Arguments against Soul

[Succubus]

The fact that the Standard Model can explain things about physics is not proof that everything is explainable by physics.

This is where we were disagree:

The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation

For those who do not want to click the link, here it is:



Consciousness, "whatever" it is, is governed by the above equation.  Period.  I agree (and, so does Professor Carroll, and, by extension, all other physicists) that consciousness is not reducible, but, nothing in the brain is "outside" of the above equation.  Ultimately, consciousness is simply very large amounts of electrons transitioning from one energy state to others, if you wish, a kaleidoscope of light and energy, but, consciousness is just matter and energy, nothing more.

Beautiful.

To add to that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq_FhUbWz7k

Minute 44 - 49.30 is the uppercut that floors the mystics.

Only it won't.

[Aegon]

This is where we were disagree:

The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation

For those who do not want to click the link, here it is:



Consciousness, "whatever" it is, is governed by the above equation.  Period.  I agree (and, so does Professor Carroll, and, by extension, all other physicists) that consciousness is not reducible, but, nothing in the brain is "outside" of the above equation.  Ultimately, consciousness is simply very large amounts of electrons transitioning from one energy state to others, if you wish, a kaleidoscope of light and energy, but, consciousness is just matter and energy, nothing more.

How many people here are going to understand what this equation is saying exactly?

I sort of doubt almost anyone here does. Unless we really have that many formally educated physicists on the forum?

[GrandizerII]

This is where we were disagree:

The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation

For those who do not want to click the link, here it is:



Consciousness, "whatever" it is, is governed by the above equation.  Period.  I agree (and, so does Professor Carroll, and, by extension, all other physicists) that consciousness is not reducible, but, nothing in the brain is "outside" of the above equation.  Ultimately, consciousness is simply very large amounts of electrons transitioning from one energy state to others, if you wish, a kaleidoscope of light and energy, but, consciousness is just matter and energy, nothing more.

Beautiful.

To add to that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq_FhUbWz7k

Minute 44 - 49.30 is the uppercut that floors the mystics.

Only it won't.

Why would "woo-ists" agree that we have all the ingredients we need for reality in electrons and such? I feel like Sean Carroll is begging the question here in favor of naturalism ... which is fine, except those who disagree with him don't accept naturalism?

---

How many people here are going to understand what this equation is saying exactly?

I sort of doubt almost anyone here does. Unless we really have that many formally educated physicists on the forum?

There's polymath and prob Anomalocaris (and Alex K long gone). Can't remember who else.

[Succubus]

Beautiful.

To add to that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq_FhUbWz7k

Minute 44 - 49.30 is the uppercut that floors the mystics.

Only it won't.

Why would "woo-ists" agree that we have all the ingredients we need for reality in electrons and such? I feel like Sean Carroll is begging the question here in favor of naturalism ... which is fine, except those who disagree with him don't accept naturalism?

Naturalism:

The doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.

Is the only game in town. Of course the woomeisters disagree!
But then science doesn't give any sort of fuck what they think.

[Jehanne]

Why would "woo-ists" agree that we have all the ingredients we need for reality in electrons and such? I feel like Sean Carroll is begging the question here in favor of naturalism ... which is fine, except those who disagree with him don't accept naturalism?

Naturalism:

The doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.

Is the only game in town. Of course the woomeisters disagree!
But then science doesn't give any sort of fuck what they think.

The woo-woo of Deepak Chopra:

[Rhondazvous]

What do you guys here think, what is the best argument against the existence of the soul (and therefore ghosts and afterlives)?
I used to think that the "Damage of the middle of the brain leads to two distinct personalities governing halves of the body." was an argument that would convince anybody, but, evidently, it won't. See here:
How do people who believe in souls explain away the fact that epileptic patients who have the middle of their brain severed appear to have two distinct personalities governing halves of their bodies?
In short, people respond with "Where is some reliable source for that claim?", and, to be honest, I am not sure what would be a reliable source for this. My psychology textbook saying that isn't really good evidence that's true, is it? I mean, my Croatian history textbook tells me most scientists agree Global Flood really happened.
Perhaps the best response to that is "And where is some reliable source of the claims about Maria's Shoe, and other things that supposedly prove the existence of soul?", what do you think?

