Properties of the soul?

[Jan Ardena]

Thus a consciousness created by the brain would be natural.

That's what you should have said, to keep in line with your persona.

By who?
By everyone?

Obviously not. This is why it is good to have discussions.

Or are you speaking speaking from a Hindu perspective, perhaps?

Hindu perspective?
What made you specifically ask that?

The soul is considered by many to be not "pure consciousness" but the essence of the person, including consciousness but also including reason, character, memory etc.

The element that draws literally all perspectives, including memory, character.. etc, is consciousness. One can have no memory, very little character, be unreasonable, lack reason, logic, intelligence, etc, but they still have consciousness. Without consciousness, there is nothing (not Lawrence Krause nothing, real nothing). So it's reasonable to assume that the soul is pure consciousness, as it has no thing to contaminate it.

It is a fact that I am not aware of any evidence for a soul

Then you should state that. Otherwise it sounds as though it is an actual fact, rather than your personal belief or preference.

The implications you see can only be achieved through fallacious reasoning.

I don't think so Baldeee.
But I know that excuse is your last place of refuge.
If you can show these so-called fallacies I commit, then I'll happily retract that statement.

Scripture is only deemed as such by a religion.

What about historians, scientists, artists, people who interested in antiquities, etc....?

To refer to scripture is to refer to those religions that deem it such.

That's not really true Baldeee. For one start, I'm referring to scripture, and I am not using it in any religious way. As you said, different religions view the soul according to their comprehension, not due to the scripture.

In Genesis, as you well know, Adams body was life-less (dead) until life was breathed into the nostrils, then Adam's body became a living soul. That should tell one that consciousness is due to the presence of the soul, but yet it doesn't with some religions that use the Bible as a source. Some Hindus do not accept that the soul is pure consciousness. Some don't even believe in God, and are staunch atheists, even though their scriptures inform them differently.

No, Jan, the issue of whether the soul actually exists or not, the issue of evidence etc.

No it's not. The issue is what are the properties of the soul.
If you don't believe the soul exists, then at least you can presume it does.

So you are capable of holding a discussion on the soul without any recourse to religious teachings, notions or scriptures?
Seriously?

Religions also use scriptures as a recourse to help then understand what the scriptures teach about the soul.
So to put scriptures on the same level as religion is a misunderstanding.

Where do you think most views of the soul come from, Jan?

I would say scriptures.

And you do know this is the Religion sub-forum, right?
Sure, there are secular views of the soul, but religion has the most to say about it.

I am aware of your first point. Are you?
Which religions has the most to say about it?

I am not the one claiming the soul to exist.

No one else is either.

It is not for me to provide facts that there is no evidence.

You can't provide any facts.

It is for those claiming something to exist to provide the support/evidence for it.
You really should understand this by now.

I do. You were the one claiming the fact of the non-existence of the soul.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

That's what you should have said, to keep in line with your persona.

It was implied by the context of what I was responding to.
If you feel it necessary to quote out of context, though...

Obviously not. This is why it is good to have discussions.

Then don't try to assert it as the de facto truth when it is nothing but opinion.
Unless you can demonstrate it to be more than opinion?

Hindu perspective?
What made you specifically ask that?

Why shouldn't I?
Is yours a Hindu perspective?
Does it match the Hindu perspective?

The element that draws literally all perspectives, including memory, character.. etc, is consciousness. One can have no memory, very little character, be unreasonable, lack reason, logic, intelligence, etc, but they still have consciousness. Without consciousness, there is nothing (not Lawrence Krause nothing, real nothing). So it's reasonable to assume that the soul is pure consciousness, as it has no thing to contaminate it.

That's one view, but all you seem to be doing is defining the soul as consciousness, then saying "consciousness exists thus the soul exists - because they're the same thing."
It has no explanatory power behind it beyond that.

Then you should state that. Otherwise it sounds as though it is an actual fact, rather than your personal belief or preference.

It is no different to what you do, or what others do, Jan.
Simply learn to differentiate, or be treated in the same manner as you wish to treat others.

I don't think so Baldeee.
But I know that excuse is your last place of refuge.
If you can show these so-called fallacies I commit, then I'll happily retract that statement.

There is simply no valid logical connection between the premises and the conclusion you drew.
You have not shown there to be.
Once again you make a claim and are unwilling to support it.
I have explained why it is fallacious on your part, but given your woeful understanding of deductive logic, I guess it falls on deaf ears.

What about historians, scientists, artists, people who interested in antiquities, etc....?

