Soul

[The Grand Nudger]

Curious Tex, why do you assume that a soul must be immaterial and not substantial? Is that a necessary property of a soul, because I don't think so.

Because he doesn't have any evidence that they exist, let alone that he has one. Easy questions, easy answers.

[Tex]

I don't understand. The human soul is what we ordinarily refer to as our mind, or our consciousness?

Actually, yes. "Nous" in Koine Greek is "mind/consciousness", the thinking organ. However, the brain was not the thinking organ to the Greeks. The "mind" was an immaterial organ. In Greek poetry and philosophical work, after the body dies, the "nous" lives on. This is close to my understanding, although I see the brain as the thinking organ. The soul allows us to "abstract from the phantasms" (Aquinas) so when we see/hear/whatever, the soul can recognize immaterials (numbers, being the current subject matter, but also universal knowledge, organization, etc.).

You have to show how "We perceive numbers, therefore it means there is a soul or else we cannot perceive" is true.

I might as well do that here then. The eyes are a physical organ that allows light to enter and be processed by the brain. The ears sound waves. Multiple places allow for some sort of touch. However, these are all physical organs, so they perceive physical things. The eyes contain light, but those eyes do not understand until the brain processes. The ears contain pitches, but the brain understands it as the crunch of metal. With all our senses, only the basic ability of pulling in stimuli is done, and the brain processes. In order to prove that there is a soul, I would have to show that there is processing that goes on that the brain cannot do.

I'll stick with quantity as my example. I take you blindfolded into a room. When I take off the blindfold, you see there are 3 picture frames on the wall. The first thing that happens is the light enters your eyes. Next, your brain begins to process the light. However, the brain has not received any stimuli for quantity (immaterial). Quantity is not in the light received. Your eyes pick up physical data only. The brain processes the light only. Therefore, there must be some organ that is processing that light and understanding the "3". I call this soul.

Is the same true of colours?

Aristotle will say yes, but I do not. Color is a part of the light that enters your eyes. It is processed by the brain. No soul involvement.

Nice try. No need to beat yourself up though. We just hear the pitch for that particular brand of snake oil an awful lot around here. Your pitch can be mighty convincing if someone is looking to be convinced. I'm just not one of those.

More ignorant people will reject the advice of a doctor because the patient feels they, "know better". You claim your medicine will cure me of ignorance, and I claim the same. =)

Quantity always represents something material, or it represents something which itself represents or is intended to represent something material (to whatever degree removed), even if the object described is imaginary. Quantity does not exist independent of the material world.

You sit almost entirely in agreement with me here. Quantity never separates itself from a "substance" (so you can't just have some quantity floating around by itself), but a substance doesn't necessarily needs a physical body. In Christianity, this manifests in souls, angels, and God. Those are the only examples though, mainly cause most of the stuff in in the material universe. I also don't use these in the explanation because its really hard to point to an angel or soul and say "see!". I'd love to hear your input on the proof I have above for necessary immaterial organ, btw.

Ah man Math induction gives me a hardon.

What happens to your vaunted 'soul' when a person suffers trauma that changes the brain structure, completely changing his/her personality?

The soul continues to process immaterial stimuli. If there's brain damage, it doesn't affect the soul. I understand why you make this argument though; Christians have a very romanticized idea of the soul. Not me. The soul doesn't function to well for me after death or brain trauma or something. The soul needs the body for stimuli. If the body becomes damaged, the soul does not function well. The only thing the soul can do is understand immaterials in animals. Humans get a small bit of difference in the soul, "universal knowledge" and "will". When there is no body, there is nothing to act, even if willed. When the body is damaged, the universal knowledge and will stay, but the ability for the soul to receive decent stimuli has dropped dramatically. This is practiced by nearly no Christians anymore. It's a concept called "soul sleep".

Curious Tex, why do you assume that a soul must be immaterial and not substantial? Is that a necessary property of a soul, because I don't think so.

Immaterial substance. =) A human is the composite of parts, body and soul (and maybe one more...), and at death these separate. The soul still exists. Technically, the body still exists too, its just not very functioning. However, at death, there is no more human. A human is a composite of those parts. When I die, there is no more Tex. At resurrection, Tex is made whole.