Atheism has nothing to do with belief or non belief in the soal. Atheism is not believing in a go. You can not believe in god but still believe in the soul. Or you can be like the pre apocalyptic Jews and believe in god but not the afterlife.

Me, personally, I d on't believe in the Judeo-Christian god or in any named god. Nothing else applies to me. As fa r as the soul and afterlife, that's just dark matter and dark energy. An effect whose cause isn't detectable by physical instruments.
the same cannot be said of god because what is written is full of too much crap.

[possibletarian]

Okay, so what are those reasons ?

And what other way of evaluation our universe should we use, what kind of justifiable thinking could we use ?

Well personally I think there's going to be a limit on how much we can understand about our universe, since our brains are made for survival not to see reality as it really is. We're not there yet, obviously.

But you guys are acting like physics is done. As if we understand everything so well we can definitively rule out these things... meanwhile, scientific research has made little progress on explaining consciousness. I think you guys are far too confident in our ability to explain us. I think you're acting almost unscientific in your dismissal of the probability of discovering new things about how we operate, and if there really is anything more to us that impacts the world around us besides what we already know. Again, I'm not saying that there is a soul - I'm saying you guys are giving our understanding of ourselves far too much credit right now, and I think it's worth leaving a bit of wiggle room because, at the end of the day, each of us has a subjective experience we have yet to create an accurate formula to explain. I still don't know what consciousness is and why it happens. Do you?

Don't put me in the boat with Christians, like Succumb or whatever just did. I respect scientific theory. It's the best method of getting as close as possible to objective truths. And I'm saying I don't think we've progressed enough for you to be so confident in your answers.

What type of thinking? Hmmm... maybe I should have worded that better. In the same way it takes a different "type" of thinking to think of things in quantum as opposed to classical... I'm sure there will be another "type" of thinking required to understand the next level. I don't think quantum mechanics is the end. Do you?

My point here is that I think there is potential for a type of "soul" - not the soul touted by Judeo-Christian types - that we will eventually understand through scientific means, and we're not there yet.

But none of that actually answers the questions put to you.

Sure there's lots more to learn, but when you make say there is a good reason not to be confident in something then it's reasonable for a person to ask what that reason is. If it's simply an opinion or feeling that's fine too, so long as it is clear that it is such.

If the answer is it will take a new kind of thinking and looking at things in a way that cannot be defined, then where does that leave us ? What does that even mean ?

Science never dismisses things (though individual scientists might) it collects information.To say someone is being unscientific or close minded when you can't offer any information, or give any clue as to what this new type of thinking is that you claim we would need in order to understand something that you can't define is bizarre.

[Succubus]

But you guys are acting like physics is done. As if we understand everything so well we can definitively rule out these things...

As far as psychics, astrologers and afterlife proponents are concerned, it is.

Again, I'm not saying that there is a soul -

My point here is that I think there is potential for a type of "soul"

So which is it?

Don't put me in the boat with Christians, like Succumb or whatever just did. I respect scientific theory. It's the best method of getting as close as possible to objective truths.

What Succumb is saying is, science is the only way to establish facts as to how the natural world works. If you want truth, philosophy is down the hall.

I think you're acting almost unscientific in your dismissal of the probability of discovering new things about how we operate, and if there really is anything more to us that impacts the world around us besides what we already know.

Where did anyone say this?

I think it's worth leaving a bit of wiggle room because...

There is no wiggle room. There is no soul. Of any type.

[Jehanne]

There is no wiggle room. There is no soul. Of any type.

Problem with those sorts of speculations is that they lead to animism, for it is known that even bacteria possess a small degree of consciousness.  Do oak trees have souls?  Toys?  Cars?  Of course, Disney Pixar has long beaten everyone on that count.  And, don't get me started on sperm!

[LadyForCamus]

@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.

First, I’d like to say: never mind the naysayers in this thread. I think they have a commitment to misunderstanding you, and forcing upon you a belief that you’ve explicitly and implicitly stated more than once in this thread you don’t hold. It’s just easier for them that way. So be it.

I was pondering this on the bus today. I think I use "being" to mean "all of me" in conversation, but have never given it any scrutiny. For example I might say, "I hate that guy with all of my being," to emphasize that no part of me doesn't hate him. 

