects and evolution of that in nature.

You haven't said what any of these things are or how they are to be properly used. They are assumed. I can use them as I wish if that is to be the case.

 

All I see here is you telling me that you have something that is able to be physical but not. Convenient. That's like an explanation but not. Which is ironically inconvenient.

 

Experience. Other's experiences. Developmental psychologists, etc. Again, what is "maturity", beyond some biological reference to certain stages of physical development; mature in the psychological sense of the word? What is maturity, and how do you demonstrate it? Exact same difference. I could go on at some length, but at the moment I don't see it would help make the concepts realized any better. You imagine they don't exist beyond their physiological component. There is no psychological, it's all just biology to you. I think that may be the whole problem in this discussion. You don't even acknowledge mind, how then could you imagine self, soul, or spirit?

I explained maturity. You were not satisfied. One of us is not showing our emotional maturity.

 

Now explain "emotions." Now explain ... and now explain ... and now explain ... and now explain how a corpse does all those things. Ahhh. Not so fast. It's all in the brain. But we had a lot of fun describing all the amazing things the brain is capable of doing. All those feelings and the raw processing power. It's quite a device. While it's alive.

 

If you want to take it further than that then you'll have to get out your unicorn. I lost track of it.

 

I'll explain some thoughts to this for the benefit of others who would might like a way to look at this. First that we do experience and demonstrate things like love, compassion, etc, shows immediately that they are in fact a part of the universe, since we in fact evolved from this universe. Their potentials lie within the very fabric of the universe itself. To put it in simple terms, does the child already posses compassion as 2 year old, or it something that unfolds as he or she develops? Something that as you "mature" - which we would define as a greater awakening of themselves into the world, moving from self-absorptive narcissism, to social identification, to global-identification, that begins to become more and more exposed from within their "nature", the less and less the "self" is viewed as the center of the universe.

 

Why is compassion and love higher, because that is where it is most demonstrated in greater states of awareness, greater states of maturity. So where was it prior to man? Non-existent? It magically appeared like the Creationists special creation ex-nihol, out of nothing? Or did it emerge from the potentials of the universe itself, unrealized until certain levels of development, or to use the familiar term "evolution". Same with consciousness. Same with love.

 

If you were to imagine the material universe as the birthing ground, then clearly it's not going to demonstrate the higher levels of development or evolution, any more that a two year old demonstrates adult compassion. But that potential is obviously present and part of a higher-realized state. And why those like Tillich use the terms Ground and Goal, or Source and Summit. At the ground is unrealized potential; at the Goal is the full realization of those potentials. So yes, there is a great deal of destruction and violence in less realized states.

 

Love exists, even though you can't describe it as a "thing" to the satisfaction of those who need concrete evidence of existence, such as a physical body, or at the least some way to measure it as a thing in and of itself existing like a piece of organized matter, such as a stone. Since it can only be measured through human experience and behavioral changes, then it appears to be some non-reality thing, like an imaginary pink unicorn. But we call it love, we experience it as love, it is realized as love.

 

 

I'll be happy to continue this discussion if you can explain to me what the self is and how it does or does not exist.

And from where and/or what did your items "evolve?" The "potentials of the universe?" What I'm seeing is these things "evolved" somehow out of "something" but once someone was ready for it/them they could use them somehow. Like "air" evolved and was all set for the little fish-monsters once they became evolved enough to crawl up and use it somehow. Ignoring how the air actually got there and the process the little fish-monsters had to change to use it. There are lots of glosses here. Things just sort of happen and just sort of are by declaration.

 

And love is the little dance that goes on in the brain (Scientific American):

Men and women can now thank a dozen brain regions for their romantic fervor. Researchers have revealed the fonts of desire by comparing functional MRI studies of people who indicated they were experiencing passionate love, maternal love or unconditional love. Together, the regions release neuro­transmitters and other chemicals in the brain and blood that prompt greater euphoric sensations such as attraction and pleasure. Conversely, psychiatrists might someday help individuals who become dan­gerously depressed after a heartbreak by adjusting those chemicals.

 

Passion also heightens several cognitive functions, as the brain regions and chemicals surge. “It’s all about how that network interacts,” says Stephanie Ortigue, an assistant professor of psychology at Syracuse University, who led the study. The cognitive functions, in turn, “are triggers that fully activate the love network.” Tell that to your sweetheart on Valentine’s Day.

I'm sure there's something more detailed out there (or coming along).

 

Since I already gave what we'll consider my uninformed opinion above I'll just cut and paste a lengthy article for the "self" here since it's an easy read:

THE NEUROLOGY OF SELF-AWARENESS

 

What is the self? How does the activity of neurons give rise to the sense of being a conscious human being? Even this most ancient of philosophical problems, I believe, will yield to the methods of empirical science. It now seems increasingly likely that the self is not a holistic property of the entire brain; it arises from the activity of specific sets of interlinked brain circuits. But we need to know which circuits are critically involved and what their functions might be. It is the "turning inward" aspect of the self — its recursiveness — that gives it its peculiar paradoxical quality.

 

It has been suggested by Horace Barlow, Nick Humphrey, David Premack and Marvin Minsky (among others) that consciousness may have evolved primarily in a social context. Minsky speaks of a second parallel mechanism that has evolved in humans to create representations of earlier representations and Humphrey has argued that our ability to introspect may have evolved specifically to construct meaningful models of other peoples minds in order to predict their behavior. "I feel jealous in order to understand what jealousy feels like in someone else" — a short cut to predicting that persons behavior.

