Soul

[Whateverist]

I find the mind/body problem interesting. That's all. Even as an atheist I puzzled over the curious interaction between mind and body.

I find this fascinating as well and would continue to do so whatever may be discovered about how minds are generated.

I do not find the topic in itself useful as an apologetic.

Nor do I, but it seems our friend Tex would use it that way.

Nevertheless I do attribute much of my return to faith to a deep intuition that physical reduction does not adequately explain our inner life.

Funny, I too have a lot of faith in processes I can't justify. But it bothers me not at all that they may be dependent on the meat in my cranium as their source. However they may be generated, I would continue to value my creative process, my appreciation of beauty and meaning, and my nose for the truth. None of them come with a pedigree but I esteem them highly and do my best to serve them.

What I wonder is why you think the meat in our craniums is unable to generate each and every subjective state, logical ideal or imagined pure substance you like?

Many reasons.

The first reason, is called over-determination. We do not attribute mental states to other physical systems although we find it easy to assign functional properties. From a purely physical point of view, it seems the brain could just as easily perform its functions without the need for any associated subjective experiences. Subjective experiences seem useless, i.e. causally impotent. So why are they there at all? And why do they seem so closely matched to brain organization if they have no purpose?

Funny, I find the question of why we have subjective experiences at all the most puzzling. Surely we had them before we ever had capacity for symbolic language. Like so many other creatures we would feel a tug or repulsion toward certain stimuli. But I don't think this would be a purely binary reaction of approval or disapproval, rather each would be imbued with associations. I think the quality of these experiences still exist in us today as our feeling and intuition. We still recognize significance without the benefit of discursive thought. What we don't have without discursive thought is philosophy and the recognition of real or imagined contradictions in our symbolic semantics.

The third reason is this. I think meaning, or 'aboutness', is an essential part of reality and not an odd by-product animal life. We have become highly effective at identifying particulars within the seamless continuum of the physical reality.

Hmm I sort of agree. Of course 'aboutness' is an essential part of reality but that is precisely because animal nature is an essential part of reality too. It isn't an odd by-product, it is rather a sensory-cognitive adaption on the part of life to reality. We didn't 'make it up'. We evolved with and in relation to the rest of reality. Animal life needn't be seen as something senseless and base, it does after all include us and our highest achievements including science and religion.