Arguments against Soul

[GrandizerII]

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.

Yes, exactly. They will disagree anyway. So how exactly is Sean Carroll refuting what they believe if he's saying "well naturalism is true and because naturalism is true, here's my argument against otherwise"?

[Belacqua]

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.

This all looks very scientific, but it relies on the assumption that consciousness equals soul. That hasn't been demonstrated yet. 

But I think we're not going to make any progress, so rather than annoy you more I'll let it drop.

---

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

But it's science!

---

I feel like Sean Carroll is begging the question here in favor of naturalism ..

Lot of that going around these days.

[Belacqua]

First, I’d like to say: never mind the naysayers in this thread.

Thank you! They seem to be enjoying themselves a lot, and to me what they say is pure comedy. So no worries. 

 

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 does these things because I am alive. 

That seems just right to me. While it's necessary in analyzing things to speak of matter and function in different sentences, we still need a way to say that these distinctions are created by the mind, and reality is whole. 

"I" does include my flesh and bone, every bit as much as the mental functions related to that. 

Again, it's an age-old theme in theology and philosophy -- division, while useful, is illusion. 

(And I think his way of dividing is getting Jehanne in a little bit of trouble here. He wants to limit soul to one very specific set of mental activities explained by one very specific type of physics research. The trouble isn't that he leaves out the supernatural, but that he leaves out much of what is natural about human beings.) 

Or, maybe I’m overthinking it, lol.

Overthinking is fun! Underthinking makes a person more popular, though. 

Ah, I see now. I was under the impression that the Aristotelian definition included the matter upon which the soul depends. 

This is from Wikipedia:

"Aristotle holds that the soul (psyche, ) is the form, or essence of any living thing; it is not a distinct substance from the body that it is in. It is the possession of a soul (of a specific kind) that makes an organism an organism at all, and thus that the notion of a body without a soul, or of a soul in the wrong kind of body, is simply unintelligible. [...] It is difficult to reconcile these points with the popular picture of a soul as a sort of spiritual substance "inhabiting" a body."

So any living thing includes matter, and the matter is organized according to the soul. 

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.

Very much agreed! 

In conversation the newer, spooky sense seems to have won. So I'm going to be more careful in the future. 

As you know, in philosophy-talk there are lots of important words that are different from their conversational meanings, so people often have to specify. You hear things like, "this was intentional in Merleau-Ponty's sense," because we have to avoid confusion, and the thinker's name becomes short-hand for the system we're using. 

But you're right; unless I specify "soul in the sense that Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Dante used it," it's certain that people will read it in the newer way. 

“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.”

Always worth repeating! 

(I suspect somebody's going to call Camus a dummy now, because a heart is just a pumping muscle.) 

Defining soul or heart in this way is valuable to me because it doesn't hurry to explain too much. As I wrote with my coffee can analogy earlier on, we are practically infinite in the connections which make us, and efforts to pin down certainties "YOU ARE THIS" may well cause more stupidity than smartness. 

[possibletarian]

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?

I'm of a different opinion, words as you have noted change common meaning over time, a dictionary will eventually start to include the new commonly understood meaning and eventually replace it.

I would like to make the word soul exclusively religious in meaning, it's an important definition in the religious context.
If people want to talk about something else regarding a person, then they can use the more traditional definitions unhindered, and also be accountable for the reasons they say what they say without any spooky element in consideration.

[Simon Moon]

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.

This all looks very scientific, but it relies on the assumption that consciousness equals soul. That hasn't been demonstrated yet.

I don't see how?

It seems to me, just to point out that, consciousness is a function of physical processes in a physical brain. There is no need that I see, to invoke a soul at all. Whether the soul is coequal or equivalent to consciousness or not.

There is evidence for physical brains, there is evidence for physical brains producing activity, and there is evidence for consciousness. Where is the evidence in any of that where a soul fits in?

How would you explain, things like, complete changes in personality, memory, tastes, etc, when someone has a brain injury? Yet you are saying that even after the ultimate brain injury, brain death, there is something left, that can lift off of the brain and continue to survive.

I have an aunt that had a fall about 8 years ago, and had bleeding in her frontal lobe and temporal lobes. After her 'recovery' she went from being the nicest person you'd ever want to meet, to a raving bitch.

So, what are the attributes of her soul? The nice person she once was, or the bitch?

[Belacqua]

It seems to me, just to point out that, consciousness is a function of physical processes in a physical brain. 

Yes, agreed. 

[quote pid='1934194' dateline='1569541075']

There is no need that I see, to invoke a soul at all. Whether the soul is coequal or equivalent to consciousness or not. 

Well, I'm not the one asserting that soul = consciousness. I agree that if soul = consciousness then we don't need two words. 

The trouble to me is that people are just assuming, without argument, that when we talk about consciousness or mind we are talking about soul. How has that been established? 

Since we lack a coherent definition of soul, it may be that we are just kind of sliding sideways and talking about the mind instead. But that's a bit sloppy, I think. 

There is evidence for physical brains, there is evidence for physical brains producing activity, and there is evidence for consciousness. Where is the evidence in any of that where a soul fits in? 

Since no one has defined soul yet, I can't answer that. 