They may refer to it as such, but only because the religions have already deemed them as such.

That's not really true Baldeee. For one start, I'm referring to scripture, and I am not using it in any religious way. As you said, different religions view the soul according to their comprehension, not due to the scripture.

Scripture IS religious.
There is no escaping that simple fact.
Remove religion and there is no scripture.
There are just stories.
To refer to anything as scripture is to invoke that undeniable link to one or more of the religions that have deemed them as such.

In Genesis, as you well know, Adams body was life-less (dead) until life was breathed into the nostrils, then Adam's body became a living soul. That should tell one that consciousness is due to the presence of the soul, but yet it doesn't with some religions that use the Bible as a source. Some Hindus do not accept that the soul is pure consciousness. Some don't even believe in God, and are staunch atheists, even though their scriptures inform them differently.

As you are so fond of reverting to semantics, let's take the definition of scripture:

1. the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible.
   
   
   • the sacred writings of a religion other than Christianity.
     noun: scriptures

This is taken from simply typing "scripture definition" into the address bar and seeing what pops up.
Hmmm... "sacred"... let's have a look at that....


"connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

religious rather than secular.

• "sacred music"
  synonyms:religious, spiritual, devotional, church, churchly, ecclesiastical
  "sacred music"
  antonyms:secular, profane
• (of writing or text) embodying the laws or doctrines of a religion."

Bolded part seemsmost relevant since it specifically refers to writing or text, which the definition of "scripture" most assuredly suggests.
Oh, look, it seems scripture is the writings of a religion (of Christianity or other religion) that embodies the laws or doctrines of that religion.

So yes, Jan, to use the term "scripture" is to invoke religion.
So enough of your inane petty dribblings.
Please.

No it's not. The issue is what are the properties of the soul.
If you don't believe the soul exists, then at least you can presume it does.

I have no need to.
I can quite happily simply state what others might believe or claim the soul to have as properties, with no presumption of existence.
However, the line of discussion that you have tried to avoid yet spent an inordinate amount of time and effort over, was simply whether the soul even exists or not.

Religions also use scriptures as a recourse to help then understand what the scriptures teach about the soul.

?? You use a book to help you understand what a book says??
Circular reasoning, methinks.

So to put scriptures on the same level as religion is a misunderstanding.

I didn't put them on the same level.
But if one embodies the laws or doctrines of another, I think it's safe to assume the link is strong.

I would say scriptures.

So religions.
Fair enough.

Which religions has the most to say about it?

I do not know all the world's religions to be able to say.

No one else is either.

You do each time you assert something about the soul.
Oh, right, only you are allowed to criticise people for making claims when using similar language.
Silly me.

You can't provide any facts.

No, I can't.
I'll just wait for someone to provide the evidence (physical or logical).

I do. You were the one claiming the fact of the non-existence of the soul.

Please stop lying, Jan.
It doesn't become you.
Please point out where I have claimed the non-existence of the soul.
If you can't, please apologise and retract your accusation.
Failing that, please just STFU.
Thanks.

Jan, seriously, if you want to let this thread revert back to what you see as the intention of the OP, the onus really is on you not to respond to the threads that follow the line you don't want them to.
But you can't help yourself.
Moth to the light.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It was implied by the context of what I was responding to.
If you feel it necessary to quote out of context, though...

Here is what you said...

...The brain simply generates intelligence, not artificial intelligence.
It also generates a consciousness, not an artificial consciousness.

If you are talking about artificial consciousness then again there is nothing artificial about what is naturally produced by the brain.

...that is what you meant. Your talk of context is simply an attempt to break free of the responsibility of validating your claims.

Then don't try to assert it as the de facto truth when it is nothing but opinion.
Unless you can demonstrate it to be more than opinion?

If one asserts that the brain is an organ inside your skull, and another asserts that the brain is an organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals. Which one of those is wrong?

Why shouldn't I?
Is yours a Hindu perspective?
Does it match the Hindu perspective?

Hindu is the name of a people, and as such they have varying perspectives. There are Hindus who are atheist, and do not believe in anything they cannot see (like you). So you need to be more specific.

That's one view, but all you seem to be doing is defining the soul as consciousness, then saying "consciousness exists thus the soul exists - because they're the same thing."
It has no explanatory power behind it beyond that.

I'm defining consciousness as a symptom of the soul. A car, or washing machine, is not conscious, therefore has no essence of a soul. They appear animated because a soul has put components together, and supplied some kind of energy to make it work. Just like a body machine. This is the original definition. All other definitions find it's roots in that.

