The problem of the soul

[vulcanlogician]

I think what’s tripping him up is that he made the silly contention that ‘souls are electricity’,

Funny thing is: that's a rejection of dualism. It is materialism (ie. the rejection of a nonphysical soul). Electricity is a physical phenomenon, after all.

A neuroscientist will contend that the deepest level of consciousness could be defined as electrical activity. At the very least, there is a causal relation between electrical activity in the brain and consciousness. If that's what Winter is saying, then he agrees with most atheists.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think what’s tripping him up is that he made the silly contention that ‘souls are electricity’,

Funny thing is: that's a rejection of dualism. It is materialism (ie. the rejection of a nonphysical soul). Electricity is a physical phenomenon, after all.

A neuroscientist will contend that the deepest level of consciousness could be defined as electrical activity. At the very least, there is a causal relation between electrical activity in the brain and consciousness. If that's what Winter is saying, then he agrees with most atheists.

But he’s insisting that the soul is electrical in nature, but also that the soul is non-physical (because he rejects the fact that electricity is a physical phenomenon).

He can’t have it both ways.

Boru

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think what’s tripping him up is that he made the silly contention that ‘souls are electricity’,

Funny thing is: that's a rejection of dualism. It is materialism (ie. the rejection of a nonphysical soul). Electricity is a physical phenomenon, after all.

A neuroscientist will contend that the deepest level of consciousness could be defined as electrical activity. At the very least, there is a causal relation between electrical activity in the brain and consciousness. If that's what Winter is saying, then he agrees with most atheists.

It would seem to preclude substance dualism but aspect dualism remains an option for him. Just sayin'.

[vulcanlogician]

Funny thing is: that's a rejection of dualism. It is materialism (ie. the rejection of a nonphysical soul). Electricity is a physical phenomenon, after all.

A neuroscientist will contend that the deepest level of consciousness could be defined as electrical activity. At the very least, there is a causal relation between electrical activity in the brain and consciousness. If that's what Winter is saying, then he agrees with most atheists.

It would seem to preclude substance dualism but aspect dualism remains an option for him. Just sayin'.

I've always said that property dualism (or aspect dualism) isn't that bad.

It simply says that there is physical properties and nonphysical properties. Our mental experiences, like the image of a coffee cup in front of you... has mental properties. After all, the "image" of the coffee cup that your brain produces isn't a physical object with physical properties.

I've also found criticisms of property dualism lacking. Property dualism isn't an ambitious theory. It doesn't posit some other kind of substance. It just says there is something distinct about mental experiences.

Occam's razor has me preferring materialism, but I still think property dualism is an okay theory of mind.

[HappySkeptic]

I've always said that property dualism (or aspect dualism) isn't that bad.

It simply says that there is physical properties and nonphysical properties. Our mental experiences, like the image of a coffee cup in front of you... has mental properties. After all, the "image" of the coffee cup that your brain produces isn't a physical object with physical properties.

I've also found criticisms of property dualism lacking. Property dualism isn't an ambitious theory. It doesn't posit some other kind of substance. It just says there is something distinct about mental experiences.

Occam's razor has me preferring materialism, but I still think property dualism is an okay theory of mind.

I just read about aspect dualism.  Basically it says that mind and matter as aspects of something else.

As a mystical position, positing "something else" as an explanation for the what we CAN perceive is a cop-out.  On the other hand, if mind comes from matter, and matter comes from something more fundamental, then I guess you could say that both come from something else.

I am drawn to the model that information is more fundamental than matter.  I don't know if it is the "most" fundamental -- it probably isn't.  If information is more fundamental than matter, then what is the problem with mind coming from matter?  Mind is about information processing, in way that produces the impression of a "self".

[WinterHold]

[zwanzig]

Is that why you see ectoplasm in old seance photos? It's the soul in a transitional state of matter?

[Angrboda]

[WinterHold]

[Spongebob]