Do we think that consciousness is related to soul? Or is soul something else? Have we determined that your soul is gone while you're unconscious? Brain dead? Can souls go to sleep? 

None of these things has been answered -- it has merely been assumed that mind = soul. And then because we know that mind comes out of brain, people announce that soul is irrelevant. So we are repeating facts about brain and mind and claiming they tell us about soul, when we don't even know what soul is. 

How would you explain, things like, complete changes in personality, memory, tastes, etc, when someone has a brain injury? Yet you are saying that even after the ultimate brain injury, brain death, there is something left, that can lift off of the brain and continue to survive.

I have an aunt that had a fall about 8 years ago, and had bleeding in her frontal lobe and temporal lobes. After her 'recovery' she went from being the nicest person you'd ever want to meet, to a raving bitch.

So, what are the attributes of her soul? The nice person she once was, or the bitch?

First tell me what soul is, and then I may be able to answer. Everything you've said there is relevant to mind, but whether soul is related or not has not been argued.

In the classical version of soul that I've been discussing, all of this is explained. Mind is an activity that depends on the presence of matter. Soul is the way we categorize all of the forms, functions, and activities that are related to a specific hunk of matter. The brain injury to the material of the brain meant that the form changed and therefore the function changed. Nothing spooky. 

But several people want to stick to the spooky version of soul, without even telling me what that is, so I can't answer their questions.

[Jehanne]

It seems to me, just to point out that, consciousness is a function of physical processes in a physical brain. 

Yes, agreed. 

I don't have any fundamental disagreements with you, as long as it is understood that no brain = no mind.

P.S.  I am not annoyed.

:-)

[Simon Moon]

Well, I'm not the one asserting that soul = consciousness. I agree that if soul = consciousness then we don't need two words. 

The trouble to me is that people are just assuming, without argument, that when we talk about consciousness or mind we are talking about soul. How has that been established? 

Since we lack a coherent definition of soul, it may be that we are just kind of sliding sideways and talking about the mind instead. But that's a bit sloppy, I think. 

Yes, there is no need for 2 words if they are referring to the same thing.

I do not know how those saying the soul and consciousness are the same thing, came to that conclusion. Maybe they are only speaking metaphorically.

I completely agree, there is no coherent definition of soul. But aren't you the one (please correct me if I am wrong) that believes there is, or might be, something about our consciousness that continues after death? I don't care if we call it soul or not, what we call it is completely unimportant, it is the concept that is important.

If you do believe there is something about us that continues on after death, that is what I want evidence for. And without evidence, I am unwarranted in believing it.

Since no one has defined soul yet, I can't answer that. 

I am not not the one that is claiming that, anything beyond consciousness exists. It is not up to me to define a soul, something I do not believe exists. If one is using the word soul to mean the same thing as consciousness, then that is no different than those that say god is love. The word soul has baggage that includes a lot more than just consciousness, and muddies the water if all that is being discussed is consciousness.

Do we think that consciousness is related to soul? Or is soul something else? Have we determined that your soul is gone while you're unconscious? Brain dead? Can souls go to sleep? 

You'd have to ask those questions to someone that believe a soul exists. I believe physical brains exist, I believe that consciousness is entirely a function of the process of a physical brain. I do not believe in anything beyond that, no 'ghost in the machine' so to speak.

None of these things has been answered -- it has merely been assumed that mind = soul. And then because we know that mind comes out of brain, people announce that soul is irrelevant. So we are repeating facts about brain and mind and claiming they tell us about soul, when we don't even know what soul is. 

As far as I have ever heard from those that believe in a soul, is that the soul is something beyond the mind and consciousness, or it explains consciousness. The only way I would ever talk about a soul, is in purely a poetic or metaphoric way, as in the sum total of a person's being.

First tell me what soul is, and then I may be able to answer. Everything you've said there is relevant to mind, but whether soul is related or not has not been argued.

In the classical version of soul that I've been discussing, all of this is explained. Mind is an activity that depends on the presence of matter. Soul is the way we categorize all of the forms, functions, and activities that are related to a specific hunk of matter. The brain injury to the material of the brain meant that the form changed and therefore the function changed. Nothing spooky. 

But several people want to stick to the spooky version of soul, without even telling me what that is, so I can't answer their questions.

I do not believe in souls, so I am not one to define it.

So your version is similar to what I mentioned above, as in the sum total of ones being, as produced by the processes of a physical brain. I must have misunderstood your position, because I thought you were one that believed that there is something else about the soul, that can continue on after death.

Yes, those that believe in some 'spooky version of soul' need to define it, and provide evidence.

Again, I tagged you with a position that it looks like you don't hold.

I thing you might be mistaking those that are saying that consciousness is equal to soul, as them making some kind of claim about a soul existing in some way. When it looks like to me, they are speaking in metaphor or poetic language.

I am under the impression, that everyone here, that identifies as an atheist, does not believe in a soul, except if they are using the word no differently than consciousness.

[Cod]

Whare is the soul supposed to be located in the body

It's on the bottom of your foot apparently.

[possibletarian]

Whare is the soul supposed to be located in the body

It's on the bottom of your foot apparently.

And you have two of them, so i don't see what the problem is in defining the soul he he