The Case for the Secular Soul

[THoR]

Plagiarised from my own website. Mind candy, chew slowly.

 

I think, therefore I am. It is obvious that one must exist in order to experience, and the fact you experience is convincing proof you exist.

 

You probably consider yourself to be a single being, which is why you call yourself "I" instead of "we". Your body; however, is a plurality - a collection of billions of separate elements or fundamental particles, each with its own individual properties. Each basic particle pre-existed your birth and will ultimately survive your demise. Each has a unique history, a separate location and physical domain. Logically this presents a conundrum. How can you be a single existence if that physical manifestation which you consider to be "yourself" is a composite? Indeed, every existence has its own unique identity and a collection of existences will have as many separate, individual identities as there are elements in the set.

 

In order to reconcile this disparity, hordes of scholarly pundits with alphabet soup suffixed to their names profess that if you toss just the right combination of terrestrial ingredients into a primordial cauldron and stir it really, really hard for a very, very long time, you can produce a composite that thinks, propagates and experiences a single existence with a singular identity. That may sound silly (I call it the Pinocchio hypothesis), but which lowly layman in his right mind would dare contradict an entire horde of scholarly pundits, especially when they are immersed in alphabet soup. So, with an eye of newt and wing of bat, a pinch of this and a dash of that, the pundits dub this egregious departure from logic the "phenomenon of emergent properties" and they credit it with the creation of all life on Earth.

 

It seems even the most tenured of scholars can't explain the mechanics of that miraculous process which transforms a body with 8x10²⁷ atoms into an individual existence with a single identity, but that doesn't stop them from wantonly proclaiming that any sense of self is due to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. They expect you to believe integrated composites can conjure a supervening entity - a temporary or virtual being with its own separate awareness and identity. Their research and their reputations depend upon convincing us that 1+1 equals 1, so in their practice of this sorcery, they often invoke such esoteric incantations as "integrated" and "emergent" since "abracadabra" is frowned upon in the orthodox scientific community.

 

Hogwarts! If this is science, then Harry Potter is the next Isaac Newton. If you believe you are a composite - the corporal product of emergent properties - then you are claiming that you are an occurrence and not an existence. Merlin, himself, would be embarrassed by such magical thinking. This isn't rocket science. It has nothing to do with religion. It is simple logic and elementary deduction. To quote Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous character Sherlock Holmes in Chapter 6 of 'The Sign of Four', "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Edited November 25, 2011 by THoR

[Schrödinger's hat]

I think, therefore I am.

 

You forgot the rest of the sentence: 'or I am being decieved.'

 

Descartes went on to use some circular logic to throw that latter part away, but I digress.

 

Why is is objectionable for one to be an occurrance?

I see plenty of evidence for me being an occurrance, or some kind of machine.

My decisions and thought process are easily altered by the presence of chemicals in my blood, certain kinds of audio or visual input, or even the weather.

 

How do I know this 'me' ness I feel isn't merely illusory? That it isn't some kind of facade which helps all the parts work together more smoothly. There are plenty of other things that various impressions and feelings I have tell me that are explicitly false.

[THoR]

You forgot the rest of the sentence: 'or I am being decieved.'

 

Descartes went on to use some circular logic to throw that latter part away, but I digress.

 

Why is is objectionable for one to be an occurrance?

I see plenty of evidence for me being an occurrance, or some kind of machine.

My decisions and thought process are easily altered by the presence of chemicals in my blood, certain kinds of audio or visual input, or even the weather.

 

How do I know this 'me' ness I feel isn't merely illusory? That it isn't some kind of facade which helps all the parts work together more smoothly. There are plenty of other things that various impressions and feelings I have tell me that are explicitly false.

Yes, you are being deceived; hence you did not reply and, sadly, I cannot comment.

Somethng must exist in order to experience. Non-existence is not logical.

In the absence of logic, anything is possible - even the absurd.

Edited November 25, 2011 by THoR

[Schrödinger's hat]

Yes, you are being deceived; hence you did not reply and, sadly, I cannot comment.

Somethng must exist in order to experience. Non-existence is not logical.

In the absence of logic, anything is possible - even the absurd.

 

Now you're just playing games with definitions.

Some hands typed on a keyboard and a mouse clicked a few times.

The cells exist.

They work together to do things.

 

They give the impression that they are a unified being a lot of the time.

