Dualism vs Materialism or Mind vs Soul

[Raven]

Perhaps it would help were I to elaborate a bit more. Way back when, I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, which I long ago decided I wanted no more to do with. Other denominations were certainly an improvement, but nothing quite fit. Zen Buddhism made the most sense to me, and a lot of it still does. Even if I've no use for any Christian denomination any longer I still like much of what the man from Nazareth is supposed to have taught. I'm kind of like Gandhi in that respect, I like Christ, I just could do without a lot of those who claim to be good Christians. Eventually it got to the point that the only thing that worked for me is that God either does not exist or if he does he is doing an unconscionably terrible job. Either way, there is no reason for me to believe.

But there is one little detail that has bothered me all along, which is where the OP came from. As a general rule I have always leaned toward wanting to see something concrete, something that can be measured. Personally I would prefer to call it 'spirit' rather than 'soul' but that is just because I'd rather not give it a religious connotation. What's bothersome is that this is not something, that if it does exist,
is able to be measured. If it is, where is it? Or are we nothing more than the sum of our memories and a bunch of neurological discharges inside our brain? I guess that I'd like to think that we're more than that. But wishing does not make it so. I have zero expectation of any existence beyond my time on this earth, so that isn't it. I just wonder if there is indeed any 'spiritual essence' that comprises the real 'you'.

Chad wrote: I do not know. Nobody really does. One idea is that the brain acts more like a radio. Certain brain states tune in to receive non-physical attributes like sensation. A damaged brain would thus not be able to receive or interact effectively with whatever it is that supports mental properties. Dualism is about much more that the 'soul'. It has to do with all mental properties regardless of whether in the form of a soul or something else.

One interesting problem to me is that so much of the brain is NOT conscious. One thing everyone agrees on is that the brain is extremely chaotic, in that slight changes in one area cascade throughout the entire system. It seems to me that if something non-physical acted upon the brain it would not need a very large footprint.

Interesting, but sensation causes neural activity- would it not be physical in that sense?

[Neo-Scholastic]

As a general rule I have always leaned toward wanting to see something concrete, something that can be measured.

Perhaps we just do not know how to measure it or with what units. The influence of something like soul may not be like force or mass. It could express itself as a propensity, like anomalous statistical results. Or something else entirely.

Interesting, but sensation causes neural activity- would it not be physical in that sense?

We haven't yet developed a modern language for distinguishing non-physical types of cause and physical ones. Sorta like verb tenses for time travelers.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Yet we have a point of reference for verb tense changes in the case of time travelers and why it might be useful to clarify - how we might do so. For the "non-physical" we have zilch, nada, nothing, not even a suggestion. Is it even conceivable? Certainly doesn't seem to be so.

[Faith No More]

I see nothing wrong with talking about soul and souls without knowing all the details.

Sure, but until something more concrete comes along, I feel that it cannot be considered in a serious manner. Based on the lack of definition and the simple place-holding the term "soul" does, I think our understanding and knowledge(or lack thereof in the soul's case) requires that we dismiss it as a concept.

Depends on how you define natural. And it also depends on how you define a gap. Quantum theory and general relativity did not just fill gaps in the Newtonian physical model. They produced a paradigm shift that completely altered our understanding of physical reality.

Natural as in "reducible solely to physical mechanisms" and gap as in "not yet understood."

Only time will tell if this theory can become as well-evidenced as those you metioned.

[Neo-Scholastic]

..."reducible solely to physical mechanisms" and gap as in "not yet understood."

I would like to believe you have graduated from the "mechanistic" view of reality that started in the Enlightenment. The new physics is anything but mechanistic. Probably just semantics on your part, but your choice of words can guide how you think about things. =-)

I don't know about "not yet understood." That implies you are adding decimal places to our current model of reality. I'm suggesting that every so often the entire model changes to cope with phenomena that the old model either 1) took for granted, 2) dismissed as irrelevant, or 3) cannot incorporate. All three apply to the current model of physical reality as it relates to the hard problem of consciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

The new physics is anything but mechanistic.

Oh, examples? I think that this would be a hard sell, what with our describing the "new physics" in a decidedly mechanical way, and the success of those descriptions and that model in doing so.

[Faith No More]

I'm suggesting that every so often the entire model changes to cope with phenomena that the old model either 1) took for granted, 2) dismissed as irrelevant, or 3) cannot incorporate. All three apply to the current model of physical reality as it relates to the hard problem of consciousness.

I know what you're suggesting. What I don't know is why you think we should consider the soul as anything more than complete speculation. Those other theories you referenced had positive evidence that demonstrated their existence. So far, all you have is an undefined supernatural substance with which you use to plug the holes you poke in a natural explanation.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What I don't know is why you think we should consider the soul as anything more than complete speculation.

Well gee. Nearly everything starts out as speculation, right? I do not see speculation about spiritual reality as being all that much different from speculating about multiverses.

Those other theories you referenced had positive evidence that demonstrated their existence.

The evidence was already present. What was lacking was a theory capable of accounting for that evidence.

...all you have is an undefined supernatural substance with which you use to plug the holes you poke in a natural explanation.

Again the word natural. You are using semantics to exclude inconvenient evidence. The scientific method intentionally excludes subjective experience and intentionallity. It's pretty easy to defend your skepticism if you don't consider/take for granted half the phenomena of reality.

[Faith No More]

The scientific method intentionally excludes subjective experience and intentionallity.

No, it doesn't. It just hasn't accounted for them yet.

What it does exclude is a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.

It's pretty easy to defend your skepticism if you don't consider/take for granted half the phenomena of reality.

Actually, it's amazingly easy to defend your skepticism when someone fails to put forth any positive evidence for their hypothesis.

[The Grand Nudger]

The scientific method intentionally excludes subjective experience and intentionallity.

It does no such thing, who told you this?