It is no different to what you do, or what others do, Jan.
Simply learn to differentiate, or be treated in the same manner as you wish to treat others.

Then allow people to discuss the properties of the soul without having to qualify whether or not it actually exists.
Please Sir! Please do.

I have explained why it is fallacious on your part, but given your woeful understanding of deductive logic, I guess it falls on deaf ears.

Your level of conversation does not require us to talk about deductive logic. You only bring that up when you are stuck. Your performance thus far has been anything but logical, or rational.

They may refer to it as such, but only because the religions have already deemed them as such.

This is nonsense.

Scripture IS religious.
There is no escaping that simple fact.

Scripture, is scripture. Baldeee.
Now there's a fact!
''Religious'' can mean anything. Belief that science will one day find out whether or not God exists, can be religious.

Remove religion and there is no scripture.
There are just stories.

Well at least you're providing us with a real example of why you are atheist.

To refer to anything as scripture is to invoke that undeniable link to one or more of the religions that have deemed them as such.

I've already told you that I don't. Are you calling me a liar?

As you are so fond of reverting to semantics, let's take the definition of scripture:

1. the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible.
   • the sacred writings of a religion other than Christianity.
     noun: scriptures

I see you read my response to your comrade. Impressive, wasn't it?

The thing you need to ask yourself is this: Was the Bible, or the books contained in the Bible (including noncanonical writings), around before the Christian religion? If your answer is yes, then the secular definition you put up are flat-out wrong. If your answer is no, then you're talking nonsense

Hmmm... "sacred"... let's have a look at that....


"connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

Hmm! Because it is connected to God, it doesn't mean it came before God, or the notion of God. ''Sacred'' is from our perpective. Meaning, if we didn't regard the scriptures or God, as sacred, they would still be what they are. if we didn't regard flowers as beautiful, they would still be what they are.

Oh, look, it seems scripture is the writings of a religion (of Christianity or other religion) that embodies the laws or doctrines of that religion.

I agree that scriptures are sacred, but they're not sacred to everyone. Ever considered why that is?

Oh, look, it seems scripture is the writings of a religion (of Christianity or other religion) that embodies the laws or doctrines of that religion.

This is ridiculous logic, which is why I don't take you seriously when you try to use it.

Also when using this type of method to get your point across, it helps if you have some background knowledge so you can back up what you say.

I can quite happily simply state what others might believe or claim the soul to have as properties, with no presumption of existence.

Then do that!

However, the line of discussion that you have tried to avoid yet spent an inordinate amount of time and effort over, was simply whether the soul even exists or not.

No it wasn't.
I've explained what response to Dinosaur was, plus it is there for the world to see.
You're just being a trouble maker.

?? You use a book to help you understand what a book says??
Circular reasoning, methinks.

Wtf are you talking about?

But if one embodies the laws or doctrines of another, I think it's safe to assume the link is strong.

Not necessarily.
It's quite intricate, so I'm not going to go into it with you.

So religions.
Fair enough.

*facepalm*

You do each time you assert something about the soul.

No we don't Baldeee..

Please point out where I have claimed the non-existence of the soul.
If you can't, please apologise and retract your accusation.
Failing that, please just STFU.
Thanks.

Why would you thank me?

jan.

 

[James R]

"The soul is pure consciousness."
"The soul is the person."

I think we can agree that when a human being is conscious there are various outward, material signs of that consciousness. Homing in on the source, sooner or later we arrive at the brain. Damage the brain and you can quite clearly damage the personality. Kill the brain and there is no detectable personality any more.

Those who claim that the soul is the person would have us believe that when the brain dies the soul somehow lingers on, as the "pure consciousness" that it is. But where is it? What is it doing? Looking around for a new body to animate? What about when we sleep? Is that the soul taking a break from the body, temporarily flitting around in heaven or something?

Where, if anywhere, can we find a "pure consciousness" separate from a brain? Only in a mystical heaven separated from the material world? Or can we find this "pure consciousness" elsewhere in the material world? If it is in the material world, how can "pure consciousness" be detected? What instruments should we use to determine if there's a pure consciousness floating around somewhere nearby?

We can put a person into an MRI scanner and look at activity in the brain as the person carries out conscious tasks. There are repeatable, predictable patterns there, clearly accessible to science. Yet no MRI scanner can show there is any "pure consciousness" separate from a brain.