A while back we were discussing the idea that God is existence itself. And at that time you pointed out that it doesn't make much sense to talk about existence as some detachable quality, which we might have in the absence of the stuff that exists. So if "being" in today's sense means something like "existence," then maybe it doesn't add to what I mean when I say "me." "Me" is a simple word for "my being."

Yes, I see your point.

Still the rhetorical force of the word, I would say, does emphasize wholeness, whereas "me" is more casual. If I say, "hand me the newspaper," I'm not referring to anything deep. So I think "being" is useful as indicating my totality -- all those things which are included in "me."

As I’m thinking on it, perhaps, “I am” would be even more accurate than “being”, in the sense that (at least to me) it encompasses both the fact of my physical matter, as well as the fact of everything this matter is and does. It is these things and [/i]does[/i] these things because I am alive. Or, maybe I’m overthinking it, lol.

(Or it may be that I'm wildly far away from what you're thinking, in which case please let me know!)

No, it’s a good summation of exactly what I was thinking! 🙂

Now I think that "being" in this sense of totality isn't the same as "soul" in the sense Aristotle uses it. And that's simply because "soul" refers to form and function, but not matter. And since matter is part of the totality of me (which is my being) then soul is only a portion of my being.

Ah, I see now. I was under the impression that the Aristotelian definition included the matter upon which the soul depends. I’m not well-read in philosophy, so hopefully this isn’t too painful of a discussion for you, lol.

Still, it's useful to have a term to refer to totality, I think. And partly this is because people may be misled into thinking that soul and matter are somehow two separable objects which don't form a whole. But Aristotle and I both oppose the "ghost in the machine" idea, where soul is a wisp or field piloting a separate meat-body.

Agreed, and I think most people in this thread would realize they also agreed if they read your contributions more carefully, and without presumptions. 😏

So let's take as an example the muscles in your leg. They have both matter and form [soul]. The matter, I guess, is flesh. The form is the way the flesh is structured, and the things it does. But obviously, the things it does depend on the presence of the flesh -- the form or soul isn't there if the flesh isn't there. And the flesh depends for its existence (as flesh) on the form, because flesh which lost its form would decay immediately, into whatever the constituent parts are.

In this sense, your leg is a unity, and we categorize it as matter and form to help our understanding. "Soul" or "form" is the word we give to those things we talk about as form or function. "Matter" is when we're talking about the physical stuff.

Sure, I’m completely comfortable with everything you said here. I’m wondering if the word “soul”, itself, needs to be retired altogether, simply for the fact that it carries a specific religious connotation that seems difficult for a lot of people to get past. If we already have the words “form” and “function” to describe how matter is arranged and what it does, isn’t the word “soul” superfluous?

An analogy might be to when I talk about "my right side" and "my left side." Categorizing things in this way is necessary to get along in the world. For example, to tell the dentist where it hurts. But the idea that right can exist without left, or left can fly away to heaven without right, is just silly. Likewise form and matter.  

So tentatively, I'll guess that "being" refers to the whole thing, and "soul" refers to a portion or category that is useful when understanding myself. 

One of the oldest and most difficult parts of theological and philosophical tradition, as you know, is how our minds divide the world and how we reassemble what we've divided. We must divide to understand -- if we couldn't talk about before and after, or mine and yours, or good and bad, we couldn't make sense of the world. But the big traditions also urge us to recognize that these are categorizations, and the world is really one. So in that sense, "being" is a good word, I think, to put back together what "soul" and "matter" have led us to believe are separate things. 

(In Japanese, the kanji 分 is both "understand," and "divide." The true world, before our senses divide it, is to Buddhists 不二 -- "not two.")

This reminds me of one of my most beloved Albert Camus quotes:

“This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction. For if I try to seize this self of which I feel sure, if I try to define and to summarize it, it is nothing but water slipping through my fingers. I can sketch one by one all the aspects it is able to assume, all those likewise that have been attributed to it, this up bringing, this origin, this ardor or these silences, this nobility or this vileness. But aspects cannot be added up. This very heart which is mine will forever remain indefinable to me. Between the certainty I have of my existence and the content I try to give to that assurance, the gap will never be filled. Forever I shall be a stranger to myself.”