(September 24, 2019 at 4:48 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 24, 2019 at 4:41 am)Jehanne Wrote: Mind = soul

I'm glad to know that you see it this way. That's clear.

I think what you've written doesn't quite constitute a persuasive argument.

I think that your question is akin to asking, "What color is Saturday?"

Your brain and mine consumes around 20 Watts of power, or, 20 Joues per second; this is a fact.  Chessmasters, perhaps, consume much, much more.  But, there is nothing beyond this that is immaterial, that is, something that does not consist of protons, neutrons and electrons and the forces and fields between them.

(September 24, 2019 at 7:41 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(September 24, 2019 at 4:48 am)Belaqua Wrote: I'm glad to know that you see it this way. That's clear.

I think what you've written doesn't quite constitute a persuasive argument.

I think that your question is akin to asking, "What color is Saturday?"

Not at all. 

You have told us that in your view the soul and the mind are exactly the same thing.

But you haven't told us why this is true. Do you have some argument as to why the soul can't be a different thing? Is there some historical precedent in how the word is used? 

Or do you just assume that this thing which you don't believe in must instead be something that you do believe in? 

Quote:Your brain and mine consumes around 20 Watts of power, or, 20 Joues per second; this is a fact.  Chessmasters, perhaps, consume much, much more.  But, there is nothing beyond this that is immaterial, that is, something that does not consist of protons, neutrons and electrons and the forces and fields between them.

All of this is true of the mind, as far as I know. You have written true facts about the mind. 

How do we know that it's true of the soul? What causes you to believe that mind = soul?

---

(September 24, 2019 at 6:54 am)EgoDeath Wrote:

(September 24, 2019 at 5:13 am)Belaqua Wrote: Yes

Awesome. Now, how exactly do you define the soul?

I've typed out on this thread my views on soul. There's no need to write it all again.

(September 24, 2019 at 5:30 pm)Belaqua Wrote: I've typed out on this thread my views on soul. There's no need to write it all again.

Oh, that's okay. You don't need to go through the whole rigamarole again. Just a sentence or two, a concise definition would suffice.

So, what's your definition of soul?

(September 24, 2019 at 5:30 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(September 24, 2019 at 7:41 am)Jehanne Wrote: I think that your question is akin to asking, "What color is Saturday?"

Not at all. 

You have told us that in your view the soul and the mind are exactly the same thing.

But you haven't told us why this is true. Do you have some argument as to why the soul can't be a different thing? Is there some historical precedent in how the word is used? 

Or do you just assume that this thing which you don't believe in must instead be something that you do believe in?

In this case, "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence".  Planets go round the Sun because there are angels who are pushing them; can you tell me why such is not true?  Or, just say that they move because of some "invisible agency".

The soul and mind must be the exact same thing, because, there is no alternative.

(September 25, 2019 at 7:33 am)Jehanne Wrote: The soul and mind must be the exact same thing, because, there is no alternative.

Why isn't there an alternative? 

I'm not trying to be difficult. I honestly don't see what argument you have for why that portion of the person called a soul has to be identical and coterminous with mind. 

Is it that you are unwilling to consider that there may be some portion of the person which is neither material nor, strictly speaking, mind? 

Or are you merely defining soul in such a way that your definition is the same as mind? 

In the classical definition of soul that I described earlier, mind would be a portion of soul. Since soul is the form of the body (including all the functions, interactions, etc.) then mind is included among those interactions. But so would be non-mind functions, such as what your liver does. Also whatever information is stored unconsciously in your DNA that caused your toes to be in the shape they are. These things are soul but not mind, in that older view.

@Jehanne

I suspect that it's getting annoying when I continually fail to take your point, so let me lay out the argument so far as I see it. Maybe this will help to settle things.

1 You: The soul is that thing which, according to some religious people, lives on after death.

2 You: A soul would be detectable because it would have to run on electrochemical actions, and those are detectable.

3 Me: How do we know that a soul has to run on electrochemical interactions?

4 You: Because mind does.

5 Me: That's true of mind, but why is it true of soul?

6 You: Because mind and soul are the same.

7 Me: Why are they the same?

8 You: Because they are.

Maybe that's not a fair summary, but that's my impression so far. I hope that it's clear from this that the identity of mind and soul seem unproven -- only asserted.

If I try to fill in the reasons why, in your view, mind and soul would be identical, I can imagine one or two.

8a: Souls have thoughts, feelings, ideas, and the only way we know for this to happen is with electrochemical interactions.
8b: According to some reports, souls have left bodies and continued to think in the way minds do.

Are either 8a or 8b things that are integral to your argument? If we had some reason to think that souls behave as minds, I think your conclusion might be stronger.

What if I were to define the soul as something analogous to the skandhas in Buddhist cosmology (The Five Aggregates that make us...us.)

Brief Wikipeda explanation.

This wouldn't be something that continues after death; at least not in you. All five aggregates can only align when one is living, though they leave impressions upon the physical reality it leaves. It wouldn't be a classical definition of the soul by any means.

In this case, the mind/conscious experience is a part of it, not really equal to it.

(September 25, 2019 at 7:59 am)Belaqua Wrote: Is it that you are unwilling to consider that there may be some portion of the person which is neither material nor, strictly speaking, mind? 

We can consider anything I suspect, But this is our problem and perhaps the main reason communication seems to be really hard on this subject, putting personal opinions and feelings to one side, is there a good reason to say there is an immaterial portion of a person that exists outside of the mind, or indeed in the mind?

@Belaqua

I’m curious; would you be comfortable with the term “being” as short-hand for the Aristotelian definition of “soul” you provided earlier? As in, the sum of all the constituents and experiences of an alive person who exists. I would view this, philosophically, as “more” than just a body or just a mind, but not in the sense that there is some thing that consciously continues after death.

(September 25, 2019 at 1:30 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(September 25, 2019 at 7:59 am)Belaqua Wrote: Is it that you are unwilling to consider that there may be some portion of the person which is neither material nor, strictly speaking, mind? 

We can consider anything I suspect, But this is our problem and perhaps the main reason communication seems to be really hard on this subject, putting personal opinions and feelings to one side, is there a good reason to say there is an immaterial portion of a person that exists outside of the mind, or indeed in the mind?

I don't think there is a good reason to say there is an immaterial portion of a person that exists outside of the mind; rather, I think there's good reason not to be as confident there isn't. I think that, if there is, it requires a type of thinking that is very divorced from the way we currently evaluate our material universe. I don't know much beyond that.