 

Here I develop these arguments further. If I succeed in seeing any further it is by "standing on the shoulders of these giants". Specifically, I suggest that "other awareness" may have evolved first and then counterintutively, as often happens in evolution, the same ability was exploited to model ones own mind — what one calls self awareness. I will also suggest that a specific system of neurons called mirror neurons are involved in this ability. Finally I discuss some clinical examples to illustrate these ideas and make some testable predictions.

 

There are many aspects of self. It has a sense of unity despite the multitude of sense impressions and beliefs. In addition it has a sense of continuity in time, of being in control of its actions ("free will"), of being anchored in a body, a sense of its worth, dignity and mortality (or immortality). Each of these aspects of self may be mediated by different centers in different parts of the brain and its only for convenience that we lump them together in a single word.

 

As noted earlier there is one aspect of self that seems stranger than all the others — the fact that it is aware of itself. I would like to suggest that groups of neurons called mirror neurons are critically involved in this ability.

 

The discovery of mirror neurons was made G. Rizzolati, V Gallase and I Iaccoboni while recording from the brains of monkeys performed certain goal-directed voluntary actions. For instance when the monkey reached for a peanut a certain neuron in its pre motor cortex ( in the frontal lobes) would fire. Another neuron would fire when the monkey pushed a button, a third neuron when he pulled a lever. The existence of such Command neurons that control voluntary movements has been known for decades. Amazingly, a subset of these neurons had an additional peculiar property. The neuron fired not only (say) when the monkey reached for a peanut but also when it watched another monkey reach for a peanut!

 

These were dubbed "mirror neurons" or "monkey-see-monkey-do" neurons. This was an extraordinary observation because it implies that the neuron (or more accurately, the network which it is part of) was not only generating a highly specific command ("reach for the nut") but was capable of adopting another monkey's point of view. It was doing a sort of internal virtual reality simulation of the other monkeys action in order to figure out what he was "up to". It was, in short, a "mind-reading" neuron.

 

Neurons in the anterior cingulate will respond to the patient being poked with a needle; they are often referred to as sensory pain neurons. Remarkably, researchers at the University of Toronto have found that some of them will fire equally strongly when the patient watches someone else is poked. I call these "empathy neurons" or "Dalai Lama neurons" for they are, dissolving the barrier between self and others. Notice that in saying this one isn't being metaphorical; the neuron in question simply doesn't know the difference between it and others.

 

Primates (including humans) are highly social creatures and knowing what someone is "up to" — creating an internal simulation of his/her mind — is crucial for survival, earning us the title "the Machiavellian primate". In an essay for Edge (2001) entitled "Mirror Neurons and the Great Leap Forward" I suggested that in addition to providing a neural substrate for figuring out another persons intentions (as noted by Rizzolati's group) the emergence and subsequent sophistication of mirror neurons in hominids may have played a crucial role in many quintessentially human abilities such as empathy, learning through imitation (rather than trial and error), and the rapid transmission of what we call "culture". (And the "great leap forward" — the rapid Lamarckian transmission of "accidental") one-of-a kind inventions.

 

I turn now to the main concern of this essay — the nature of self. When you think of your own self, what comes into mind? You have sense of "introspecting" on your own thoughts and feelings and of " watching" yourself going about your business — as if you were looking at yourself from another persons vantage point. How does this happen ?

 

Evolution often takes advantage of pre-existing structures to evolve completely novel abilities. I suggest that once the ability to engage in cross modal abstraction emerged — e.g. between visual "vertical" on the retina and photoreceptive "vertical" signaled by muscles (for grasping trees) it set the stage for the emergence of mirror neurons in hominids. Mirror neurons are also abundant in the inferior parietal lobule — a structure that underwent an accelerated expansion in the great apes and, later, in humans.. As the brain evolved further the lobule split into two gyri — the supramarginal gyrus that allowed you to "reflect" on your own anticipated actions and the angular gyrus that allowed you to "reflect" on your body (on the right) and perhaps on other more social and linguistic aspects of your self (left hemisphere) I have argued elsewhere that mirror neurons are fundamentally performing a kind of abstraction across activity in visual maps and motor maps. This in turn may have paved the way for more conceptual types of abstraction; such as metaphor ("get a grip on yourself").

 

How does all this lead to self awareness? I suggest that self awareness is simply using mirror neurons for "looking at myself as if someone else is look at me" (the word "me" encompassing some of my brain processes, as well). The mirror neuron mechanism — the same algorithm — that originally evolved to help you adopt another's point of view was turned inward to look at your own self. This, in essence, is the basis of things like "introspection". It may not be coincidental that we use phrases like "self conscious" when you really mean that you are conscious of others being conscious of you. Or say "I am reflecting" when you mean you are aware of yourself thinking. In other words the ability to turn inward to introspect or reflect may be a sort of metaphorical extension of the mirror neurons ability to read others minds. It is often tacitly assumed that the uniquely human ability to construct a "theory of other minds" or "TOM" (seeing the world from the others point of view; "mind reading", figuring out what someone is up to, etc.) must come after an already pre- existing sense of self. I am arguing that the exact opposite is true; the TOM evolved first in response to social needs and then later, as an unexpected bonus, came the ability to introspect on your own thoughts and intentions. I claim no great originality for these ideas; they are part of the current zeitgeist. Any novelty derives from the manner in which I shall marshall the evidence from physiology and from our own work in neurology. Note that I am not arguing that mirror neurons are sufficient for the emergence of self; only that they must have played a pivotal role. (Otherwise monkeys would have self awareness and they don't). They may have to reach a certain critical level of sophistication that allowed them to build on earlier functions (TOM) and become linked to certain other brain circuits, especially the Wernickes ("language comprehension") area and parts of the frontal lobes.