[The Grand Nudger]

Bzzzt, you haven't actually devised a claim free of empirical value. If it's a composite, there is interaction. Show me the hook that hinges body to soul, perhaps provide a hypothesis as to how this is accomplished? Is the body maintaining this hook (as it would seem to suggest, being that death triggers it's release)? If so how, and where? Why does the hook release upon death, rather than chaining the soul to body (ignoring decomposition..unless decomp is the trigger - if so, could we freeze a soul in a body given a low enough temp, or proper preservation by any means)?

When you're done with that I have a few hundred more questions.

[Mystic]

I'll stick with quantity as my example. I take you blindfolded into a room. When I take off the blindfold, you see there are 3 picture frames on the wall. The first thing that happens is the light enters your eyes. Next, your brain begins to process the light. However, the brain has not received any stimuli for quantity (immaterial). Quantity is not in the light received. Your eyes pick up physical data only. The brain processes the light only.

If the light comes in the form of a picture, and the brain makes it into the image we see, why isn't the brain computing numbers, counting, etc?...I understand eyes pick up physical data only, but why is it not possible the mind creates a world we experience in relationship to that data and why isn't possible logic including counting is part of the brain processing? Obviously colours are not really depicting reality, waves don't have real colours, our minds takes waves data and turns them into colours.

Obviously whatever the case, soul or no soul, our five senses don't depict reality as it is, our minds processes helps creates a world reacting to our five senses.

[Tex]

If the light comes in the form of a picture, and the brain makes it into the image we see, why isn't the brain computing numbers, counting, etc?...I understand eyes pick up physical data only, but why is it not possible the mind creates a world we experience in relationship to that data and why isn't possible logic including counting is part of the brain processing? Obviously colours are not really depicting reality, waves don't have real colours, our minds takes waves data and turns them into colours.

The brain would have to be born with some sort of apriori understanding of numbers (immaterial). At first, this doesn't look like a bad option; just say the brain's design allows for counting. However, it doesn't look as good when you start talking about how a physical thing (brain) has an immaterial thing (numbers) in it. It doesn't make it much different from a physical thing (body) having an immaterial thing (soul) in it. You end up back to where you start.

Obviously whatever the case, soul or no soul, our five senses don't depict reality as it is, our minds processes helps creates a world reacting to our five senses.

If I disagree, do I have to discuss it? I hate the skepticism vs. realism debate...

[Tonus]

Ah man Math induction gives me a hardon.

In which case, you can count to 21.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the brain has "numbers in it" they would be in the form of electro-chemical code checking nuerons as on and off...so..no, not immaterial.

You know why you're having so much trouble imagining something truly immaterial? I'll give you a hint......it's because you're a human being - all of your experiences revolve around what you perceive to be the exterior material world. You're the square in flatland, incapable of even forming a proper thought of what "sphere"/"immaterial" would be. This is plainly apparent in that all of your imaginings about the immaterial, the supernatural, amount to viewing slices of a sphere as circles where they interact with your world.

[Mystic]

I'll be honest with you, to me, it seems thoughts are non-material. It seems to me that I do have a soul. But how to convince people that it doesn't seem that way? A dream created by the mind is non-material, do dreams prove a soul as well (like numbers do?)?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'll be honest with you, to me, it seems thoughts are non-material. It seems to me that I do have a soul. But how to convince people that it doesn't seem that way? A dream created by the mind is non-material, do dreams prove a soul as well (like numbers do?)?

b-mine

Is it?

[Mystic]

Rhythm, we are discussing from the point of view that there is a soul and thoughts are immaterial (since we both agree upon that). What I'm asking from this point of view - are dreams also a proof of a soul? Of course, this is not to say from soul point of view, brain is not involved. But ultimately the experience is non-material. I'm asking him, from point of view there is a soul, do dreams also prove a soul? If thoughts are non-material from soul perspective but thoughts don't prove a soul to a naturalist/skeptic/unconvinced, why is it that numbers do, while something like dreams don't.