If you think about raising your right arm, an MRI scanner will show activity in particular regions of your brain. It is your personality that wills your arm to raise, and we can see activity in the brain when your will is at work.

But perhaps this will is really the "pure consciousness" of the soul, controlling and directing the brain processes, which in turn cause the arm to rise. Maybe if the soul wasn't there, the will wouldn't work any more and the arm wouldn't rise. The "person" wouldn't be there, it is argued by some. A brain without a directing soul would be an empty shell, incapable of any will or consciousness.

Ok, so let us entertain the idea that there really is a soul in the form of "pure consciousness" that steps in to operate the brain whenever you will your right arm to raise. The question that then natually arises is: how on earth does the "pure consciousness" effect the physical workings of the brain?

This is a serious issue. The soul is supposed to be this disembodied, non-material, spiritual thing. But the brain is clearly a material thing. So how can a non-material thing interact at all so as to control a material thing? What's the mechanism?

For that matter, how does it work in the opposite direction? When the eyes see something, they sent messages to the brain, and soon after that you perceive what was seen. But if you are actually the disembodied soul, then at what point do those physical messages from the eyes, in the form of nerve impulses to and in the brain, get translated to a suitable non-material form in which they can be communicated to the spiritual soul? And how does that happen? Spiritual soul magic, perhaps?

What does the idea of a soul add to the idea of a person? "The eyes are the window to the soul." Or, maybe the eyes are just a window to the brain. They are directly and demonstrably connected to it, after all, whereas there's no detectable connection to any non-material "pure consciousness".

What can a soul do that a brain can't do? Oh, that's right. The soul can magically fly to heaven and be with the angels after death - even though it is somehow constrained and tied to a particular brain and body while a person is a alive. Some say the soul can magically reincarnate in an entirely new brain/body after the death of the previous one. But for some reason, the soul in the new body retains none of the knowledge or memories that it had in the old body. Why is that? Why is the "pure consciousness" discontinuous when reincarnated? How do we even know it's the "same" soul in the new body? Because scripture?

Push a religious person on these matters and sooner or later the only answer they give is "God wants it to work that way", or something similar. And thus, the soul remains ever elusive and unexplainable in any real sense - forever unevidenced in the material world.

From a scientific standpoint, the soul is an unnecessary hypothesis. The concept of a soul has not been shown to be necessary to explain anything we observe about human beings. There's no reason to suppose it exists unless you're religious. Moreover, it makes a lot of sense that people would like the idea of a soul. The primary advantage the concept seems to offer is the promise that consciousness will persist after death, and lots of people fear their own deaths. So, maybe the soul is just wishful thinking.

 

[Baldeee]

Here is what you said...

...The brain simply generates intelligence, not artificial intelligence.
It also generates a consciousness, not an artificial consciousness.

If you are talking about artificial consciousness then again there is nothing artificial about what is naturally produced by the brain.

...that is what you meant. Your talk of context is simply an attempt to break free of the responsibility of validating your claims.

No, Jan, the context is all.
Wellwisher was asserting that what the brain generates is an artificial consciousness.
My point, as already explained to you, is that if the brain produces it then it is not artificial but natural.
Any further effort by you to continue to take things out of context to further your point-scoring agenda will be ignored.

If one asserts that the brain is an organ inside your skull, and another asserts that the brain is an organ that serves as the center of the nervous system in all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals. Which one of those is wrong?

Those two views are not diametrically opposed.
So what does it have to do with you saying that the soul is regarded to be pure consciousness, when there are views of the soul that suggest otherwise, that suggest it is simply the personality of the person, etc.

Hindu is the name of a people, and as such they have varying perspectives. There are Hindus who are atheist, and do not believe in anything they cannot see (like you). So you need to be more specific.

Understood.
Would you be so kind, then, as to inform which Hindu perspective yours is?

I'm defining consciousness as a symptom of the soul.

And thus you beg the question.
You define the soul into existence: consciousness is a symptom of the soul, consciousness exists, therefore the soul must exist.
Further, you previously stated that the soul is regarded as pure consciousness.
How do you tie this with you now defining conscious as merely a symptom of the soul?
What else is the soul to enable consciousness to be a symptom?
If the soul is more, then how can it be pure consciousness?

A car, or washing machine, is not conscious, therefore has no essence of a soul. They appear animated because a soul has put components together, and supplied some kind of energy to make it work. Just like a body machine. This is the original definition. All other definitions find it's roots in that.

So you give complexity no explanatory power before jumping on duality as being the truth.
Fair enough.

