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]

Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma are the states of MATTER.

It's still matter regardless of which state it is in.

What I think is tripping you up, Winter, is that plasma states can break down the atomic structure. Hydrogen plasma is almost like a soup of free electrons and protons. But it is still (by definition) matter.

What prevents me from agreeing that plasma is actually "matter" is that it is not a long lasting state of matter, look here:

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews...matter.cfm

But what about plasma? It’s the most abundant state of matter in the universe, but plasma can’t exist for long under normal terrestrial conditions.

Essentially that's what I meant by "transitional" state: Plasma is a temporary state that superheated matter goes through: that's not "matter" -even if science said so today- but rather a "transitional state into something we didn't yet discover".

The question I would ask myself is this: what happens to matter after turning to plasma? what's the next state?

[zwanzig]

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

[Angrboda]

Dude - you just said the sun is not a physical object. If that doesn’t qualify as stupid, it’ll do til stupid comes along.

Boru

The sun is not a physical object: it is PLASMA. Dude, read here please and stop diverting from the truth the Quran founded that souls might actually be electricity:

To make plasma, energy is needed to strip electrons from atoms. The energy can be of various forms – heat, electrical or light (ultraviolet light or intense visible light from a laser). With insufficient sustaining power, plasmas recombine into neutral gas.

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resource...-explained

As a man of science; as a high GPA CS graduate, I'm telling you: saying "plasma is matter." only, can make you fail the exam sheet because that is only a fraction of the definition, and it's a big fat misleading fraction too: superheated matter is not matter anymore; just like "gas" isn't "liquid" anymore.

From the article you cite, "Commonly known as the ‘fourth state of matter’, in the opinion of many astrophysicists, it is the very ‘first’ state since it was the first to form immediately after the Big Bang," and "Plasma is the highest energy state of matter." Plasma is a state of matter, not something other than matter. Even your own article refutes you. You're as bad as Drich.

[WinterHold]

The sun is not a physical object: it is PLASMA. Dude, read here please and stop diverting from the truth the Quran founded that souls might actually be electricity:




https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resource...-explained

As a man of science; as a high GPA CS graduate, I'm telling you: saying "plasma is matter." only, can make you fail the exam sheet because that is only a fraction of the definition, and it's a big fat misleading fraction too: superheated matter is not matter anymore; just like "gas" isn't "liquid" anymore.

From the article you cite, "Commonly known as the ‘fourth state of matter’, in the opinion of many astrophysicists, it is the very ‘first’ state since it was the first to form immediately after the Big Bang," and "Plasma is the highest energy state of matter."  Plasma is a state of matter, not something other than matter.  Even your own article refutes you.  You're as bad as Drich.

In the follow up comment I wrote:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-63119-p...pid2053005

What prevents me from agreeing that plasma is actually "matter" is that it is not a long lasting state of matter, look here:

Thank you.

[Spongebob]

Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma are the states of MATTER.

It's still matter regardless of which state it is in.

What I think is tripping you up, Winter, is that plasma states can break down the atomic structure. Hydrogen plasma is almost like a soup of free electrons and protons. But it is still (by definition) matter.

What prevents me from agreeing that plasma is actually "matter" is that it is not a long lasting state of matter, look here:

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews...matter.cfm

But what about plasma? It’s the most abundant state of matter in the universe, but plasma can’t exist for long under normal terrestrial conditions.

Essentially that's what I meant by "transitional" state: Plasma is a temporary state that superheated matter goes through: that's not "matter" -even if science said so today- but rather a "transitional state into something we didn't yet discover".

The question I would ask myself is this: what happens to matter after turning to plasma? what's the next state?

Plasma isn't so different from other states of matter, just ions.  It's properties can be measured like anything else.  And matter can go from gas to plasma very easily with the application & removal of the appropriate amount of energy.  Think an electrical switch.  Have you ever seen a neon sign?  That's plasma.