 

Does the mirror neuron theory of self make other predictions? Given our discovery that autistic children have deficient mirror neurons and correspondingly deficient TOM, we would predict that they would have a deficient sense of self (TMM) and difficulty with introspection. The same might be true for other neurological disorders; damage to the inferior parietal lobule/TPO junction (which are known to contain mirror neurons) and parts of the frontal lobes should also lead to a deficiency of certain aspects self awareness. (Incidentally, Gallup's mirror test — removing a paint splotch from your face while looking at a mirror — is not an adequate test of self awareness, even though it is touted as such. We have seen patients who vehemently claim that their reflection in the mirror is "someone else" yet they pass the Gallup test!)

 

It has recently been shown that if a conscious awake human patient has his parietal lobe stimulated during neurosurgery, he will sometimes have an "out of body" experience — as if he was a detached entity watching his own body from up near the ceiling. I suggest that this arises because of a dysfunction in the mirror neuron system in the parieto-occipital junction caused by the stimulating electrode. These neurons are ordinarily activated when we temporarily "adopt" another's view of our body and mind (as outlined earlier in this essay). But we are always aware we are doing this partly because of other signals (both sensory and reafference/command signals) telling you you are not literally moving out of yourself. (There may also be frontal inhibitory mechanisms that stop you from involuntarily mimicking another person looking at you). If these mirror neuron-related mechanisms are deranged by the stimulating electrode the net result would be an out-of-body experience. Some years ago we examined a patient with a syndrome called anosognosia who had a lesion in his right parietal lobe and vehemently denied the paralysis. Remarkably the patient also denied the paralysis of another patient sitting in an adjacent wheelchair! (who failed to move the arm on command from the physician.) Here again was, evidence that two seemingly contradictory aspects of self — its the individuation and intense privacy vs. its social reciprocity — may complement each other and arise from the same neural mechanism, mirror neurons. Like the two sides of a Mobius strip, they are really the same, even they appear — on local inspection — to be fundamentally different.

 

Have we solved the problem of self? Obviously not — we have barely scratched the surface. But hopefully we have paved the way for future models and empirical studies on the nature of self, a problem that philosophers have made essentially no headway in solving. (And not for want of effort — they have been at it for three thousand years). Hence our grounds for optimism about the future of brain research — especially for solving what is arguably Science's greatest riddle.

 

mwc

[Legion]

The "self" lies strictly in the brain. Nowhere else. It is chemicals.

I think mind is manifested by brains, just as life is manifested by organisms. But I don't believe the mind is chemical, anymore than I think life is chemical. It seems here that MWC is arguing from the mechanist/reductionist platform.

 

I think we will one day understand life and mind much better than we do now, but I strongly suspect it won't be via reductionism.

[Galien]

The "self" lies strictly in the brain. Nowhere else. It is chemicals.

I think mind is manifested by brains, just as life is manifested by organisms. But I don't believe the mind is chemical, anymore than I think life is chemical. It seems here that MWC is arguing from the mechanist/reductionist platform.

 

I think we will one day understand life and mind much better than we do now, but I strongly suspect it won't be via reductionism.

 

Well of course he is. To think otherwise opens a whole other can of worms which one then has to digest and before you know you are actually........FEELING. Can't expect the logical mind to get their head around that.

 

I believe that there are already some people who do understand Legion. But the answers are not what some people want them to be, so they just laugh at them because they really cannot understand them. Unless they can explain everything by holding a test tube and wearing a white coat it doesn't exist.

 

I look at it this way, when I get too enamoured of myself and the human race I take a wander around the local cemetary and remind myself that no matter how clever we think we are, we still cannot cheat death, and no matter what we tell ourselves we still all end up int he same little box. Another thing I like to do is watch the opening scenes of Love Actually, because it reminds me that when we do leave this life, what people will remember about us are the connections we created while we were here.

 

What I am suprised about though is the amount of anger this topic has generated in me as an individual, and I realise it has the same source as the anger I felt in the church. Anyone who thinks they own the truth is a fuckwit, and I don't care where they think their truth comes from. It is just another sad attempt to say "I am right and you are wrong", and as such is immature and closeminded. People have the right to believe whatever they want, and any attempt by us to show them the error of their ways is just a major wank on our part. What works for me works for me. I am not you, you are not me. I am just sick and fucking tired of the whole one size fits all approach to life.

 

Either people have not had a great deal of life experience or they hide from what is in front of them. There is clearly more going on in human beings than we understand, anyone who says otherwise is not being truthful.

[mwc]

I think mind is manifested by brains, just as life is manifested by organisms. But I don't believe the mind is chemical, anymore than I think life is chemical. It seems here that MWC is arguing from the mechanist/reductionist platform.

 

I think we will one day understand life and mind much better than we do now, but I strongly suspect it won't be via reductionism.

And what is the correct method of investigation?

 

All the appeals to emotionalism and related fallacies? Appeals to ignorance (yours being most recent)? The ad homs?

 

Appeal to emotion

: "An appeal to emotion is an argument tactic which attempts to circumvent rational thought in the hopes of supporting a conclusion with an emotional response."

