The Case for the Secular Soul

[iNow]

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.

Not really. What do, in fact, have is a false dichotomy, though.

 

You have not contested that reasoning by presenting any logic of your own, so I presume you cannot.

While many of my points and thoughts are both logical and rational, I prefer to deal in evidence. You can presume anything you want. I really don't care.

[tar]

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.

 

THoR,

 

I am not a "ghost in the machine" type of guy.

 

I would like to refute your argument, while retaining the possibility of a "figurative" soul. One that emerges because of our inability to be present in any other time but now, or any other place but here.

 

Think of each of us as a focal point. Where the past and future intersect, and the enormous and the tiny cross.

 

We each are both a composite of multiple elements, and elements of a larger scheme.

 

We are constituted of the molecules within us, we are situated in the universe around us, we were the past, and will be the future, but currently, presently, we are here, now.

 

It is not untrue to consider one's self somehow connected to, and responsible for, and "in possession" of all these things. It is, after all, the only universe we have. It is ours, and we are it's.

 

However, my model of the world is unique. My body/brain/heart group has its own unique gene history, as well as its own unique history of experience and thought. Where I sleep, and who I love, and where I work, and my family and friends are different than yours.

 

But everywhere I go, there I am. THIS body/brain/heart group sticks together, and has for the last 58 years, and probably will for another 20-40 years. When I die, my consciousness of here and now, will have no hope of continuing.

All the reasons for experiencing here and now are in the complicated human organism I am. I will have as much consciousness as I did before I was concieved/born or whenever it was, I first had a thought or a feeling. I certainly have no notion of a thought or a feeling prior being me. Chances are I will have no experience of being TAR, when TAR dies.

 

What good would heaven be, with no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no nose and tounge to smell and taste, no nerves to feel, no heart to beat, no brain to think and remember and predict, no muscles to move, no particular place to be and no particular time to be there?

 

Might as well be dead. Oh, that's right, I AM dead if I am in heaven (or hell), or melded with the force or reabsorbed into the mind of God.

 

Sort of makes being alive the only thing I've got. Makes it a good thing. That I can see the tiny and the huge, the ancient and the everlasting, the near and the far, from here. ME.

 

Regards, TAR2

[THoR]

Not really. What do, in fact, have is a false dichotomy, though.

Unless you can elucidate us with a 3rd possibility it must be a true dichotomy.

While many of my points and thoughts are both logical and rational, I prefer to deal in evidence. You can presume anything you want. I really don't care.

I see...what you can't see or measure doesn't matter. How sad. Deductive reasoning can be quite enlightening. Actually I once thought as you do and was quite comfortable with it. My hypothesis is not something I wished to be the case, it is the only reasonable deduction given the canons of logic.

 

THoR,

 

I am not a "ghost in the machine" type of guy.

 

I would like to refute your argument, while retaining the possibility of a "figurative" soul. One that emerges because of our inability to be present in any other time but now, or any other place but here.

 

Think of each of us as a focal point. Where the past and future intersect, and the enormous and the tiny cross.

 

We each are both a composite of multiple elements, and elements of a larger scheme.

 

We are constituted of the molecules within us, we are situated in the universe around us, we were the past, and will be the future, but currently, presently, we are here, now.

 

It is not untrue to consider one's self somehow connected to, and responsible for, and "in possession" of all these things. It is, after all, the only universe we have. It is ours, and we are it's.

 

However, my model of the world is unique. My body/brain/heart group has its own unique gene history, as well as its own unique history of experience and thought. Where I sleep, and who I love, and where I work, and my family and friends are different than yours. But everywhere I go, there I am. THIS body/brain/heart group sticks together, and has for the last 58 years, and probably will for another 20-40 years.

Every cell in your corpse is replaced several times within your lifetime. Are YOU still YOU?

When I die, my consciousness of here and now, will have no hope of continuing. All the reasons for experiencing here and now are in the complicated human organism I am. I will have as much consciousness as I did before I was concieved/born or whenever it was, I first had a thought or a feeling. I certainly have no notion of a thought or a feeling prior being me. Chances are I will have no experience of being TAR, when TAR dies.

Agreed. In fact a million years ago, you had never experienced human life in our present terrestrial environment. Although I would tend to think that every action/reaction experience leaves a trace, a minute but indelible change in the condition of your being - life being no exception...much as every motion that preceeds your present position has a cumulative effect on your final location.

What good would heaven be, with no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no nose and tounge to smell and taste, no nerves to feel, no heart to beat, no brain to think and remember and predict, no muscles to move, no particular place to be and no particular time to be there?

Yes, I do so miss my antennae - and how do they expect us to balance ourserves without a prehensile tail. And feathers used to be so much FUN.

 

Might as well be dead. Oh, that's right, I AM dead if I am in heaven (or hell), or melded with the force or reabsorbed into the mind of God.

 

Sort of makes being alive the only thing I've got. Makes it a good thing. That I can see the tiny and the huge, the ancient and the everlasting, the near and the far, from here. ME.

 

Regards, TAR2

The choices still remain: Either you are a composite or you are not. If you are a composite, then in order to have a single identity with a single set of experiences either a collection must generate a separate supervening entity (1+1=3) or it must magically merge into a single entity (1+1=1).

[iNow]

I see...what you can't see or measure doesn't matter. How sad.

It's not sad at all. It's accurate.

 

I encourage you to review some actual neuroscience and information about the functioning brain and nervous system if you want your precious "logic" to have any merit. If you continue to argue from flawed premises, any conclusions you draw will only be accurate accidentally.

[derek w]

having had a near death experience, i can only say that when all else fails you can only OBSERVE.

[THoR]

It's not sad at all. It's accurate.