 

This doesn't prove that I posess a soul or a mind or whatever else philosophers want to call something that is separate from the laws of physics acting on the component parts.

I have a strong impression that I have some kind of mind-like thing (although I can find no coherent definition of the term), but I also have a strong impression that the sky is turning sometimes, or that velocities add linearly -- both of these are wrong. Other than this, I have seen no evidence.

 

I have seen plenty of evidence that I am some kind of physical/chemical phenomenon, on the other hand. The mechanisms behind many of the things my brain does are known, and if I imbibe certain chemicals I am inclined to do things that I would not otherwise.

 

I would not call this conclusive, but until I see some evidence other than a vague impression, I see no reason to include a metaphysical mind/soul in my model of reality.

[Appolinaria]

Now you're just playing games with definitions.

Some hands typed on a keyboard and a mouse clicked a few times.

The cells exist.

They work together to do things.

 

They give the impression that they are a unified being a lot of the time.

 

This doesn't prove that I posess a soul or a mind or whatever else philosophers want to call something that is separate from the laws of physics acting on the component parts.

I have a strong impression that I have some kind of mind-like thing (although I can find no coherent definition of the term), but I also have a strong impression that the sky is turning sometimes, or that velocities add linearly -- both of these are wrong. Other than this, I have seen no evidence.

 

I have seen plenty of evidence that I am some kind of physical/chemical phenomenon, on the other hand. The mechanisms behind many of the things my brain does are known, and if I imbibe certain chemicals I am inclined to do things that I would not otherwise.

 

I would not call this conclusive, but until I see some evidence other than a vague impression, I see no reason to include a metaphysical mind/soul in my model of reality.

 

So you do not think we have a unique quality at all? Just a product of predisposition/experience?

[michel123456]

We are organisms.

We are dependent of our environment: we breathe, we eat, we drink, we evacuate. We cannot live long without any of these. We are not independent organisms, we need our world around us, we need to procreate to survive as a specie.

.........

What was the question?

[Appolinaria]

This feeling of an individual uniqueness, or a soul, could be a survival mechanism. If we are to harvest the immense universe and all of the technological capabilities it contains in order to evolve, what is the driving force? Spiritual gratification? Is spirituality created to ensure we will pursue what's outside our little aquariums, in order to technologically advance and maintain our superiority?

[THoR]

Now you're just playing games with definitions.

Some hands typed on a keyboard and a mouse clicked a few times.

The cells exist.

They work together to do things.

His construction would be "I think, therefore I am - or am I being deceived?"

They give the impression that they are a unified being a lot of the time.

 

This doesn't prove that I posess a soul or a mind or whatever else philosophers want to call something that is separate from the laws of physics acting on the component parts. I have a strong impression that I have some kind of mind-like thing (although I can find no coherent definition of the term), but I also have a strong impression that the sky is turning sometimes, or that velocities add linearly -- both of these are wrong. Other than this, I have seen no evidence.

 

I have seen plenty of evidence that I am some kind of physical/chemical phenomenon, on the other hand. The mechanisms behind many of the things my brain does are known, and if I imbibe certain chemicals I am inclined to do things that I would not otherwise.

 

I would not call this conclusive, but until I see some evidence other than a vague impression, I see no reason to include a metaphysical mind/soul in my model of reality.

The notion of microbes is less than 200 years old. We tend to dismiss that which we cannot measure regardless how evident the logic that implies it might be.

 

Your position indicates you believe the properties of a composite can EITHER magically conjure an independent, supervening identity - in which case 1+1=3 OR that it melds into a single identity - in which case 1+1=1.

 

My position is that 1=1.

 

Which seems more logical?

[Schrödinger's hat]

His construction would be "I think, therefore I am - or am I being deceived?"

The notion of microbes is less than 200 years old. We tend to dismiss that which we cannot measure regardless how evident the logic that implies it might be.

We dismiss that which does not have any measurable effect.

Until there is a strict definition of this mind/soul/whatever and we can come up with some measurable effect that cannot be explained without it, it is completely irrelevant to my model of reality and can thus be dismissed.

 

Your position indicates you believe the properties of a composite can EITHER magically conjure an independent, supervening identity - in which case 1+1=3 OR that it melds into a single identity - in which case 1+1=1.

 

Or that the single identity is a mirage.

I can -- if i'm not hungry at the time -- decide I don't want to eat.