Argumentum verbosium

: "Argumentum verbosium is a form of Argument from Intimidation - in this case, by being incredibly verbose, using a plethora of complex words to make one's self sound incredibly smart, and dazzle the opposition. The opposing side will struggle to understand what is being said, and appear to "lose" the debate."

Special pleading

: "Special pleading is a claim that standards of evidence should be modified or reversed for a particular claim or type of claim."

Begging the question

: "Begging the question, which goes by the technical name petitio principii, is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument implicitly assumes its conclusion in a premise."

(all from Ironchariots for conciseness but these can be found many places).

 

These are just a few of what have been offered so far, but, do not address this issue in the slightest. So I'm accused of arguing from reductionism. Because I'm not accepting these as arguments?

 

I'm trying to get some actual definitions so as to avoid things such as:

Equivocation

: "Equivocation is a logical fallacy that involves taking a word with more than one definition and freely substituting one definition for another."

 

I'm just arguing what comes to mind. If that's "reductionist" so be it. I would then have to guess that "holistic" would be the approach you may want to have argued instead? Nothing is stopping you. The only thing is I'm not sure, whether reductionist, holistic or anything in-between, that states that there should be no definitions so that people don't understand what everyone else is talking about? Is holistic about not defining anything and letting everyone guess? I doubt it. I see the brain as both a reductionist type of structure and holistic. It's the sum of its parts but it's also highly integrated and dependent on the whole for a number of functions. It's both. But they both have to be defined. I cannot say the brain is this set of chemicals and so on. And be very specific. Then, over here, waive my hands around and say that it's dependent on all the regions "somehow" and just say "get it?" a lot and expect that to hold water. Both aspects of function must reasonably defined for everyone to understand them and how they work independently and how they work together. If this cannot happen, or you place the blame onto the person who wants to understand this functioning, it might be that this type of functioning doesn't exist or your theory needs a lot of work.

 

mwc

[Vigile]

What I am suprised about though is the amount of anger this topic has generated in me as an individual, and I realise it has the same source as the anger I felt in the church.

 

I agree, anger is unnecessary, but...

 

Anyone who thinks they own the truth is a fuckwit, and I don't care where they think their truth comes from. It is just another sad attempt to say "I am right and you are wrong", and as such is immature and closeminded.

 

There is an objective reality that can be proven about many things. We all, including you, enjoy the benefit of this fact immensely in the form of technology and many of us do so too in the form of philosophy. For example, I was indoctrinated with a belief system that was damaging to my mental well-being. I was able to measure its claims against an objective reality and be freed from it. Had I not, I would be left to suffer.

 

People have the right to believe whatever they want, and any attempt by us to show them the error of their ways is just a major wank on our part.

 

Yes, people do have the right to believe whatever they want. But some of us actually enjoy the mental exercise involved in debating these types of philosophical issues. Are they wankers?

 

I am just sick and fucking tired of the whole one size fits all approach to life.

 

Again, no one has a right to tell you what to believe, but that doesn't mean there isn't an objective reality that can be and that has been measured to a reasonable degree. Do we know everything? Of course not. Do we know some things? Of course we do. But you seem to be saying education and educators are forcing a one-size fits all approach on you. I've seen you do this with evolution, but I'm also willing to bet you have at one or more points in your life benefited from antibiotics; perhaps they even saved your life; they have mine. This is just one of the many benefits that have been derived from an objective reality of a subject that you apply an ad hom to in order to make people feel guilty for embracing one view of reality in lieu of other perspectives.

 

You can say I'm a wanker for answering you here, but you did try to impose your views here to by the comments you made, don't you see the irony in that?

[Vigile]

Now we can take for granted all these realities as "our" truth, or "The Truth" as everyone through their own realities wish to frame it, understand it, and defend it, or we can not just accept these conventions and go deeper, beyond all the forms and frameworks into greater recognition and understanding of who is the one that has seen and experienced all these 'truths'.

 

*answering you from sunny Phuket after a long stroll and a nap*

 

I get what you are saying about self, and have over the years pondered self quite a bit. The best example for me was the self I was before college and the self I was after. I got my degree at 30, so I had the benefit of a bit more perspective than younger kids do. I experienced many epiphanies in school and I am not by any means the same person I was before I attended. But, I also observed that my new world view used the tools of my education much like a computer uses software. I felt programed to a degree, I didn't feel creative, but rather empathized with Solomon's "nothing new under the sun" phrase.

 

Where I struggle is how this is freeing. Moreover, if I'm guessing right, you are using the example of self to lead in to the soul. Where I think we can all relate to self as a concept, many might struggle with the concept of soul unless by soul you just mean feeling. And if you just mean feeling, what's wrong with just calling it that instead of the more mystical soul.

 

Finally, where does a deeper understanding of these things free us? Am I ok with people creating their own reality? To a degree. As long as they don't impose that reality on others. And so often they do, even if it is to just vote down scientific progress or support harmful political movements that seek to impose certain moralities on others. So often this is the biproduct of people's spirituality, which means that "I'm ok, you're ok" very often is just a form of naivety rather than a higher state of being.

[Vigile]

Bottom line, I still don't get how this discussion is anything more than a discussion about psychology wrapped in mystical language. The language may help uncover psychological understanding, I don't know, I'm not an expert, but if we aren't discussing anything more than how we see life and find meaning, how is that not just psychology?

[Legion]

I think mind is manifested by brains, just as life is manifested by organisms. But I don't believe the mind is chemical, anymore than I think life is chemical. It seems here that MWC is arguing from the mechanist/reductionist platform.

