The Soul

[Norsefire]

Do we have souls?

This is my idea on souls.

We live in this physical world, material world. It has its certain methods of operation and its certain laws, etc.

Consciousness is perception through a brain by a soul.

Let me clarify; the soul exists, and operates and is alive (within this world) via our bodies. The reason I can sense this world is because my soul resides in a body that can. If one body is blind, his soul shall not see.

The organs, excluding the brain, exist to keep the body alive, of course, and to keep the brain alive, etc, you know the story, to keep us alive and do their jobs, in this material world.

The brain, on the other hand, is a complicated network, with all sorts of chemicals and areas and etc, but just like our senses, it exists to allow the soul to perceive.

For instance, when we are happy, the endorphins and everything, it's entirely physical, in order to allow for the soul to feel happiness within the body. When we eat, the physical brain, via the free will of the soul, and to keep it alive, does the physical work.

Basically, to make it simple, the brain operates as hardware, hardware that operates within a certain place. The soul, or the software, however, exists independently of the hardware. However, you might say "well the software only runs if the hardware runs"

~That's true. However, that doesn't mean they have to be one in the same; i.e, the software is being run in a different place, in a different way, and the hardware in the other place, is running it. We are conscious through the brain, but the conscousness isn't caused by the brain, and the consciousness exists independently. ~

It makes no sense that any amount of complexity will lead to consciousness, the sense of "me" or of being.

 

[KennyJC]

Bollocks. The brain creates self-consciousness thus the "soul" is made redundant.

 

[Norsefire]

Bollocks. The brain creates self-consciousness thus the "soul" is made redundant.

Proof?

How can a brain, made of carbon and water and other non conscious elements, create consciousness?

 

[Oli]

Argument from incredulity....

 

[Norsefire]

Argument from incredulity....

Huh?

...and why none of the physiological models are adequate to explain them, including the question of whether the brain creates consciousness or merely mediates an independent consciousness

 

[Oli]

Huh?

Argument from incredulity = I can't understand how X is true, therefore Y must be the answer.
Just because you can't see how carbon etc come to create consciousness does not necessarily mean that it didn't happen.

And that second quote is from....?
Regardless.
"None of the physiological models are adequate..."
So what?
Does the author assume that we currently know everything there is that can be known or is he prepared to accept that we have maybe a few more years or a few more decades or even a few more centuries before we can answer questions like that?
That is not the attitude of a scientist, it's a five year-old demanding his cookie NOW!

 

[Norsefire]

Argument from incredulity = I can't understand how X is true, therefore Y must be the answer.
Just because you can't see how carbon etc come to create consciousness does not necessarily mean that it didn't happen.

Anything regarding consciousness is an argument from incredulity; we have no clue why and how consciousness works. However, as I stated, I think it is more logical that the consciousness exists independently of the brain. I don't think nonconscious material can ever form true consciousness and free will.

And that second quote is from....?
Regardless.
"None of the physiological models are adequate..."
So what?
Does the author assume that we currently know everything there is that can be known or is he prepared to accept that we have maybe a few more years or a few more decades or even a few more centuries before we can answer questions like that?
That is not the attitude of a scientist, it's a five year-old demanding his cookie NOW!

Ok, so by your own logic, we shouldn't assume that we DON'T have souls either, since you said we don't know. Basically, physiological models are unnecessary, a soul is a simpler explanation. *mimicks atheists*

 

[Oli]

I don't think nonconscious material can ever form true consciousness and free will.

There we are again: you don't think it's true.

Ok, so by your own logic, we shouldn't assume that we DON'T have souls either, since you said we don't know. Basically, physiological models are unnecessary, a soul is a simpler explanation. *mimicks atheists*

Soul is not a simpler explanation, since it postulatres something intangible and unverifiable by science: therefore science cannot investigate it.
I assume we don't have one due to balance of probabilities: there is no evidence whatsoever for it so why should I consider it?

 

[one_raven]

Anything regarding consciousness is an argument from incredulity; we have no clue why and how consciousness works. However, as I stated, I think it is more logical that the consciousness exists independently of the brain. I don't think nonconscious material can ever form true consciousness and free will.

Please explain that logic.
I often see you say that this or that is more ligical, but you seldom explain why.
I'd like to see you break down why it is illogical that inanimate matter can work together to produce the apparent synergistic effect of self-awareness.

I'm not certain how I feel about the "soul" myself just yet, so I would like to see some clearly explained viewpoints and arguments.

 

[Norsefire]

There we are again: you don't think it's true.

Sure.... and you don't think the soul is true

Soul is not a simpler explanation, since it postulatres something intangible and unverifiable by science: therefore science cannot investigate it.
I assume we don't have one due to balance of probabilities: there is no evidence whatsoever for it so why should I consider it?

Science can't explain consciousness either; and as I said, no amount of complexity equals a consciousness. Is your computer conscious? No.

The universe might be one universal consciousness; hence, God!

 

[Oli]

Sure.... and you don't think the soul is true

That's right: but I don't state it as fact...

Science can't explain consciousness either

So what?
Really, so what?

and as I said, no amount of complexity equals a consciousness

And your credentials for saying that are... (I mean other than personal belief)

Is your computer conscious? No.

Point being?

The universe might be one universal consciousness; hence, God!

Might,if, maybe...

 

[Norsefire]

That's right: but I don't state it as fact...

You might as well, with the way you state it.

So what?
Really, so what?