Then allow people to discuss the properties of the soul without having to qualify whether or not it actually exists.
Please Sir! Please do.

Where have I stopped people, Jan?
You're the one currently engaging me on this line.
If others don't want to they don't have to.
They can discuss whatever they want.
You seem unable to, despite your apparent desire to do so.

Your level of conversation does not require us to talk about deductive logic. You only bring that up when you are stuck. Your performance thus far has been anything but logical, or rational.

Hilarious, Jan, truly hilarious.
Given your woeful understanding of logical argument, you're like a blind man trying to argue that the sun doesn't exist, even while his skin gets sunburned.

This is nonsense.

Oh, bravo!
Well argued, that man.

Scripture, is scripture. Baldeee.
Now there's a fact!

It's a logical truth that X is X, Jan.
Bravo.
Unfortunately when it is first written it is not scripture.
It is only later deemed such by each religion, and included in the canon of scripture for that religion.
Taking the Biblical texts as an example, Catholicism does not recognise books such as 3 and 4 Maccabees, while Greek Orthodox do.
Because at some point in the past that religion has determined that book to be considered scripture, whereas the other has not.
Scripture is determined by the religion, Jan.

''Religious'' can mean anything. Belief that science will one day find out whether or not God exists, can be religious.

Ah, the Game of Semantics again.

Well at least you're providing us with a real example of why you are atheist.

If you say so, Jan.
If you say so.

I've already told you that I don't. Are you calling me a liar?

I am saying that you are mistaken.

I see you read my response to your comrade. Impressive, wasn't it?

If you say so, Jan.

The thing you need to ask yourself is this: Was the Bible, or the books contained in the Bible (including noncanonical writings), around before the Christian religion? If your answer is yes, then the secular definition you put up are flat-out wrong. If your answer is no, then you're talking nonsense

Why would the definition be wrong?
Furthermore, given that some religions deem certain texts to be scripture while others do not sort of makes my point.

Hmm! Because it is connected to God, it doesn't mean it came before God, or the notion of God. ''Sacred'' is from our perpective. Meaning, if we didn't regard the scriptures or God, as sacred, they would still be what they are. if we didn't regard flowers as beautiful, they would still be what they are.

Oh, I have no issue with the books and writings being what they are.
But if you refer to a flower as beautiful, you are invoking more than just the physicality of the flower.
As such if you refer to a writing as scripture you are doing more than simply saying that it is written down somewhere.

I agree that scriptures are sacred, but they're not sacred to everyone. Ever considered why that is?

No,

This is ridiculous logic, which is why I don't take you seriously when you try to use it.

And it is this very response from you that demonstrates your utter inability to comprehend logic when faced with it.
Please don't blame others for your inability to comprehend.
The logic remains whether you comprehend it or not.

Also when using this type of method to get your point across, it helps if you have some background knowledge so you can back up what you say.

So you are disagreeing with the definitions?

Then do that!

I might well have done if you hadn't belaboured the very issue you don't want this thread to get, in your view, derailed by.
But you keep responding.

No it wasn't.
I've explained what response to Dinosaur was, plus it is there for the world to see.
You're just being a trouble maker.

?? I am referring to the line of discussion that you have spent a long time now trying not to discuss, to no avail.
That is what I was discussing, as was others, given that you had clearly opened the door to it.

Wtf are you talking about?

Ah, my mistake.
It was about you describing a logically fallacious line of reasoning.
But I forget your difficulty when confronted with logic.

Not necessarily.
It's quite intricate, so I'm not going to go into it with you.

Evasion.

No we don't Baldeee..

I beg to differ.

Why would you thank me?

A preemptive appreciation for your efforts in doing what I was asking.
Clearly you failed in all three.
Thanks.

 

[Michael 345]

So, maybe the soul is just wishful thinking.

It appears to me, and in many other post I have been involved in, there is a mix up between the brain (or some other material something) and the operation of the thing
The brain is tangible
The operation is not
While as you state you can point to areas in the brain which light up when you lift your arm up
But you cannot extract that lift up armness to put in another brain

The soul appears to be an attempt to combine all the lift up armnesses with other processes and bring them into the real world lumped as a material object the soul

 

[Jan Ardena]

Any further effort by you to continue to take things out of context to further your point-scoring agenda will be ignored.

I don't mind if you ignore me. You wrote what you wrote, it said what it said, and now you're trying run from the responsibility.

Those two views are not diametrically opposed.
So what does it have to do with you saying that the soul is regarded to be pure consciousness, when there are views of the soul that suggest otherwise, that suggest it is simply the personality of the person, etc.