 

I think we will one day understand life and mind much better than we do now, but I strongly suspect it won't be via reductionism.

And what is the correct method of investigation?

I don't believe there is a single correct method of investigation. I think it's a matter of what approach is appropriate for the given natural system under our srutiny and what we are trying to understand about it. If we know the system we are trying to understand is a machine then I think reductionism will work great. However if we are pursuing understandings of organisms then I think a relational approach is likely to be the most effective. The difference between these two appoaches resides in how we are observing the world and the implications inherent to the languages we are using to reason about it. They are both scientific to the extent that mathematics are employed to model natural systems, and thus can justly be called theory.

[Galien]

 

Finally, where does a deeper understanding of these things free us? Am I ok with people creating their own reality? To a degree. As long as they don't impose that reality on others. And so often they do, even if it is to just vote down scientific progress or support harmful political movements that seek to impose certain moralities on others. So often this is the biproduct of people's spirituality, which means that "I'm ok, you're ok" very often is just a form of naivety rather than a higher state of being.

 

It frees us from having to believe in the illusion of control both over the world we live in, and over others. How are some the advocates of science not imposing their ideas on others? Its like "you WILL believe this because it can be proven in a test tube, anything else is bullshit". How is that not a closeminded knowall view of the world, and really no different from any package that one tries to ram down my throat? I am not saying everyone is like this, but science has its militant dictators like every other group.

 

Everyone creates their own reality. It is highly influenced by the culture one lives in for sure. But to leave a belief system to run screaming into the certainty of science is just leaving one kind of parent for another.

 

Why is it so hard for those so enamoured with science to admit there is more to life than one can explain in a test tube?

[florduh]

"you WILL believe this because it can be proven in a test tube, anything else is bullshit"

Well, anything that CAN be proven through repeatable testing is indeed a fact, and one would be a fool to NOT believe it.

 

Aside from demonstrable facts, science also has hypotheses and theories that are based on that which is known to be true in the universe. Knowing how things work in one scenario allows science to postulate and test theories about that which is unknown. Ultimately, those theories stand or fall upon the results. There is no reason to fear or denigrate science just because you may feel obliged to postulate an unseen realm that may exist beyond the known universe. Who knows, you could be right; there is no way to prove or disprove such an hypothesis. That is why there are so many diverse and conflicting ideas about the nature and workings of the supernatural.

[Galien]

"you WILL believe this because it can be proven in a test tube, anything else is bullshit"

Well, anything that CAN be proven through repeatable testing is indeed a fact, and one would be a fool to NOT believe it.

 

Aside from demonstrable facts, science also has hypotheses and theories that are based on that which is known to be true in the universe. Knowing how things work in one scenario allows science to postulate and test theories about that which is unknown. Ultimately, those theories stand or fall upon the results. There is no reason to fear or denigrate science just because you may feel obliged to postulate an unseen realm that may exist beyond the known universe. Who knows, you could be right; there is no way to prove or disprove such an hypothesis. That is why there are so many diverse and conflicting ideas about the nature and workings of the supernatural.

 

 

Don't hate it or deinigrate it. Just disappointed that it has been turned into the alternative religion to christianity. Also disappointed that humans tend to spend way more time on the external than the internal. No point knowing who your ancestors were if you still haven't worked out why you are an asshole I know its a hobbyhorse of mine, but just sayin'

[Guest Valk0010]

more time on the external than the internal.

 

I could probably say that your guilty of the same thing only in its opposite.

 

But enough about that.

 

I don't believe in souls, or the afterlife. I think, both are possibilities, since, as far as I can tell, the idea of the supernatural for in regards to anything, while, on the bottom of the barrel to the point in cases of things like historical events, not even worth considering, as far as being unlikely, but faced with uncertainty(since I don't believe there is absolutely no possibility for anything supernatural to exist), its still a possibility nonetheless. I just need more evidence then what I have seen for the existence of the supernatural.

[Galien]

more time on the external than the internal.

 

I could probably say that you do the opposite.

 

But enough about that.

 

I don't believe in souls, or the afterlife. I think, both are possibilities, since, as far as I can tell, the idea of the supernatural for in regards to anything, while, on the bottom of the barrel as far as being unlikely, face with uncertainty, its still a possibility nonetheless. I just need more evidence then what I have seen for the existence of the supernatural.

 

I don't think the soul is supernatural at all, and I no longer believe in an afterlife, I'm not entirely sure I ever did. It was never of any concern to me.

 

Valk I am a very practical person. I go to work, pay my bills, deal with my responsibilities. Always have, always will. Having the knowledge from whence my ancestors came has absolutely no bearing on how I choose to treat other people. That is the business of my soul.

 

However, if you were to speak to all the children in the world who are in therapy or in hospital because of the abuse meted on them by their parents, you may get a completely different idea of why it is important to address the internal.

[Vigile]

How are some the advocates of science not imposing their ideas on others?

 

They do indeed, as they should. They are called educators and they push education. An ignorant society gives off a stench everyone must endure, so if society is to progress, education is the way forward.

 

But to leave a belief system to run screaming into the certainty of science is just leaving one kind of parent for another.

 

I've seen you say this several times, but I don't know anyone who has ran toward science as if it were a cult. I don't mean to offend, but I honestly think you are just arguing from ignorance here and if you had a foundation of understanding in these areas you would likely see it differently than you do now.

[Galien]

How are some the advocates of science not imposing their ideas on others?