If enough time passes, the hormones and electrical signals my digestive system produces will override this feeling and produce a desire to eat.

 

Even if we assume that I am a single entity, why can multiple pieces not make a single system?

Your argument of 1+1=1 is also completely invalid, because I am made of cells, not numbers. By this type of logic, I am the same thing as two of me because of banach-tarski.

 

Neuroscience is making great strides in understanding how the brain works (even if it is still missing the larger piece of the puzzle), and none of it involves some metaphysical mind.

[THoR]

We dismiss that which does not have any measurable effect.

Until there is a strict definition of this mind/soul/whatever and we can come up with some measurable effect that cannot be explained without it, it is completely irrelevant to my model of reality and can thus be dismissed.

Microbes had devastating effect, they just weren't detectable to our technology. Their existence was logical (and actual), but the effort to sanitize medicine was retarded for decades, thanks to the conventional wisdom.

Or that the single identity is a mirage.

I can -- if i'm not hungry at the time -- decide I don't want to eat.

If enough time passes, the hormones and electrical signals my digestive system produces will override this feeling and produce a desire to eat.

Something must perceive a perception. A composite will have as many actions/reactions (experiences) as there are elements in the set.

 

Even if we assume that I am a single entity, why can multiple pieces not make a single system?

It can, but a system is a composite. It doesn't become a single entity because some scholar pundit chanted "INTEGRATED" or "EMERGENT" over it. That is magical thinking.

 

Your argument of 1+1=1 is also completely invalid, because I am made of cells, not numbers. By this type of logic, I am the same thing as two of me because of banach-tarski.

Your corpse is made of cells. You are a fundamental particle...an element with the natural attribute of animation that enhances its inherent capabilities by surrounding itself with useful stuff (flesh).

 

Neuroscience is making great strides in understanding how the brain works (even if it is still missing the larger piece of the puzzle), and none of it involves some metaphysical mind.

Yeah...they still think the Earth is flat.

 

Earth IS, however, the center of the universe, and I can prove it.

[StringJunky]

I think this a good example of Emergence:

 

 

Termite mounds appear to be constructed by "intelligent" cooperation. The sometimes elaborate galleries and chimneys control air flow to manage temperature and humidity. But individual termites have no more notion of how to build a nest than a starling does of how to lead a flock. Individual termites cannot even perceive the overall shape of a nest (the workers are blind) let alone direct its "design."

 

Instead, termites respond to very local chemical cues left behind by other termites and to temperature/humidity and airflow cues that are affected by the shape of the nest, wind currents, the amount of heat generated within the nest and other local phenomena. The termite's behavior affects the shape of the nest and the shape of the nest affects the termite's behavior. In that sense, the nest is a bit like a flock of starlings in very slow motion.

 

http://evolutionofcomputing.org/Multicellular/Emergence.html

 

Note that worker termites are blind.

Edited November 26, 2011 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Can anyone please define WTF a soul is (without using fuzzy, amorphous, imprecise language which is itself rather meaningless)?

 

 

Without a clear and agreed upon definition, this conversation will ultimately prove pointless.

 

You may as well be making the case for a secular wompplegog. What is a wompplegog, you ask?

Exactly.

Edited November 26, 2011 by iNow

[Appolinaria]

a part of us that isn't created by environment or genes

[iNow]

That doesn't surpass the threshold requirement of "ambiguous," nor does it surpass the threshold requirement of "not fuzzy or imprecise." Further, even if your definition has been accepted, there is no evidence that any such thing even exists. You may as well be arguing whether the fur on a pink unicorn is 1 inch long or two inches long.

[Appolinaria]

Yup, exactly. Pretty sure that's why it's in this section

[THoR]

Can anyone please define WTF a soul is (without using fuzzy, amorphous, imprecise language which is itself rather meaningless)?

 

Without a clear and agreed upon definition, this conversation will ultimately prove pointless.

 

You may as well be making the case for a secular wompplegog. What is a wompplegog, you ask?

Exactly.

Easy. It's YOU. It is what you ARE and your body is what you WEAR. You don't HAVE a soul, you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body (it is entirely removeable). You can only be a single existence and your corpse is billions of separate, individual existences. You are that fundamental particle within that compiles and compells the corpse you wear. You are not immortal. You are alive now, and when you die you will be dead - but you will still be. What happens from there is somewhat obscure (I haven't been dead for many years and the currently dead don't communicate well)

 

a part of us that isn't created by environment or genes

Sorry to disagree, but it isn't PART of us, it IS us. We'ins is souls and we'ze got bodies to play with.