State what the "otherwise" is.

Understood.
Would you be so kind, then, as to inform which Hindu perspective yours is?

Mr. Patel who owns the shop at the end of street.

And thus you beg the question.
You define the soul into existence: consciousness is a symptom of the soul, consciousness exists, therefore the soul must exist.

You forgot to add this bit "This is the original definition. All other definitions find it's roots in that.

How do you tie this with you now defining conscious as merely a symptom of the soul?

Quite easily. Thanks.

Consciousness isn't the personality or character, it is basically awareness. Pure consciousness is basically defined as being aware of things as they are. Contaminated consciousness is basically ignorance of things as they are.

If something comes into being, grows, produces by-product, dwindles, then dies. It is understood that consciousness was present. If consciousness is present, it is due to the presence f a soul.

That is the root meaning. Like the subject of God, people believe in particular aspects of that root position.

Scripture is determined by the religion, Jan.

No it's not Baldeee.

Furthermore, given that some religions deem certain texts to be scripture while others do not sort of makes my point.

Religious teachings only matter to religious people. So if a particular religion has a picture of a blonde haired, blue-eyed, smooth looking dude, in a nicely ironed, lily-white lounge suit, and call Jesus. The that is Jesus, as far as the people of that religion are concerned.

Oh, I have no issue with the books and writings being what they are.
But if you refer to a flower as beautiful, you are invoking more than just the physicality of the flower.

That depends on the person.
Remember you are not in control of others thought processes.

The logic remains whether you comprehend it or not.

And it is still ridiculous.

So you are disagreeing with the definitions

Secularists are clueless when it comes to spirituality, God, real religion. Your doing a good job of representing them.
It is correct as far as secularists are concerned, but it has no basis in real discussion about these matters.

?? I am referring to the line of discussion that you have spent a long time now trying not to discuss, to no avail.

What are you talking about?

Evasion

Well... yes!

Jan.

 

[exchemist]

It appears to me, and in many other post I have been involved in, there is a mix up between the brain (or some other material something) and the operation of the thing
The brain is tangible
The operation is not
While as you state you can point to areas in the brain which light up when you lift your arm up
But you cannot extract that lift up armness to put in another brain

The soul appears to be an attempt to combine all the lift up armnesses with other processes and bring them into the real world lumped as a material object the soul

Yes my thoughts exactly. I suspect Cartesian dualism (body/soul, body/mind, etc.) may reflect a category error, whereby activity of the brain is treated as an entity rather than a process. It seems to me that computers give us an insight into this. The operating system is a process, carried out by the processor, which enables the computer to respond to inputs by drawing on memorised data, executing logical operations and producing outputs that relate to the inputs. This, surely, is what the mind does.

The fact that mind or soul is an activity, and not an entity, is what gives it this apparent intangibility, which has caused many past philosophers and theologians to think there is an immaterial "something" that exists independently of the body. But if the mind is an activity of the brain, this is not the case.

 

[Michael 345]

Yes my thoughts exactly. I suspect Cartesian dualism (body/soul, body/mind, etc.) may reflect a category error, whereby activity of the brain is treated as an entity rather than a process. It seems to me that computers give us an insight into this. The operating system is a process, carried out by the processor, which enables the computer to respond to inputs by drawing on memorised data, executing logical operations and producing outputs that relate to the inputs. This, surely, is what the mind does.

The fact that mind or soul is an activity, and not an entity, is what gives it this apparent intangibility, which has caused many past philosophers and theologians to think there is an immaterial "something" that exists independently of the body. But if the mind is an activity of the brain, this is not the case.

You put it better than me grrrrr

I will copy and paste - change a few words and use it if the subject comes up again in the other forum I post

 

[gmilam]

Yes, in the same way that grasping is a function of the hand - mind is a function of the brain.

But that concept seems difficult for some people to get a grip on.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes, in the same way that grasping is a function of the hand - mind is a function of the brain.

Grasping may be a function of the hand, but is it conscious? Why would anything be conscious by mere virtue of it being a process or a function? Is washing dishes conscious by virtue of being a function of my dishwasher? No..It's all done in the dark.

 

[Baldeee]

I don't mind if you ignore me. You wrote what you wrote, it said what it said, and now you're trying run from the responsibility.

Au contraire.
I own what I said.
Just a pity you can't accept the context in which it was written, and wish to take it outside of that so as to score points.

State what the "otherwise" is.