 

They do indeed, as they should. They are called educators and they push education. An ignorant society gives off a stench everyone must endure, so if society is to progress, education is the way forward.

 

But to leave a belief system to run screaming into the certainty of science is just leaving one kind of parent for another.

 

I've seen you say this several times, but I don't know anyone who has ran toward science as if it were a cult. I don't mean to offend, but I honestly think you are just arguing from ignorance here and if you had a foundation of understanding in these areas you would likely see it differently than you do now.

 

Thanks. No one is suggesting ignorance. I'm not talking about it being a cult, I'm talking about it being just another thing people use so they don't have to feel uncertain.

[Vigile]

I'm not sure what you mean by uncertain. Forgive me if I'm misreading you, but it seems you want to create an equal playing field between knowledge gained through scientific understanding and the position of "I don't know." We do know certain things. We do know for a fact that biological organisms evolved. We don't know what happens after we die, but we do know for a fact that understanding and a sense of self lives in the brain and we know that the brain rots when we die. Knowing these things doesn't need to involve a sense of superiority, or conjecture like claims made by religious folk, but rather a testable reality. It seems to me an unfair accusation to accuse people who rely on scientific findings when approaching questions about life and our existence of merely seeking to soothe a sense of inadequacy and a need to be certain.

[mwc]

I don't believe in souls, or the afterlife. I think, both are possibilities, since, as far as I can tell, the idea of the supernatural for in regards to anything, while, on the bottom of the barrel as far as being unlikely, face with uncertainty, its still a possibility nonetheless. I just need more evidence then what I have seen for the existence of the supernatural.

 

I don't think the soul is supernatural at all, and I no longer believe in an afterlife, I'm not entirely sure I ever did. It was never of any concern to me.

This illustrates what I've been talking about.

 

Two different concepts of "soul" in the same conversation. To just assume the meaning leads to misunderstanding. If there was no clarification, but just the repeated use of the word "soul," then we would just have a case of talking past one another instead of with one another. This is why I want to get a definition of the how the concept is used and understood.

 

So the "soul" is not supernatural. Making it a natural I'm guessing? If there is no afterlife then I would also guess the "soul" is not immortal? There is nothing that extends beyond the life of the human?

 

mwc

[mwc]

Bottom line, I still don't get how this discussion is anything more than a discussion about psychology wrapped in mystical language. The language may help uncover psychological understanding, I don't know, I'm not an expert, but if we aren't discussing anything more than how we see life and find meaning, how is that not just psychology?

Best I've been able to track down on my own is this is some type of Philosophy of Mind which from Wikipedia is:

Philosophy of mind is a branch of modern analytic philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and their relationship to the physical body, particularly the brain. The mind-body problem, i.e. the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen as the central issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body.[2]

and

Most modern philosophers of mind adopt either a reductive or non-reductive physicalist position, maintaining in their different ways that the mind is not something separate from the body.[11] These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences, especially in the fields of sociobiology, computer science, evolutionary psychology and the various neurosciences.[12][13][14][15] Other philosophers, however, adopt a non-physicalist position which challenges the notion that the mind is a purely physical construct. Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states.[16][17][18] Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the brain is all there is to the mind, the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science.[19][20] Continued neuroscientific progress has helped to clarify some of these issues. However, they are far from having been resolved, and modern philosophers of mind continue to ask how the subjective qualities and the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states and properties can be explained in naturalistic terms.[21][22]

Which is where I'm seeing thre references to "reductionist" that have been tossed my way. Not being aware this may be what I was arguing until I read wiki article I can't say I'm versed enough to argue any position in this field. I was just trying to get a definition for "soul" and stepped into a minefield. I did note the following:

The self

Main article: Self

 

The philosophy of mind also has important consequences for the concept of self. If by "self" or "I" one refers to an essential, immutable nucleus of the person, most modern philosophers of mind will affirm that no such thing exists.[82] The idea of a self as an immutable essential nucleus derives from the idea of an immaterial soul. Such an idea is unacceptable to most contemporary philosophers, due to their physicalistic orientations, and due to a general acceptance among philosophers of the scepticism of the concept of 'self' by David Hume, who could never catch himself doing, thinking or feeling anything.[83] However, in the light of empirical results from developmental psychology, developmental biology and neuroscience, the idea of an essential inconstant, material nucleus—an integrated representational system distributed over changing patterns of synaptic connections—seems reasonable.[84] The view of the self as an illusion is widely accepted by many philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett and Thomas Metzinger.

 

So from there we have to look at the Philosophy of Self and find items such as:

The philosophy of self is the defining of the essential qualities that make a person distinct from all others. There have been a number of different approaches to defining these qualities. The self is the idea of a unified being which is the source of consciousness. Moreover, this self is the agent responsible for the thoughts and actions of an individual to which they are ascribed. It is a substance, which therefore endures through time; thus, the thoughts and actions at different moments of time may pertain to the same self. As the notion of subject, the "self" has been harshly criticized by Nietzsche at the end of the 19th century, on behalf of what Gilles Deleuze would call a "becoming-other".[citation needed]

and

Self as an illusion

 

In spirituality, and especially nondual, mystical and eastern meditative traditions, the human being is often conceived as being in the illusion of individual existence, and separateness from other aspects of creation. This "sense of doership" or sense of individual existence is that part which believes it is the human being, and believes it must fight for itself in the world, is ultimately unaware and unconscious of its own true nature. The ego is often associated with mind and the sense of time, which compulsively thinks in order to be assured of its future existence, rather than simply knowing its own self and the present.

