Arguments against Soul

[possibletarian]

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.

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 ?

[Succubus]

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.

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 ?

Those reasons are; the all pervasive power of magical thinking foisted on our psyches by sixteen hundred years of priest craft. Rational thinkers we may be, but the ghost is still in the machine.
Physics has shown us that there is no possible way out thoughts can exist in a realm other that our brain. But that won't stop speculation as to what shape or colour the soul is.

Once people accept magical thinking all bets are off, and physics be damned.

[Belacqua]

@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.

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." 

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." 

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.")

[Succubus]

...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...

I think you're taking the piss.

[EgoDeath]

I'll give you one last shot, @Belaqua.

You'd said that soul exists. Great job!

Now, in a concise, clear way, can you define what you call "soul" for me?

Once again, no need to go through the whole rigamarole about Aristotle and your other favorite philosophers and all that. Just a sentence or two defining what you think the "soul" is.

---

...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...

I think you're taking the piss.

He's very good at talking a whole lot while not actually saying anything. It's a skill, I suppose.

[Jehanne]

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.

It comes down to if you are proposing anything beyond the Standard Model (quarks, electrons, etc.); if you are not, then, as far as I am concerned, this is a discussion about semantics and reductionism.

[Belacqua]

It comes down to if you are proposing anything beyond the Standard Model (quarks, electrons, etc.); if you are not, then, as far as I am concerned, this is a discussion about semantics and reductionism.

So you are sure that souls, if they exist, are things that can be explained by the Standard Model. If that's something you are sure of, then it indicates you have confident knowledge of what souls are. 

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

Suppose you went to a field with a metal detector, and found some coins. Then you could announce that everything in the field was made of metal, because that's all you found. 

The description of soul that I've been working with is entirely compatible with physics, but yours seems to be based on question-begging assertions: soul MUST be mind. Soul MUST be fit into the Standard Model. To dismiss anything else as semantics is just a method of restating the question-begging: it has to be the way I say or it's just talk.

[Jehanne]

It comes down to if you are proposing anything beyond the Standard Model (quarks, electrons, etc.); if you are not, then, as far as I am concerned, this is a discussion about semantics and reductionism.

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.

[Aegon]

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.

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.

[GrandizerII]

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.

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