There are plenty.
One just has to look up in the dictionary to establish what some are.
Let's try that:
soul
səʊl/
noun
noun: soul; plural noun: souls

1. 1.
   the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
   • a person's moral or emotional nature or sense of identity.
     "in the depths of her soul, she knew he would betray her"
     synonyms:spirit, psyche, (inner) self, innermost self, (inner) ego, inner being, true being, essential nature, animating principle, life force, vital force, inner man/woman;More
     persona, identity, personality, individuality, make-up, subconscious;
     technicalanima, pneuma;
     ka;
     atman
     "painting is the art of reaching the soul through the eyes"
2. 2.
   emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance.
   "their interpretation lacked soul"
   synonyms:inspiration, feeling, emotion, passion, animation, intensity, fervour, ardour, enthusiasm, eagerness, warmth, energy, vitality, vivacity, spirit, spiritedness, commitment;More

And there we have one.
Simple, wasn't it.

Mr. Patel who owns the shop at the end of street.

Is that supposed to be an answer?

You forgot to add this bit "This is the original definition. All other definitions find it's roots in that.

Actually, the original definition of the word "soul" was "coming from the lake".
It has its root in ancient Germanic words where the soul was believed to be born from the lake and then returns to the lake.

Quite easily. Thanks.

Consciousness isn't the personality or character, it is basically awareness. Pure consciousness is basically defined as being aware of things as they are. Contaminated consciousness is basically ignorance of things as they are.

If something comes into being, grows, produces by-product, dwindles, then dies. It is understood that consciousness was present. If consciousness is present, it is due to the presence f a soul.

That is the root meaning. Like the subject of God, people believe in particular aspects of that root position.

You still haven't actually addressed the point.
If X is a symptom of Y then Y must be more than just X, if it is X at all.
You have separately defined Y as pure X, and X as a symptom of Y.
What you have written as an attempt to clarify that inconsistency does not in fact clarify it.
Care to try again?

No it's not Baldeee.

Yes it is, Jan.

Religious teachings only matter to religious people.

Not true.
They matter to anyone who wishes to understand them, for whatever reason, secular or not.

So if a particular religion has a picture of a blonde haired, blue-eyed, smooth looking dude, in a nicely ironed, lily-white lounge suit, and call Jesus. The that is Jesus, as far as the people of that religion are concerned.

And if a religion does not want a certain text to be considered a scripture of their religion then they do not include it in the canon of scripture for that religion.
It's quite simple.
The words remain as written, but they are no longer deemed scripture for that religion.
Why are you struggling with this concept?

That depends on the person.
Remember you are not in control of others thought processes.

No, it does not depend on the person.
If you invoke a flower as beautiful you are making assertions that go beyond it just being a flower.
You are saying something about it, whether that something is subjective or not.
Again, this is not rocket science, Jan.

And it is still ridiculous.

If that is what you consider logic to be, Jan, then there is little purpose in discussing anything with you, as you are admitting that you are just as likely, if not more so, to arrive at conclusions that suit your need rather than follow any logic.

Secularists are clueless when it comes to spirituality, God, real religion. Your doing a good job of representing them.
It is correct as far as secularists are concerned, but it has no basis in real discussion about these matters.

So secularist views are not allowed?
Religious or spiritual matters can only be discussed by people claiming to be religious or spiritual?
I'm guessing you don't know how immature you're sounding.

What are you talking about?

Whether the soul actually exists or not, Jan.
What are you talking about?

Well... yes!

You admit it for once.
That's a start, Jan.
Perhaps one day we may even have you actually understanding how to put together a logical argument.
But baby steps, eh.

 

[Baldeee]

Grasping may be a function of the hand, but is it conscious? Why would anything be conscious by mere virtue of it being a process or a function? Is washing dishes conscious by virtue of being a function of my dishwasher? No..It's all done in the dark.

It's not conscious by mere virtue of being a process or function.
The argument is that consciousness is a function, but that does not mean all functions are conscious.
All fish swim, but not everything that swims is a fish.

 

[Magical Realist]

It's not conscious by mere virtue of being a process or function.
The argument is that consciousness is a function, but that does not mean all functions are conscious.
All fish swim, but not everything that swims is a fish.

So the mind is a special instance of a function that somehow became conscious? Ofcourse not. Functions don't do that. So what does calling it a function accomplish then? It's an abstraction--a verb--of language. What is the point of calling a mind a function if it explains nothing?