 

The spiritual goal of many traditions involves the dissolving of the ego, allowing self-knowledge of one's own true nature to become experienced and enacted in the world. This is variously known as enlightenment, nirvana, presence, and the "here and now".

This last ties it into the above quote from Philosophy of Mind.

 

It would appear we're talking in two different languages. Since nothing was ever defined we just talked at, and past, one another. I figured this would be the case.

 

mwc

[Legion]

Which is where I'm seeing thre references to "reductionist" that have been tossed my way. Not being aware this may be what I was arguing until I read wiki article I can't say I'm versed enough to argue any position in this field. I was just trying to get a definition...

MWC that seems like a bit of a distortion. You were not merely asking for a definition you were making assertions about the nature of self and its relation to the brain. I inferred that you were thereby making assertions about the nature of mind.

 

It would appear we're talking in two different languages. Since nothing was ever defined we just talked at, and past, one another. I figured this would be the case.

I don't know anything about souls, but we were sharing enough language for me to be able to identify you as a reductionist.

[Antlerman]

Bottom line, I still don't get how this discussion is anything more than a discussion about psychology wrapped in mystical language. The language may help uncover psychological understanding, I don't know, I'm not an expert, but if we aren't discussing anything more than how we see life and find meaning, how is that not just psychology?

Best I've been able to track down on my own is this is some type of Philosophy of Mind which from Wikipedia is:

Philosophy of mind is a branch of modern analytic philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and their relationship to the physical body, particularly the brain. The mind-body problem, i.e. the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen as the central issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body.[2]

and

Most modern philosophers of mind adopt either a reductive or non-reductive physicalist position, maintaining in their different ways that the mind is not something separate from the body.[11] These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences, especially in the fields of sociobiology, computer science, evolutionary psychology and the various neurosciences.[12][13][14][15] Other philosophers, however, adopt a non-physicalist position which challenges the notion that the mind is a purely physical construct. Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states.[16][17][18] Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the brain is all there is to the mind, the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science.[19][20] Continued neuroscientific progress has helped to clarify some of these issues. However, they are far from having been resolved, and modern philosophers of mind continue to ask how the subjective qualities and the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states and properties can be explained in naturalistic terms.[21][22]

Which is where I'm seeing thre references to "reductionist" that have been tossed my way. Not being aware this may be what I was arguing until I read wiki article I can't say I'm versed enough to argue any position in this field. I was just trying to get a definition for "soul" and stepped into a minefield. I did note the following:

The self

Main article: Self

 

The philosophy of mind also has important consequences for the concept of self. If by "self" or "I" one refers to an essential, immutable nucleus of the person, most modern philosophers of mind will affirm that no such thing exists.[82] The idea of a self as an immutable essential nucleus derives from the idea of an immaterial soul. Such an idea is unacceptable to most contemporary philosophers, due to their physicalistic orientations, and due to a general acceptance among philosophers of the scepticism of the concept of 'self' by David Hume, who could never catch himself doing, thinking or feeling anything.[83] However, in the light of empirical results from developmental psychology, developmental biology and neuroscience, the idea of an essential inconstant, material nucleus—an integrated representational system distributed over changing patterns of synaptic connections—seems reasonable.[84] The view of the self as an illusion is widely accepted by many philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett and Thomas Metzinger.

 

So from there we have to look at the Philosophy of Self and find items such as:

The philosophy of self is the defining of the essential qualities that make a person distinct from all others. There have been a number of different approaches to defining these qualities. The self is the idea of a unified being which is the source of consciousness. Moreover, this self is the agent responsible for the thoughts and actions of an individual to which they are ascribed. It is a substance, which therefore endures through time; thus, the thoughts and actions at different moments of time may pertain to the same self. As the notion of subject, the "self" has been harshly criticized by Nietzsche at the end of the 19th century, on behalf of what Gilles Deleuze would call a "becoming-other".[citation needed]

and

Self as an illusion

 

In spirituality, and especially nondual, mystical and eastern meditative traditions, the human being is often conceived as being in the illusion of individual existence, and separateness from other aspects of creation. This "sense of doership" or sense of individual existence is that part which believes it is the human being, and believes it must fight for itself in the world, is ultimately unaware and unconscious of its own true nature. The ego is often associated with mind and the sense of time, which compulsively thinks in order to be assured of its future existence, rather than simply knowing its own self and the present.

 

The spiritual goal of many traditions involves the dissolving of the ego, allowing self-knowledge of one's own true nature to become experienced and enacted in the world. This is variously known as enlightenment, nirvana, presence, and the "here and now".

This last ties it into the above quote from Philosophy of Mind.

 

It would appear we're talking in two different languages. Since nothing was ever defined we just talked at, and past, one another. I figured this would be the case.

 

mwc

Briefly back in the discussion with what time allows. Yes to the above. Especially the last quote you cited.

 

In a brief thought here, the self is what we create and experience through language, systems, thoughts, and relationships. The key is we experience it. It itself, even if you wish to consider neurological dependencies, or even causality, it is nonetheless real. We experience it, identify with it, interact with it, relate to it, both to ourselves and to others, it exists and creates and responds. It exists, regardless of it structures. To Legion's point, life is not the body, just as body is not cells, just as cells are not molecules, just as molecules are not atoms. Just as mind in not brain. Just as soul is not self. Even though each and every one emerges from the lesser to the greater.