[michel123456]

Easy. It's YOU. It is what you ARE and your body is what you WEAR. You don't HAVE a soul, you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body (it is entirely removeable). (...)

Does a dog have a soul? a fish? an insect? a worm? a tree?

They are all living.

Or are we humans the only one who work like that?

[Schrödinger's hat]

Microbes had devastating effect, they just weren't detectable to our technology. Their existence was logical (and actual), but the effort to sanitize medicine was retarded for decades, thanks to the conventional wisdom.

Even without a microscope there are plenty of ways you can prove the existence of something microbe like.

Experiments can (and were) done to show that diseases were transmitted by some contamination in pus and mucus from infected patients.

That contaminated water would make one ill.

That certain types of decay and growths would only occur if you exposed the relevant substance to some source of contaminant.

 

Something must perceive a perception. A composite will have as many actions/reactions (experiences) as there are elements in the set.

It can, but a system is a composite. It doesn't become a single entity because some scholar pundit chanted "INTEGRATED" or "EMERGENT" over it. That is magical thinking.

Your corpse is made of cells. You are a fundamental particle...an element with the natural attribute of animation that enhances its inherent capabilities by surrounding itself with useful stuff (flesh).

If you listen carefully to your body/brain you'll notice that you do have a number of different reactions to various things. Why do you think we have phrases like 'he was conflicted'?

Why is it that people with brain damage can have completely different reactions to things they see on their right side, to things they see on their left?

What about alien hand syndrome? I suppose that these people must be possessed by demons and have two different souls.

 

 

Yeah...they still think the Earth is flat.

Earth IS, however, the center of the universe, and I can prove it.

So you can replace (or augment, I suppose as you said nothing about shape) a primitive, but useful theory with an egotistical one that serves no purpose?

 

Easy. It's YOU. It is what you ARE and your body is what you WEAR. You don't HAVE a soul, you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body (it is entirely removeable). You can only be a single existence and your corpse is billions of separate, individual existences. You are that fundamental particle within that compiles and compells the corpse you wear. You are not immortal. You are alive now, and when you die you will be dead - but you will still be. What happens from there is somewhat obscure (I haven't been dead for many years and the currently dead don't communicate well)

 

 

Sorry to disagree, but it isn't PART of us, it IS us. We'ins is souls and we'ze got bodies to play with.

 

So you'll let me monkey with your brain? Maybe insert a dopamine delivery system, some electrodes to inhibit various areas.

Reckon you wouldn't want what I decide you should want?

Want to try it?

[iNow]

Easy. It's YOU. It is what you ARE and your body is what you WEAR. You don't HAVE a soul, you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body

Thanks for the concession that your term is an unnecessary addition to our existing terminology... For your stipulating that it brings no value... For your implicit agreement that the term soul actually does little more than add unnecessary and ambiguous baggage into a discussion where it is unfounded, unneeded, and unhelpful.

 

.

 

 

If you listen carefully to your body/brain you'll notice that you do have a number of different reactions to various things. Why do you think we have phrases like 'he was conflicted'?

Why is it that people with brain damage can have completely different reactions to things they see on their right side, to things they see on their left?

What about alien hand syndrome? I suppose that these people must be possessed by demons and have two different souls.

I've seen that last one more commonly referred to as phantom limb phenomenon, for anyone who wishes to explore it further.

[Schrödinger's hat]

I've seen that last one more commonly referred to as phantom limb phenomenon, for anyone who wishes to explore it further.

 

Phantom limb syndrome is where an amputee seems to feel a missing limb.

 

Alien hand syndrome a different phenomenon. The afflicted person's limb will act seemingly of its own accord, often taking actions which distress or contradict the owner's intentions. Wiki for more info.

[THoR]

Does a dog have a soul? a fish? an insect? a worm? a tree?

They are all living.

Or are we humans the only one who work like that?

You musta read my website. It also asks where were YOU a trillion years ago and where will you be a trillion years from now.

I'd venture a guess that a wide variety of life forms 'wear the mud' - else are we human only due to the luck of the draw?