 

[Michael 345]

So the mind is a special instance of a function that somehow became conscious? Ofcourse not. Functions don't do that. So what does calling it a function accomplish then? It's an abstraction--a verb--of language. What is the point of calling a mind a function if it explains nothing?

No no no and just to make sure you understand NO

The confusion is with those who say

FUNCTIONS are CONSCIOUSNESS and by extension SOUL

THE FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN IS NOT REPEAT NOT A ENTITY NOW NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE

 

[Magical Realist]

No no no and just to make sure you understand NO

The confusion is with those who say

FUNCTIONS are CONSCIOUSNESS and by extension SOUL

THE FUNCTION OF THE BRAIN IS NOT REPEAT NOT A ENTITY NOW NEVER HAS BEEN NEVER WILL BE

We experience the mind or the soul as the person we are. It IS an entity. It is the self we are. Calling it a function is a fallacious attempt at reifying an abstraction or action of an agent into something real and objective. It is not. A mind or soul is more than a function of a brain.

 

[Baldeee]

We experience the mind or the soul as the person we are. It IS an entity. It is the self we are. Calling it a function is a fallacious attempt at reifying an abstraction or action of an agent into something real and objective. It is not. A mind or soul is more than a function of a brain.

On what basis do you assert this last sentence?
After all, a simple feedback loop can experience itself while remaining nothing more than a function.
Let function f(x) be defined as f(n+1) = f(n) +1.
Voila.
A feedback loop where the next step is determined by the value of the previous.
The function, albeit crudely, experiences itself and acts accordingly in line with the function.

Obviously the brain and body form a vastly more complex and interrelated function than that, with multiple variables and external inputs (for the senses).
But why do you think the principle need be any different?
Our next moment, according to this, is determined (randomly or otherwise) by the previous.

So what is it, what property of the soul or mind, that leads you to assert that it is more than just a function?

 

[Baldeee]

So the mind is a special instance of a function that somehow became conscious? Ofcourse not. Functions don't do that.

How are you so sure that when you get to a sufficiently complex function that it is not conscious, self-aware even?
Have we ever written such a function?
No.
Do we even know what the function might be?
No.
But does that mean it is therefore not simply a function?
No.

So what does calling it a function accomplish then? It's an abstraction--a verb--of language. What is the point of calling a mind a function if it explains nothing?

It establishes the basis of further enquiry into the soul/mind.
It means that, if true, any assertion about the properties thereof based on the authority of scriptures, even if coincidentally true, lacks any basis for acceptance.

Does it mean that it can not be beneficial to think of the mind in a dualistic way?
No.
Does it mean the mind suddenly stops being what it was, and suddenly works differently?
No.

But it would help answer some pretty fundamental questions, although it may just shift the focus of discourse but still with as much disagreement as currently.

 

[Michael 345]

We experience the mind or the soul as the person we are. It IS an entity. It is the self we are. Calling it a function is a fallacious attempt at reifying an abstraction or action of an agent into something real and objective. It is not. A mind or soul is more than a function of a brain.

We experience the mind or the soul as the person we are
So you experience you as you
Well done
As per the above is the mind / soul - body a

• 2 units?
• 1 mind / soul plus
• 1 body?

It IS an entity
You as you are an entity
Again well done
As per the above appears to come down on the side of it (mind / soul) being a separate entity which entails you being two units

Score so far 1 for 1 unit - 1 for 2 units

It is the self we are
Again you as you
And again well done
Another 1 for 1

Score 2 for 1 unit - 1 for 2 units

Calling it (soul) a function blah blah attempt at reifying (make the abstract more material)
It (the soul) is not
A mind or soul is more than a function of a brain

Hard to call

Help me with this one
A mind or soul is more than a function of a brain
Please explain EXACTLY what the soul is
Particularly

• Is it part of you? or
• Entirely independent
• Is it ethereal (not the light and fluffy but the ghost type)? or
• Solid (at least as solid as jelly
• Can it live independently of you (if you go for two units)? and last, for the moment
• If as people have done died but revived did the soul leave and come back? or
• did it wait around to make sure body was truly dead?

Thanks

Feel free to add any other information you feel will help me get a handle on this vexing conundrum

 

[Michael 345]

How are you so sure that when you get to a sufficiently complex function that it is not conscious, self-aware even?

Sounds like you are talking about a "mini you" sitting inside the brain pulling the strings of the brain directing its action

Sounds to me like a case of well and truly overthinking

You are you. One person. If you thinking you are two people you are saying something similar to your computer being two computers because its CPU (the brain) is one computer and the rest is another computer

I think not