 

In that experience of self comes the desire, in many, to know and understand it. Not strictly under the knife of a external examination, looking at the chemicals and whatnot, but an internal examination of it's nature through introspection, through hermeneutics in shared internal spaces. Just as you would use the Hubble telescope to examine the ancient universe through distant galaxies, you use the tools of introspection into the deep nature of our being - beyond the image of self, and ego. You experience being, not just understand it externally with rationality. It rises from within. And each and every person experiences it, even if it is little more than static background noise as they busy their minds looking outward at the world.

 

My approach is to look both outward through science, and inward through reflection, meditation, introspection past and beyond the edges of what simply appears to us, into the places the Hubble opens to us into the birth of the universe, into the edges of the within, that infinite 'groundless Ground'. Both worlds exist, and both are reality. One is understood through and external examination, the other through an internal immersion and release.

 

 

I feel in this discussion you are focused on disproving Christian myth. Not a hard thing to do. But I feel in the effort to do this people easily set aside the development and understanding of the internal self through mind in favor of the illusion of confidence through 'explanations'. I see it as a step forward, but also a carry-over from a way of thought that dominated the mythic system of Christianity. Rather than furthering our spiritual understanding above and beyond myth, it was set aside as a fanciful delusion by those most vocally touting science as the new Light of the World.

 

We set aside myth to further our understanding of nature, as well we should have. Why don't we likewise set aside myth to understand that spiritual nature? Isn't it possible that how myth was used to explain and talk about the natural world, that it was in the same way being used to talk about and explain the spiritual, and that both were and are valid realities that are part of our total being? My argument is a resounding yes. We need to move beyond myth into a more fully evolved understanding and realization, a more fully matured future in all aspects of our being.

[mwc]

MWC that seems like a bit of a distortion. You were not merely asking for a definition you were making assertions about the nature of self and its relation to the brain. I inferred that you were thereby making assertions about the nature of mind.

I was asked, to put it kindly, about "self" and made reply:

Before I'm willing to continue responding I need you to demonstrate for me how you interpret the use of words like "self". I've asked this repeatedly of you and gotten no response. Can you show me scientific evidence of "self"? Your response to me above can equally be applied to someone speaking of their "self". Do you view that as some external object, like an invisible Pink Unicorn?? Perhaps you do.

[...]

I'll be happy to continue this discussion if you can explain to me what the self is and how it does or does not exist.

I had been called "reductionist" any number of times by that point in the thread and the assertions I had been making were in reply to questions I had been asked.

 

I doubt that I will be able to get more than assertions back in response, if I ever get an actual responses, to my own questions. Unless someone can plop a "soul" down for us all to poke and prod this will all be largely an exercise in assertions. It's just a matter of getting them out in the open so when I see "soul" coming from you I know what you mean. Or if I see it coming from elsewhere I know what they mean. It would be best if we could all agree on a common definition. It's clear to me now that when I used "self" it wasn't what some others had been thinking. So how could we know this if I just don't put it out there? Beating around the bush with a lot of vague verbiage doesn't get me to think "Oh, I should speak as to my definition of 'self'." Saying "Define <something> for me." It's to the point. It makes me think "I should tell that person what my definition of <something> is." It's not a point of argumentation. It's a point of clarification.

 

I do think that if you want to look over this thread again, as boring as that might be, you will see that I make a request for a definition and demonstration of "soul" a primary issue.

 

I don't know anything about souls, but we were sharing enough language for me to be able to identify you as a reductionist.

How so? This has been stated many times but I need a demonstration. I notice it's been used in a denigrating way. An ad hom really. Like the term "fundamentalist" gets tossed around.

 

From what I can gather from my reading earlier it would be the breaking down of things into its parts. I'm assuming this is the brain? The brain into chemicals and electrical impulses? Yes? No? This is fact. What we have to deal with. So we can build from there. On to "soul." What approach to use with "soul?" Is it chemical? Electrical? Something else? What is that something else? Is this something else a real process we can understand or a speculative one that requires special pleading?

 

I play old games. Something like Unreal 3. It exists in the computer. It doesn't exist outside the electrical processes of the computer. The world is just some imaginary thing presented to me for my benefit on screen but the computer doesn't see it. It's not real (I guess it is literally Unreal). The brain is just the engine that allows me to putter about in my little body. It can do other things like "invent" worlds, dreams, emotions, but that's all down to the way the electro-chemical processes work. Mess with those and the person changes. Don't ask me. Go watch it happen. There are plenty of people with brain problems of all sorts that can demonstrate this. If this thread is subjective then I can say my own father is one. Seen his behavior change after head trauma. Watched it change after brain surgery. He's had five? Six? I've lost count. The last one they physically dug through part of his brain and took it out. No other options. It's just gone now. I can say that I am one for different reasons (like many people I take a little cocktail of drugs that mess with the chemicals in my head and I am not the same on this side of the drugs as I was on the other side). I know that messing with the brain messes with the person. That's my assertion but it can be demonstrated less subjectively but objectively in a lab setting and repeatedly.

 

So what "magic" does the electo-chemical process do? I have no idea. But that's all it does. I have watched computers get more and more sophisticated over time and they're not conjuring up new worlds but they're just more powerful at manipulating data so that new worlds can be conjured up. One day the AI inside will imagine it's alive and might even think it has a "soul" too. Once it gains enough processing power. But that doesn't mean it does. Unless having a "soul" is just ability to contemplate you have a soul? If that's the case then we should be satisfied since we've all already achieved this "enlightenment" so many seek.

 

mwc