 

Thanks for the concession that your term is an unnecessary addition to our existing terminology... For your stipulating that it brings no value... For your implicit agreement that the term soul actually does little more than add unnecessary and ambiguous baggage into a discussion where it is unfounded, unneeded, and unhelpful.

.

I've seen that last one more commonly referred to as phantom limb phenomenon, for anyone who wishes to explore it further.

You seem to be confusing the nature of existence with the nature of consciousness. Consciousness is closely integrated with the elements we use to nurture and achieve it. Years from now an advanced society will wonder how WE could consider ourselves intelligent when we can't even discern the nature of our own existence.

[iNow]

Phantom limb syndrome is where an amputee seems to feel a missing limb.

 

Alien hand syndrome a different phenomenon. The afflicted person's limb will act seemingly of its own accord, often taking actions which distress or contradict the owner's intentions. Wiki for more info.

Nice. My apologies for the confusion. In my attempt to help, I merely muddied the waters. I've just learned something new. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

You musta read my website. It also asks where were YOU a trillion years ago and where will you be a trillion years from now.

Your scale is exaggerated. The universe itself is on the order of 15 to 20 Billion years old, with a B, not a T. This suggests you are arguing from questionable premises. Time itself did not exist "a trillion years ago."

 

You seem to be confusing the nature of existence with the nature of consciousness.

Not really, no. Interesting conclusion you've just reached given your inputs.

 

Consciousness is closely integrated with the elements we use to nurture and achieve it.

Ultimately, this is meaningless word salad.

 

Years from now an advanced society will wonder how WE could consider ourselves intelligent when we can't even discern the nature of our own existence.

Finally, a point about which we agree. The short answer is that life is what you make of it, and so too is existence itself. Whether you read Sartre, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, de Beauvoir, Tillich, or otherwise... What is "existence" is a personal choice, and hardly a universal truth.

Edited November 26, 2011 by iNow

[THoR]

 

Your scale is exaggerated. The universe itself is on the order of 15 to 20 Billion years old, with a B, not a T. This suggests you are arguing from questionable premises. Time itself did not exist "a trillion years ago."

Yes, how silly of me not to realize that once upon a time there was an after that had no before. You are mired in the ancient fable that deems existence to be the result of cause and effect (creation). That is backwards thinking - literally - cause and effect is a function of existence. Existence is the source, not the result of, cause and effect. You can have existence without change, but not change without existence.

Not really, no. Interesting conclusion you've just reached given your inputs.

Consciousness as we know it in our live state is derived from an existence wearing a body. The corpse affects thought and level of cognition. There may or may not be cognition in death state - it would not likely be anything we would recognize while alive - possibly nothing more than instinct or reflex.

Ultimately, this is meaningless word salad.

It is easy (but ineffective) to refute an idea by demeaning it than by contesting its logic. It is just a step away from an ad hominem rebuttal and it doesn't make for a good discussion.

Finally, a point about which we agree. The short answer is that life is what you make of it, and so too is existence itself. Whether you read Sartre, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, de Beauvoir, Tillich, or otherwise... What is "existence" is a personal choice, and hardly a universal truth.

There is only one truth. And it will still be true whether or not it is ever acknowledged.

[iNow]

I see a whole lot of assertions and hand waving there, and really no substance or evidence to support it. Perhaps this thread should be moved to Philosophy?

[THoR]

I see a whole lot of assertions and hand waving there, and really no substance or evidence to support it. Perhaps this thread should be moved to Philosophy?

It is easy (but ineffective) to refute an idea by demeaning it rather than by contesting its logic.

 

The hypothesis is quite simple: There are only two logical choices. Either you believe you are a composite - a collection of fundamental particles - or you believe you are a single entity - one fundamental particle.

 

If you believe the former, then there are only two subsequently logical choices: You must either believe a composite generates a supervening entity that is a single, separate existence (1+1=3) or that a composite magically transforms into a single existence instead of a collection of existences (1+1=1).

 

You have not contested that reasoning by presenting any logic of your own, so I presume you cannot. I am not waving my hands or chanting abracadabra. The evidence is not empirically available because "modern" science is not sophisticated enough to claim with any certainty to have discovered even a single particle that can be deemed undoubtedly fundamental. The substance of the argument is the rather obvious inference of the logic presented.

 

Some things are inherently logical. 1=1. Any hypothesis to the contrary is magical thinking.

Edited November 27, 2011 by THoR