 

I encourage you to review some actual neuroscience and information about the functioning brain and nervous system if you want your precious "logic" to have any merit. If you continue to argue from flawed premises, any conclusions you draw will only be accurate accidentally.

Been there. Done that - long ago. Spent hours with the AMA journal and stacks of research papers. It was like looking thru the wrong end of a telescope. (I was rather interested in one article that measured the effect of alcohol on the wingbeat of a hummingbird - now I know why I can't fly.)

 

You can crank the handle of a generator and produce an electric current. You can also hook that generator up to an electric current and the handle will move. The existence of biochemical reactions around a source of animation would be expected.

 

It's not MY logic. It is simple math and elementary deduction. Ridiculing what you cannot refute only underscores the weakness of your argument.

Edited November 28, 2011 by THoR

[iNow]

Been there. Done that - long ago.

You do realize, right, that we learn more and continually refine our knowledge everyday... That looking at data from "long ago" is probably not the best way to inform a robust understanding of a given topic area?

[THoR]

You do realize, right, that we learn more and continually refine our knowledge everyday... That looking at data from "long ago" is probably not the best way to inform a robust understanding of a given topic area?

We come to understand the truth when we continually evaluate new material and discard that which doesn't hold water. Most of the citizens of academia must publish or perish and all too often reason is sacrificed to the angry gods of tenure.

 

What's wrong with "long ago"? They used to think Earth was the center of the universe. AND THEY WERE RIGHT.

 

* From the center of Earth extend equidistant lines to infinity throughout the infinite range of polar coordinates.

* You have inscribed a sphere that theoretically encompasses the universe

* Earth is at the center of the sphere

(Unfortunately you can do the same for any point in space, so all points in the universe are its center - lol - but they weren't WRONG.

Edited November 28, 2011 by THoR

[michel123456]

THoR, my english isn't good enough to get your point. I rambled through your site and I understand nothing.

 

Nor here do I understand nothing.

You wrote

If you are a composite, then in order to have a single identity with a single set of experiences either a collection must generate a separate supervening entity (1+1=3) or it must magically merge into a single entity (1+1=1).

"magically merge into a single entity" is a well known chemical process. In chemistry, 1+1=1 , and in biology too. Only in physics there is a problem with that. And when you write "a collection must generate a separate supervening entity (1+1=3)" you say something well-known too: that the whole is more than the sum of the components. Notre-Dame of Paris is more than an sum of stones.

 

What do you mean in this post?:

Yes, I do so miss my antennae - and how do they expect us to balance ourserves without a prehensile tail. And feathers used to be so much FUN.

Are you sarcastic or do you believe in metempsychosis?

[THoR]

THoR, my english isn't good enough to get your point. I rambled through your site and I understand nothing.

 

Nor here do I understand nothing.

You wrote

 

"magically merge into a single entity" is a well known chemical process. In chemistry, 1+1=1 , and in biology too. Only in physics there is a problem with that.

And when you write "a collection must generate a separate supervening entity (1+1=3)" you say something well-known too: that the whole is more than the sum of the components. Notre-Dame of Paris is more than an sum of stones.

It is called synergy. When two or more things act in concert to produce an enhanced result. OR Emergent properties - in which two or more things act in concert to produce a result that could not be achieved separetely. There is, my friend, a huge difference between ACTING AS a unit and BEING a unit. A group of soldiers that acts as a unit is still more than a single soldier. And ultimately, what else is Notre Dame but a collection of particles? But I am only presuming - putting words into your mouth without washing them first. Please explain your observations above in more detail.

What do you mean in this post?:

 

Are you sarcastic or do you believe in metempsychosis?

 

Metempsychosis is just one of my aberrations. I also have a terrible condition called Weisenheimers Choreia - a dyskinesias of the mind that affects the muscle movement of the mouth. Sarcasm is one of the early symptoms. Eventually, victims begin to blither and then run for public office. ITS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT!!

Edited November 28, 2011 by THoR

[michel123456]

It is called synergy. When two or more things act in concert to produce an enhanced result. OR Emergent properties - in which two or more things act in concert to produce a result that could not be achieved separetely. There is, my friend, a huge difference between ACTING AS a unit and BEING a unit. A group of soldiers that acts as a unit is still more than a single soldier. And ultimately, what else is Notre Dame but a collection of particles? But I am only presuming - putting words into your mouth without washing them first. Please explain your observations above in more detail.

 

Take some bricks and cement, and arrange them together to build a wall: the wall is something more than a simple bunch of bricks. If you construct 4 walls orthogonal to each other, you may obtain a enclosure, which a kind of open space (a patio) which is something more than just 4 walls. When you put a slab upon your 4 walls, you may obtain a closed space, a prison, a home, a temple, something anyway that is more than just 4 walls and a roof. The same goes for tools: a simple iron bar can be a lever or a nail, which is something more than a linear arrangement of particles. And the same goes in biology: an arrangement of molecules is more than the sum of its parts, because the result of the arrangement is something else. So one could say that indeed 1+1 is not 2 but 1+1=[2 and something].

 

 

Metempsychosis is just one of my aberrations.

What does that mean?

 

I also have a terrible condition called Weisenheimers Choreia - a dyskinesias of the mind that affects the muscle movement of the mouth. Sarcasm is one of the early symptoms. Eventually, victims begin to blither and then run for public office. ITS NOT A PRETTY SIGHT!!

 

Thanks to the admins, this Forum is not Skype-like. I can't see you and you can't see me. As a note many members here avoid to put their own picture. As long as your fingers obey to your mind and your mind keep in touch with sanity (that counts for me too) I hope we will continue to have interesting conversations here.

Edited November 29, 2011 by michel123456