So...we have no clue. Besides, I've already explained my idea in another thread titled "the soul" in this subforum.

The brain doess all of these things for the body and can help the mind to operate....but what is perceiving the mind? What IS IT that the brain works for?

The soul

More logical than nothing

And your credentials for saying that are... (I mean other than personal belief)

Well just based off my knowledge of conscioiusness

Point being?

Complexity doesn't create conscousness

Might,if, maybe...

It makes sense; after all, that would explain the lack of "empirical evidence" or "action" for god

Not to mention the theory I told you about about consciousnes being a function of the universe; therefore "God" is the ultimate conscoous being

it also explains NDE's

 

[Oli]

You might as well, with the way you state it.

You mean as " there's no evidence" or "there are simpler explantions".
Yeah I see your point.

So...we have no clue.

There's lots of things we don't know.
Yet.

The brain doess all of these things for the body and can help the mind to operate....but what is perceiving the mind? What IS IT that the brain works for?

How abnout the mind being self-aware.
Otherwise you need a soul to perceive the mind then something to perceive the soul...

Well just based off my knowledge of conscioiusness

Knowledge of your own consciousness or just awareness of it?

Complexity doesn't create conscousness

Oops flat statement again.
Computers aren't "complex" to our level.

It makes sense; after all, that would explain the lack of "empirical evidence" or "action" for god
Not to mention the theory I told you about about consciousnes being a function of the universe; therefore "God" is the ultimate conscoous being

Disagree.

it also explains NDE's

So do drugs...

 

[John99]

A long time ago i made a thread about the location of the soul, if there is one, in the human body. I postulated that it is at the front of the chest directly centered between the breast bone.

I base this upon the concentration of electrical energy in the area. An energy similar to electricity but not entirely understood or harnessable by present human understanding.

 

[Norsefire]

You mean as " there's no evidence" or "there are simpler explantions".
Yeah I see your point.

"Simpler" explanations aren't always ACCURATE explanations. The simplest explanation could be that magical fairies keep the world in motion...

There's lots of things we don't know.
Yet.

Ok so don't make conclusions

How abnout the mind being self-aware.
Otherwise you need a soul to perceive the mind then something to perceive the soul...

Not at all; see "quantum conciousness"

What is the "self" that the brain "creates"? Something needs to perceive the brain's complexity.

Oops flat statement again.
Computers aren't "complex" to our level.

And they likely, while certainly surpassing our complexity, will never be "true" AI. Notice how we don't know how to create, or even where to begin, to create true self aware AI.

Disagree.

Why?

So do drugs...

Not at all; drugs don't explain mass NDE's; drugs don't explain the fact that people who have NDE's can accurately report events that may happen far away; drugs don't explain the fact that the healthiest people who have never used drugs can, after death, have an NDE

And most importantly: drugs don't explain the fact that a man was dead for THREE DAYS and had an NDE, and later came back.

Let me guess, all halucinations?

 

[Oli]

"Simpler" explanations aren't always ACCURATE explanations.

Correct, but they're easier to work with and investigate.
Don't add complication just for the sake of it.

The simplest explanation could be that magical fairies keep the world in motion...

No 'cos then you'd have to explain what size they are, what they eat, what their names are...

Ok so don't make conclusions

I haven't.
I've avoided complication by not adding other stuff.

Not at all; see "quantum conciousness"

Oh, yeah, something that might work, might be true and has, as yet, no validation.

What is the "self" that the brain "creates"? Something needs to perceive the brain's complexity.

The only thing that perceives the brains complexity is an MRI scanner...
If you mean consciousness then that question is being worked on.

And they likely, while certainly surpassing our complexity, will never be "true" AI. Notice how we don't know how to create, or even where to begin, to create true self aware AI.

Yet.
But it's being worked on.
We can't cure cancer.
Does that mean we never will?
We couldn't cure measles once, we can now.

Why?

It's an added complication with evidence.

Not at all; drugs don't explain mass NDE's; drugs don't explain the fact that people who have NDE's can accurately report events that may happen far away; drugs don't explain the fact that the healthiest people who have never used drugs can, after death, have an NDE

The links YOU gave stated explicity that DMT can cause exactly the same effects as NDEs.

And most importantly: drugs don't explain the fact that a man was dead for THREE DAYS and had an NDE, and later came back.

The drugs, as stated in YOUR links, are created in the brain in some people under conditions of extreme stress.

Let me guess, all halucinations?

Occam's razor.
We know about DMT...
And the links that purported to provide hard (actually any) evidence for NDE didn't, most flatly contradicted it.

 

[(Q)]

Do we have souls?

No, we have soles.

 

[Yorda]

the soul is pretty much exactly what ancient traditions tell us: a non-physical body. it exists even if we don't have a physical body. modern materialistic humans often have a problem with this... they just can't imagine that it could be true, so they think the soul is "consciousness" or something.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Shit Norsefire, try as you might you'll never be LG. You need a new shtick.

My neighbor has a Down's Syndrome child/adult living with him. Its pretty severe case of mental dysfunction. I sometimes look at him and wonder, if he had a soul then wtf is it doing there? I don't think old George is aware of himself or even if his consciousness is working a little bit.

By your definition does George have a soul inhabiting his rather simple brain? If he doesn't is George human?

 

[spidergoat]

Proof?

How can a brain, made of carbon and water and other non conscious elements, create consciousness?

That is an excellent question. I think it might have to do with self referential feedback loops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach