Mind, Soul, Spirit and Self: To What Extent Are These Concepts Useful or Not Philosophically?
I wonder about all these different terms in the history of thinking in philosophy. They are used to describe the nature of consciousness at different points in the history of philosophy and thinking about the nature of 'mind'. The use of the tem 'soul' goes back to Plato and Descartes. The concept of 'mind' often involves what Gilbert Ryle describes as the idea of 'the ghost in the machine'. This goes back to the dualistic conception of the mind and body problem, which may have been superseded by a more embodied understanding of consciousness, especially in the aftermath of phenomenology.
Some of the use of the terms comes down to the division between religious and secular philosophy, especially the preferred option of the idea of self to soul. The idea of spirit may also involve ideas of disembodied consciousness, although Hegel used the idea of spirit to describe cultural aspects of thinking in history as a wider perspective.
I am aware that there are possible clear attempts at definitions of soul, mind, spirit and self. However, while these may be interesting and useful, I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem?
Some of the use of the terms comes down to the division between religious and secular philosophy, especially the preferred option of the idea of self to soul. The idea of spirit may also involve ideas of disembodied consciousness, although Hegel used the idea of spirit to describe cultural aspects of thinking in history as a wider perspective.
I am aware that there are possible clear attempts at definitions of soul, mind, spirit and self. However, while these may be interesting and useful, I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem?
Comments (79)
Do you not stop and wonder about these topics or concepts? Perhaps, I give my own 'soul' torture in doing so, but such ideas are a subtext underlying the whole debate about physicalism. In the sentence I have just written I am using the term 'soul' in a fairly loose, metaphorical way. However, at one point I used to believe in a literal 'soul' in the dualistic way of Descartes, especially in his distinct use of the concept 'I'.
Nowadays, having read in the direction of psychology and philosophers, especially Daniel Dennett, I can see that the ideas of soul and mind are open to question. However, as I am not convinced by physicalism because it is so reductive, even though empirical methods may be important it may give limited analysis. I know that you have considered the physicalist perspective seriously, but I would still question what it really amounts to other than linking the brain and consciousness. Therefore, my own query is whether the actual terms, especially 'mind' and 'soul' are worthy of consideration, as a basis for deeper philosophical analysis.
I am a bit surprised that your response suggests that we may be better off knowing little about such topics, and I am wondering why?
Indeed, I do wonder, but that wonder doesn't translate into knowledge, mon ami. We can only explore the possibility space, offering only our personal take on the matter. 'Tis best not to overthink, but of course, that's only my opinion. Ask yerself "what did I discover today?"
On the subject of what did I learn today, I spent a lot of time reading, including some philosophy essays, and, sometimes reading philosophy leads to philosophical knots. I was reading about the mind and body problem, including discussion of idealism. Sometimes, it seems that philosophy becomes too abstract and theoretical. I am extremely introspective and most definitely overthink.
It is a fine line between philosophy and overthinking, especially as so much of the issues explored on forum discussion, involve thinking about the concepts used in everyday language and I guess that my area of interest has always been the 'mind' and associated concepts and aspects of life. I am not sure what I have learned of significance today experientially or in terms of analytical thinking but there are a few hours left so there is a time for some learning experience yet. I don't know about your day and what you have learned about yourself, or beyond. Wonder is indeed limited but without it there may be no basis for speculation, in looking within or outside oneself.
I think they are outmoded, folk notions.
Committed to an embodied philosophy, my speculative bias is decidedly anti-supernatural / anti-idealist; therefore, I find both "soul" and "spirit" unhelpful.
"Mind" is (mostly) a property we ascribe to a (recognizable) phenomenally self-modeling, metacognitive body.
"Self" conceived as self-continuity (embodied) is more helpful than self-identity (disembodied).
And, as far as I'm concerned, "the mind-body problem" is dissolved by Spinozist property dualism contra Cartesian substance dualism.
They're deep and difficult topics. To discuss them requires awareness of the cultural and historical context within which they evolved and how they were used in that context, in other words, a hermeneutic approach. A major part of that involves understanding modern thought since the European Enlightenment. One difficulty is, most people are involved in that without reflective awareness of it. They defend positions that they don't understand themselves.
Comparative religion is a particularly useful discipline in this context as it is very much concerned with understanding what is now called the 'history of ideas' - an interdisciplinary subject in the humanities which can be located between philosophy and history, not only about reality as viewed through the perspective of concepts and theories, but also viewed from the perspective of mythology, religion and traditional culture. Joseph Campbell's books on comparative mythology are a well-known example. There's an enormous amount of material that could be included under that heading, but looking at it in terms of the origin and historical development of major cultural forms provides a useful analytic framework.
I'd conclude by mentioning hermenuetics again - one of its aims and methods is re-interpreting mythological or historical ideas in the context of modern culture. Mankind has outgrown its childhood myths but many of the underlying themes re-surface in different forms in our day (as can be seen time and again in the flood of special-effects blockbusters appearing in cinemas all over the world.) Again that is where careful interpretation is required.
So to invoke such broad terms as mind, body, spirit, soul, needs awareness of the context from which they've been derived and also the way that they're being used. Not an easy thing to do, but possible, and worthwhile.
Yes, I think that both of us have got to this point before as your link shows and I am still in the position of having not read Spinoza, in order to get a full picture of property dualism, although I am aware that some have seen his writings as advocating pantheism. I am aware that you are not a materialist but, on the other hand, reject the idea of the supernatural. I am probably juggling this area, especially with my reading of Jung and the transpersonal.
Out of interest, what do you make of Hegel? I read his account of history and spirit and his particular phenomenology of mind about a year ago. It seems that he is a bit rejected in philosophy.
Yes, putting these ideas together into one thread may not work, as they are such complex areas, involving so many different writers, with a need to understand the cultural contexts. I am extremely interested in the field of comparative religion and have found the ideas of Huston Smith useful. I am probably in the position of having read such a diverse selection of writers and trying to put it all together, with some important omissions, such as Spinoza.
I started this thread because in real life I don't really have anyone to discuss philosophy ideas with. I continue with my reading life and do use this forum to try to ground myself in the rational aspects of philosophy. You are most definitely correct to say that understanding of the contexts of the usage of them is important and that is why trying to define the ideas may be too simplistic. If anything, some may dismiss certain terms without entering into the philosophical imagination of the worldviews from which they emerged. If anything, I like to think and read broadly, so I have a big task whereas those who go for one specific perspective may have a narrower focus.
As for focussing, I'm very much like you, I tend to think about big ideas and topics while often falling short in detailed knowledge of specifics. Careful scholars are generally much more circumspect and will focus on an area of speciality. It's practically unavoidable nowadays, with such vast amounts of information at your fingertips. Nevertheless, I try and maintain an approach which is thematic and synoptic. It suits this kind of subject particularly well.
Regarding Spinoza, check out this title. Oh, and another current author in the area of comparative religion and philosophical spirituality that you ought to know if you don't already is Mark Vernon.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/755060
Unfortunately, along with Kant, Hegel is the most influential (detrimental) modern philosopher for midwifing "p0m0" and "communism", respectively (as well as for also totally eclipsing Spinoza until about fifty years ago). For me, Hegel in two words: totalitarian teleology. :mask:
I definitely see the point of Wittgenstein's idea of the 'use' of meanings, which was why I didn't attempt to define the various words. It would have probably been pointless if in response to the thread people had tried to do so. I guess I was thinking of the complexity of the terms because I see them used in some overlapping and various ways. In particular, I am definitely questioning of the materialist approach of writers such as Dennett but have found reading on the Zen concept of 'no mind' to be interesting. I guess that the Zen approach seems deeper.
You are probably wise to be thematic in your reading and I have a bit of a chaotic mix and match approach which may end up being like putting a jigsaw puzzle together with the wrong pieces at times. Thanks for the recommendations and I will look up Mark Vernon because I haven't come across him. I started with Ninian Smart on comparative religion.
Okay, I will look at the link. I did start Spinoza w couple of times and didn't get very far. I also did come across Hegel in relation to communism, and the political aspects of writers cannot be ignored. I went through a Kant phase a long time ago...
When you ask if they are useful, that asks me to ask toward what purpose.
Is it to approach what is in front of you? Is it to build a sufficient map of what surrounds you without reference to you? Are you trying to get some things behind you? If the latter, are they chasing you or can you just leave town?
I don't know much but I am betting all these useful items cannot be found in a single place.
Yes, it is interesting to what purpose are such terms used. I started very much in the direction of the idea of the soul, in a religious background of Catholicism and a clear belief in spirits. I am not sure that the terms, especially soul are not useful in some ways but I probably think of them differently from initially. The idea of disembodied souls, or souls raises problems. So, it is all about the specific implications of the use of the terms.
One reference to the idea of the soul which I always liked was in the Spandau Ballet song, 'Gold', which had the line, 'Always believe in your soul, it's indestructible'. This way be true but more along the idea of the permeating lifeforce imminent in all living beings. In some ways it could signify immortality but whether that is a literal form of afterlife but as an underlying continuity of lifeforms.
The terms you listed are names for concepts that are not physical objects. So, they are essential to meta-physical Philosophy and Religion. But physical Science can do its job without reference to such non-things. Except that Quantum Science discovered gaps in classical physics that left some sub-atomic phenomena un-explained. So, persistent quantum scientists were forced to turn to Eastern philosophies for terminology that included the consciousness of the observer in observations of the foundations of physical reality.
In that register, the utility you asked for is immediately before you, the wonder of living amongst other living beings. It is like the breath of life spoken of in Genesis. The clot of shaped soil becomes alive.
The recognition that this has a different role than thinking of immortality is a good enough reason to question whether combining them preserves the original thought.
I am definitely into combining and blending different ideas rather than simply differentiating and this is where it gets interesting. That is because sometimes ideas from different perspectives become dichotomized rather than seeing parallels. In that respect, a perennial philosophy, such as that of Aldous Huxley is able to see recurrent themes and traditions rather than seeing various viewpoints as clashing voices in the metaphorical Tower of Babel.
You are right to say that the concepts which I am talking about are non-physical which makes them fall more into the category of the philosophy of religion. It is quite something that after a tendency towards materialism in science that the quantum physicists' conception of reality has gone back to find what was missing in the Newtonian-Cartesian world view which had been the basis for the development of physicalist models.
I am a grumpy old man who takes another approach. If everything can easily be compared to anything else, then it is too general to require anything from me. In the image of the Tower of Babel, it includes too much to learn much there.
Each term represents the misapprehension of human biology, though I think Self is more applicable. Their referent is perpetually absent or hidden from any observer, so we literally and figuratively cant quite put our finger on it. I would include in this consciousness. Why we posit these phantoms I am not certain, but we can be certain that we posit them in certain objects, and these objects are infinitely greater in size, complexity, originality, and value than any of these phantoms.
*agent smith pulls hard upon his Gitane before flicking the butt into the inky blackness of the Siene. *
:love:
I would add identity, ego, psyche, and perhaps heart to your list.
For me, these words are synonyms, although many would disagree. Some of that disagreement comes from the fact that, as you noted, each word arose in a different context from people with a different understanding of human nature. I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that all of these phenomena are illusions which humans create so we can talk about ourselves in an objective way. As I say, I'm sympathetic to that view, but it's not how I think in my daily life.
As with all synonyms, the words have different connotations and can be used in different situations. I have a very strong sense of self and "self" is the word that feels most personal to me. It's the word for how it feels here inside. "Soul" and "heart" are words I use when I'm talking about the human capacity for empathy, sincerity, and positive human values. "Mind" I tend to use when I'm talking about human intellect. ""Identity, "psyche," and "ego" I use when talking about myself and others in a more objective way. I see them as psychological terms. Of course, my usage is not always the way others use the words and even I don't follow the usages I describe always.
Meaning is use. These words are meaningless. Therefore you must not use them.
It is likely to be far to compare almost ANYTHING, but it is likely that in order to become a clear, independent thinker it is worth working out a framework of how various ideas overlap at all or work together or against one another. Otherwise, there is a danger of getting locked or trapped in the language of one set system of ideas. Of course, it is hard to do form a synthetic understanding and it is going to be limited because it is not possible to be aware of all the different ideas. It would require one to become a living encyclopedia, and the closest one gets to this is the computer knowledge of Wikipedia.
Self has definitely taken over from soul and I can see why. Although I do appreciate the Zen Buddhist view which sees self as not being an entity in its own right, which was the criticism of mind and soul previously. And, yes, some have queried consciousness, such as Daniel Dennett's idea of 'consciousness is an illusion'. It does come down to the experiential beyond tangible physical reality' being hard to pin down exactly. However, even the clear distinction between 'mind' or 'consciousness' is hard to separate because they are interconnected, like two sides of a coin. Reflection itself may be the biggest evidence of consciousness or even 'mind' with 'self' possibly representing the interface between mind and body, especially in relation to emotions.
I do agree with ego, psyche and heart being possible terms which could have been added to the list. The term ego is fairly ambiguous because it has different connotations in Freud's theory to the use in Eastern thinking. Psyche was used by Jung and in archetypal psychology. Heart is an interesting one because what it signifies is that consciousness is not located in the head alone as the exclusive source. It is most clearly recognized in the Eastern model of the chakra system.
To some extent the various terms are synonymons which depending on usage may be used to speak about the nature of inner experiences. I do like the term 'soul' to some extent although it may give rise to certain religious or spiritual connotations. The particular use of the term which I find helpful is in transpersonal philosophy and psychology, such as in the writing of Thomas More in, 'Care of the Soul' and 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. They are probably used in a spiritual as opposed to strictly religious sense. Mind you, in some ways the idea of soul could also be linked to the association of the genre of soul music, which I believe was based on it reaching the depths of emotional experiences.
Identity does seem to capture the whole spectrum of this as the autobiographical process of 'self'. Self is useful but it may appeal to the 'me' of egocentricism and in the context of individualism, and even the narcissistic aspect of seeing oneself in the mirror of others' perceptions in a social context.
I see the utility of a "framework of how various ideas overlap at all or work together or against one another." That has the danger of encapsulating concepts into a currency common enough to mix and match to create a map. Summaries tend to look for a mark or definition that allows us to assign an idea a place to adjacent places. Devotion to a particular source inhibits comparison to other sources in order to learn what it can provide. To the degree that one can completely explain something, it has been cancelled as something to wonder about.
Yes, and I do think that these will differ from person to person. I'm sure the ways I use these words as described in my previous post won't always match how others feel.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I'm an American with the usual load of self-regard, but I think my understanding of my own experience, my self, provides a pretty stable platform from which to look out over reality without being rigid. If that makes any sense.
You have indeed captured the way in which the ideas of mind, soul, spirit and self are at the core of so many aspects of philosophy, including the philosophy of religion and the whole query of who am I? These concepts are involved in how we frame our own autobiographical sense of identity in relation to others and the wider scheme of existence. In previous worldviews, especially the religious ones people often saw themselves in relation to 'the divine'. In a more secular outlook, and one based on social sciences and psychology, there is far more of an emphasis on the intersubjective as opposed to the objective, as in the idea of any 'being' as a spiritual reality 'out there'.
This juxtaposition is captured in Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou', which contrasts the idea of 'thou' as being God, or the 'divine' with the focus being on other human beings. The sense of human identity may fluctuate according to how the ideas, such as mind, spirit, soul and self is concerned and whether we define ourselves by these terms. For example, it may be so different how one views one's being in the cosmos. It may be connected to a sense of the finite and the infinite. In particular, it could be asked to what extent is the mind finite or infinite?
If mind is seen in conjunction with the idea of soul or spirit it is more likely to be seen as something which transcends the body; the connection with self is far more based on the link between the physical seat of consciousness. In this way, the nature of identity and what it means to be a human person may be at stake in the usage of terms to describe the inner aspects of human identity.
There is a danger of summaries leading to overgeneralisations of ideas. There are intricate aspects of different systems or frameworks which may be glossed over in synthetic understanding and, for this reason, while comparisons of concepts may be useful that is not to the point where subtle differences and details are cast aside, because such details may be essential in getting a clear picture in the search for a general map for trying to navigate the various possibilities.
A stable platform, especially in the solidity of a personal sense of self, may be important for philosophical clarity. A deflated or inflated sense of self may be deficits of fragility, which obscure a clear sense of who one is, as an aspect of personal identity, and trying to see one's role and existential existence in the wider social and cosmic sense. In that way, the idea of self may be a safe philosophical concept because it is neither grandiose or diminishing in its basis for a foundation for personal human identity.
FWIW, I have explored that same question in several posts on the BothAnd Blog. The traditional terms you listed go back thousands of years. Which indicates that the Mind/Body distinction has always been important to philosophical thinkers. Until recently, that is. Modern materialists smugly simply the problem by asserting that the Mind is just the function of the Brain.
But then, what material is that "function" made of? My answer is that the fundamental element/substance of the real world is not solid Matter, but aethereal Information. It's not an empirical/physical solution, but a theoretical/metaphysical answer to the ancient conundrum of "how does Matter think & feel"? If you are interested in such enformed musings, I can provide some links for perusal. Here's a sample. :smile:
Self/Soul :
[i]On the Thoughts Explained Blog*, The Moral Skeptic discusses a split-brain experiment that seemed to show that the human neural system can generate two separate minds. Thus, proving that there is no unique Soul existing apart from brain functions. That empirical evidence would indeed cast doubt on traditional notions of a spiritual Soul.
But it demonstrates what you would expect if the Enformationism concept of the emergent "Self" is correct : the Mind is merely an operational function of brain processes, a behavior, not a thing. As an essential part of the minds operations, the Self is an imaginary symbol, like an Avatar, to represent the system in its inter-actions with the outside world.[/i]
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page67.html
Note -- The Enformationism thesis postulates that Generic Information (power to enform ; causation ; energy/mass) is the essence of both Matter & Mind ; both Brain & Function.
I agree with this, but I don't think we only need a stable sense of self for philosophical purposes. We, at least I, need the platform of a consistent, reliable self to live our lives in a satisfying way.
The question of a stable sense of 'self' for philosophy or living is an interesting dilemma. It goes back to the idea of the 'examined life' of Socrates. There is the issue as to whether the lens of perception need to be clear as a basic prerequisite for clarity of thought? Or, do the wounded or traumatised philosophers go into a quest for self-awareness which is deeper in its pursuit? As for the actual aspects of living a solid sense of self may make living less complicated although it may be that fragility leads to a certain amount of innovation, possibility as ways of thinking about priorities, values and what is important.
My guess is that the fragility of self could go either way in leading to completely off-balance thinking and ways of thinking. It may be that being thrown off the tracks, or even falling apart, may lead to the wilderness. There may be chaos, and all kinds of attempts to find answers and solutions. It is a potential path for erroneous thinking but it may be a starting point for originality, spontaneity and authenticity. While it may be a pathway of hazards it may be a tightrope which once gone through may be about lived experience and creativity of thought as opposed to following convention, safety and the common place ideas and methods. In other words, it may lead away from the solutions of the herd to the primal creativity of philosophy.
Your reply is interesting, in regard to the divisions in the self, mind and matter. The emergent perspective does break down potential divisions, especially problematic in dualist perspectives. The idea of the self as an 'avatar' may make sense because it is like a unity, especially in the formation of autobiographical identity, which leads to an underlying continuity of identity. For example, I can remember my first day at school and the thoughts which I had, as well the essential experiences of my life in the construction of my sense of 'self'.
Those who have dissociative experiences may have disruptions but, on the whole it leads to inner experiences, as David Hume argued, as being more than 'a bundle of experiences. I wonder to what extent such continuity may have been what led Descartes and others the idea of the soul. The problem with the soul may not be how it works as a construct for thinking about the seat of consciousness, but the way in which certain thinkers, especially those within religious traditions, turned it into a mystical or supernatural construct, especially as a disembodied entity independent from embodied experiences in life.
Isn't each one of us simultaneously and fluidly a 'past-self, present-self, future-self' imbedded in, or enabled and constrained by, some 'past-population, present-population, future-population' a heteronomous rather than autonomous agent (i.e. existent)? Consider this old thread ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/344126
Quoting Agent Smith
"Who" you are is constituted by your personal and social relationships. Self-identity (ego) supervenes on self-continuity (embodiment). And, like an orchestra after the final encore of an evening's symphony performance, your (everyone's) identity's constitution dissipates due to entropy into oblivion "postmortem". Anicca > anatta, no?
:death: :flower:
Yep, that's what I believe happens too, but from what I've heard the soul of Buddhism, like that of a cornered government official, is to neither affirm nor deny neither the existence nor the nonexistence of souls. This is clearly inconsistent with the anatta doctrine. What I suspect is going on is people have latched onto this belief in Buddhism because it tends to produce a Zen moment in us, and we all love that feeling don't we? The truth is Buddhism also neither affirms nor denies nihilism (anatta). These are all extremes which Buddhism attempts to avoid. So I'm afraid you're not entirely correct - the anatta doctrine is meant to refute eternalism and by itself is only half the story of Buddhism. What sayest thou? I would like to seek @Wayfarer' counsel on this matter.
... moksha :fire:
Religion's origins can be retraced to uncertainties regarding the self and spawned the idea of souls in all cultures (the problem was/is/will be Thanatos).
Spirit is a related term, but is larger in scope, includes ethereal beings, usually powerful, and whom we must placate with prayers and sacrifices in order to gain their favor; the seed of god(s) is visible therein.
As for the mind, it has been equated with the soul, the self and the essence of what a person is.
:lol: Buddhism is the middle path and so can't affirm anything; anatta, an affirmation, isn't Buddhism; however, it is a part, only one-half, of the refutation of two extreme positions, eternalism (there's an eternal soul), which the anatta doctrine is aimed at, and nihilism (there is no eternal soul) (the Buddhist argument against this position is not so popular or discussed often). As I tried to explain, the anatta doctrine appeals to us because it's very Zen (induces WTF? moments, which everybody likes to experience) i.e. there's a psychological element to the idea's popularity, but it comes at a great cost - misunderstanding the Buddha).
:smile:
:up: Sorry for the double reply, but you seem to have updated your post with a comment on moksha. I don't know what it means exactly but I've seen it being interpreted as liberation/salvation; fits right in with The Matrix theme of freeing oneself from maya (the machine-generated virtual reality). @Gnomon, remember you said, quite a number of times, that your Enformationism doesn't offer any soteriological services. I see an opening here. How exactly you'll work the idea of moksha into your theory is currently beyond me.
'Soul' is very much a term from the lexicon of Greek and Hebrew religions. There's no direct equivalent in Buddhism. Buddhism denies that anything exists 'sui generis' in and of itself, but always as a consequence of causes and conditions. Nevertheless, there is, says the Buddha, an unconditioned, an unmade, an unfabricated - were there not, there would be no escape from the conditioned, the made, the fabricated. But crucially the unconditioned is never subordinated to conceptual classification in Buddhism.
As for 'what will become of me?' the Buddha describes such concerns as self-seeking or self-centred. In a way, you can say the very concern with oneself is what propogates itself through sa?s?ra.
Quoting Agent Smith
The 'two extreme views' - the first being 'eternalism', i.e. affirms that the world-and-self have a real non-perishing existence. Bear in mind, this was taught in the context of a culture which believed in re-birth, so that the aim of spiritual practice was conceived in terms of 'seeking a propitious re-birth' - that through correct conduct and ritual, one could be re-born in perpetuity, as it were. The opposite view was nihilism i.e. there are no moral consequences for actions in this life beyond death. This is what most modern people believe. Death is seen as a kind of 'global reset'.
Generally speaking, acceptance of the idea of the reality of re-birth or continued existence is the dividing line between traditional and secular western Buddhism. See Facing the Great Divide Bhikkhu Bodhi.
[quote=Numerius Negedius]The [s]sleep[/s] awakening of [s]reason[/s] imagination begets monsters.[/quote]
Minimize metaphysics (novacula Occami).
I had a look at your post on the idea of a 'future self' which is in itself an interesting concept and the nature of temporality of the self is important. That is because the sense of self develops in childhood with an important aspect considered to be the sense of separation from the mother. However, that is the internalised concept of self as a conscious process but there may a rudimentary self beginning in the womb. Memory itself may be the basic brain aspect of this, in the form of ego consciousness. Even during dreams the sense of ego differentiates and self is in a state of becoming.
The self does appear to be about narrative identity and although embodied I wonder to what extent it is subject to linear time strictly. That is about potential becoming is a goal which determines its earliest course. In other words, does future self exist from the beginning as a blueprint? Also ego consciousness may end at death, and in some cases, especially in the form of dementia, the ego and sense of self may fragment. This may also happen in forms of psychosis, possibly as if the fragility of the self has been broken down, even if as only a temporary development.
The ideas of souls and spirits are more complicated than the self, especially as there is often a belief in some kind of disembodied form of consciousness. Spirits first developed in animism and I do wonder to what extent is the idea of panpsychism a return to the ideas of animism, with matter itself being seen as having some form of spirit.
I did go through a period of reading in the theosophical tradition. In that tradition there are believed to be different subtleties of souls and spirit beyond this. It is all a bit complicated. One idea which I came across in that tradition was the notion of aspects breaking down prior to death and afterwards. In particular, the idea of ghosts was not as the actual 'soul' of a person but as an aspect of a prior person affecting the energy fields. This would mean that those who witness ghosts or take part in seances experience this. I have never seen a ghost but I know many who claim to have done. When the ward where I worked on in the psychiatric hospital was temporarily moved to another one, a number of staff members claimed to sense the presence of a ghost of a baby in one particular room, to the point where some staff members felt uncomfortable going down one corridor.
Of course, in theosophy and some other spiritual traditions there is a belief that the soul goes through a period of purification, prior to rebirth, or reincarnation. This is the process described in 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead', and some people maintain that this is the beginning process of what some people encounter in the the descriptions of near death experiences.
Sorry, soteriological services are not on the menu for Enformationism. Instead, the default assumption, pending alternative evidence, is that this positive/negative world, this good/bad life is as good as it gets. As the semi-buddhist Stoics advised, all you have control over is your attitude (mind-set, philosophical framing) toward imperfect reality. Don't put your faith in a future Afterlife or Nirvana, just adapt your mind to your current situation. As Hamlet says to himself, as he contemplates self-salvation (suicide) : There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Of course, a defeatist attitude is only going to allow the bad to get worse. Yet an optimistic attitude will allow you to maneuver around the potholes in life's road.
The notion of Moksha (release from rebirth) is based on the hypothesis of physical Reincarnation. However, endless cycles of life are just as much a Hindu myth (taken on faith) as the Christian hope for a heavenly hereafter, with new spiritual bodies. Proponents of both a one-time eternal-life in Heaven, and of multiple lifetimes on Earth, must interpret the rare evidential events (e.g. remembrances of past lives ; near-death scenarios) with a generous helping of hopeless hope for salvation from the generational cycles of Evolution. But if human lives are naturally "brief candles in the dark" then some outside savior would be necessary to re-light the flame. However, Atheist Buddhism assumes no deity to correct his own creation mistakes, including tedious never-ending Samsara. So, why should we expect Nature to provide emergency exits for the life/death cycle that has been going-on from the beginning of mortal Life?
The Enformationism thesis admits the arguable possibility that the information complex (pattern, code) that constitutes your Self/Soul could be recycled by the Enformer, just as you can copy & paste information on your computer*1. But as far as I can see, such a redo is not included in the overall plan of Evolution. Unfortunately, such a re-boot would only be required if there was something seriously wrong with the pattern (of unique-but-perishable Souls) that has been unfolding for the last 14 billion solar cycles.
Historically, human sages have postulated a variety of incompatible natural or super-natural Plans of Salvation. Therefore, if your life is unsatisfactory, the only way out is self-salvation via a no-return exit. Hence, even the recently-posited godless Technological Singularity is based on the mythical belief that humanity as a whole, not as individuals, can gain control over the ups & downs of Nature by learning how to adjust the thermostat, to eliminate radical up & down swings. Unfortunately, for Samsara seekers, creating a techno-utopia on this "third rock", or another planet circling an alien sun --- would on benefit our descendants, not us progenitors..
Both Eastern reincarnation & Western heavenly hereafters are philosophical conjectures that seek to correct the imbalance & injustice of The Way It Is, via imaginary future scenarios. But, if God or Nature got it wrong in the first place, what hope do unruly humans have to expect a loop-hole that lets them out of the cosmic system. Besides, Divine Justice delayed is justice denied*3. As a middle path, the Tao is a dynamic balancing act, which allows us to move forward despite teetering between the abyss on left & right*3. The only salvation from fear of a disastrous fall, is in the calm Stoic mind of the tight-rope walker. This taut-wire we call Life is the only Path we have. So, don't look down. :smile: :joke:
*1. Technical Reincarnation :
The notion of downloading a person's definitive information into a computer, and then uploading the data to enform a new body (in a whirl of sparkles) in a new location was proposed as "The Transporter" in the Star Trek TV series. But the writers also philosophized about the negative effects of having your data accidentally scrambled : "is this new Self really me?" The downside of data errors was also dramatized in the movie "The Fly".
*2. Delayed Divine Justice :
Like the god of Job and the Stoics, the god of Neo-Deism is, for practical purposes, equivalent to implacable Nature, which has absolute power over all natural creatures. That's why humans gradually developed their own Culture, with man-made rules to suit their own needs and desires. Over the years, civilizations have become more & more estranged from Nature, in their attempts to escape its inhumane rewards & punishments. They have tried their best to create Justice systems that reward goodness, and punish bad behavior. The lesson here is to stop waiting for the impartial judge to impose justice from above, or for a Messiah or superhero to save us, but to work together toward a more ethical, stable and fair society. Its up to us to level the playing field.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page60.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied
*3. Tao Balance :
Though often referred to as a religion, Taoism (or Daosim) isnt similar to an organised religion whose tenants are based on a divine revelation for attaining a good afterlife. Instead Taoism, which expounds on the philosophy of the Tao broadly translated as way or path, serves as a system of guidance for one to find balance and harmony with existence. This balance is summarised in Taoisms Yin and Yang principle, which sees the world with complementary forces, such as light and dark, active and inert, or hot and cold.
https://asianinspirations.com.au/experiences/taoism-finding-balance/
I don't think so. 'Future self' is 'present self's' handiwork (or wreckage). Insofar as there's a "blueprint", it's the 'past self' that both enables and constrains the 'present self' that genetic-existential hand each one of us is dealth at birth when "into this world we're thrown".
That is what Lacan is talking about but he does not depict it as an either/or regarding ego seen as a capacity but a stage where it shapes all future experience. That is why he frames it as a prematurity that collides with the circumstances or situation that will be marked by the collision.
It is not there is no continuity between the potential and what emerges. But if you explore it as a decisive break, it is no longer a theory that can be set side by side with another theory of the same thing.
See, you do have the basic ingredients to weave some form of salvation into your Enformationism. Anyway, what I find intriguing is that in your theory the simulation is reality, making the idea of moksha moot. Your point seems to be that The Architect of The Matrix is your Enformer aka G*D. Remember what Agent Smith says to Morpheus - we rejected the first Matrix (no evil/paradise) for the current version of The Matrix (with evil)? That says a lot, oui? We're not actually interested in liberation/salvation. What then is the deal here? What exactly do we want?
As we have advanced in our knowledge of the world, our vocabularies change to reflect that change. Thus, what was once considered the soul, can now be called consciousness, though the concept soul was rather broader and obscure too, I haven't seen a clear definition from the classics I am currently studying - Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, etc.
The self is different and now refers to a subset of phenomena that fall under the scope of experience. What it is, or is not, is quite difficult. But it is useful - even in law.
This of course, does not mean that these words can't be used in another way, such as saying that "this music moved my soul", or saying "that was a spiritual journey".
But if we want to advance in understanding consciousness, we want to avoid as much ambiguity as is reasonable. And we can surely take ideas from people who belied in the soul or spirit and apply it in a modern setting. So they can be useful to some people, no doubt.
I don't like being thrown. Do you @schopenhauer1? A not-so-tangential point! Really? You want what?!
"into this world we're thrown" (Heidegger)
[quote=Mexican man with moustache and a gun]Choose your words carefully señor.[/quote]
What do we want? As teleological-thinking beings, we want what we do not have, but can imagine : Perfection. We can envision a new improved simulation of reality, and we can try to work together to make our imaginary future Utopia into a here & now real Reality*1. Unfortunately for us Idealists, only the Architect of the Matrix controls the whole complex system from a central Nexus (the program of evolution). All we humans can do is fiddle with peripheral levers & dials of Nature. Which is what pragmatic scientists attempt to do . . . . with mixed results. We are only interested in Salvation from the less-than-ideal results of natural & cultural changes.
Each of us humans is an architect of our own simulation of Reality : our personal imaginary worldviews. The only problem with living in a private subjective simulation of an abstract Ideality, is that Nature has constructed a material world that is not so easily modified by the personal Soul/Mind to suit our individual preferences. Moreover, that external world is populated with other Avatars (Souls) that are playing by their selfish internal values. Thus, creating obstacles to our own little plans.
Why does the second simulation of Matrix/World incorporate Evil into its design*2? Logically, Progress (growth & learning) are impossible without empty space in which to evolve. Morally, that undefined space in between fixed mandates is optional (neutral). Hence, our individual selfish choices can have good or bad effects on the overall (objective) system. Literature is full of examples of Evil results caused by short-sighted choices. The Enformationism world was also designed to be autonomous, to find its own way into the future via trial & error. The errors are what we call "Evil" or "Bad" depending on degree of severity*3. Nature, like any computation, must deal with internal errors of Syntax (rule violations). But complex Culture is faced with errors of Semantics (meanings : values)
Presumably, the evolving Universe, viewed as an autonomous computer program (sovereign, self-determining, independent), is running on schedule ; with internal error corrections ; not knocked off course by our insignificant human glitches ; and not requiring maintenance & repair interventions by the IT-tech/Programmer. For us Avatars/Earthlings inside the cosmic program, the ups & downs of Hegelian dialectic are perceived as Good or Evil : relative to our own personally-plotted course into the future*4. Fortunately, the program includes exit visas (limited lifespan) to terminate the agony & ecstasy. Another way out (salvation) of this on-course cruise through time is via the Escape pod (esc button) of voluntary death (suicide). Or, you could hit ctrl-alt-del and reboot. However, in order to go to Heaven or Samsara, you'd have to create it first. From scratch. As your personal simulation. :cool:
*1. True Reality :
On the other hand, all humans are constantly exposed to reminders that the world we experience is both Real and Ideal. Yet, we instinctively know the difference between the material things out there, and our immaterial thoughts in here. We can distinguish between physical sensations, and our feelings about those perceptions. We easily discern the difference between public phenomena, and the private meanings or values of those sensory experiences. For empirical scientific purposes, those ideal aspects of the world can be safely ignored. But for theoretical personal reasons we have no other choice but to deal with the unreal.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page30.html
*2. Designer Universe :
Even so, they may wonder why an ideal divine designer, working from scratch, would make an imperfect world with ongoing conflicts between good & evil, vestigial organs, and eyeballs with light receptors behind a veil of veins. The only logical answer to the Evil conundrum is that imperfections are inherent in a space-time fragment of Enfernity (Eternity/Infinity), and that defects are to be expected in the incomplete on-going creative process of evolution. Only in a transcendent changeless state-of-being could you presume to find absolute perfection and categorical Holiness; to find G*D. And you cant expect that perfect BEING to act like an imperfect human designer, who makes mistakes from ignorance. Instead, youd expect any defects to be intentional and necessary to the ultimate goal of the system. Hence, that teleological purpose would be known only to the Great Intender.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html
*3. Evil is the failure of Perfection :
[i]Smith said that the first Matrix was built to ensure that the people who were plugged into it did not experience any negative emotion, there was no suffering, everything was perfect.
He said it was a disaster, and it ultimately failed. The Architect said this too in the 2nd movie.
Why though? What exactly happened with that version of the Matrix that caused it to fail? Did the people who were plugged into it, eventually realize that everything was fake because they thought it was too good to be real? . . . .
The problem was choice.[/i]
https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/b3ociq/why_did_the_first_matrix_fail/
*4. Evil is the cost of Choice :
Olson makes a surprising admission that I agree with, "There is no evidence from nature and reason alone that God is good. Nor is there any evidence from nature or reason alone that the good life includes care for others unless it benefits oneself " . Indeed, his Old Testament god intervened frequently and directly in the affairs of his chosen people. But elsewhere in the world other cultures blamed miracles & calamities on their local gods. And in all times & places, bad things happened to good people, and vice-versa as-if the gods were randomly pushing buttons on the control panel of their little domains. So I have concluded, not that the G*D of Nature is erratic or impotent, but that the old pre-scientific notion of gods as specific material causes of natural events, was off the mark. Instead, I think the creation was intended to be autonomous, with no divine interventions necessary to correct either natural or cultural mistakes.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html
PS__Quote from Quora :
[i]Q. If the universe is a simulation, why did our ''masters'', or the person who is running this simulation, allow us to become smart enough to wonder if the universe was a simulation?
A. If the universe (or our perception of it) is in fact just some giant simulation (and, for the record, I do not discount that possibility as wildly crazy), then there must be a very good chance the whole point of the simulation is to see how long it takes us to reach self awareness.[/i]
Note : others have speculated that the Teleology of this simulation is to create Demigods. But I have no idea about the end goal (telesis) ; only the inference that physical/mental Evolution is causing the emergence of more physical complexity, which allows nonphysical concepts to emerge, some of which are teleological. So, it's reasonable to infer that the Great Simulator had the Potential for end-directed programming.
PPS__
"Goal-Driven Software Development Process (GDP) is an iterative and incremental software development technique. Although similar to other modern process models, GDP is primarily focusing on identifying goals before setting the requirements and explicitly utilizing the bottom-up design approach."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal-Driven_Software_Development_Process
Note -- From an information-centric perspective, Natural Evolution seems to be a "bottom-up" design process, as contrasted to the "top-down" approach of Genesis.
Yes, the vocabulary of thinking changes so much. I guess the reason why I set up this thread was in order to think about the interplay of such concepts, and how these impact on philosophical thinking. The 'self' is definitely the one of consistent importance of the twentieth century, and I am not opposed to the preference. The issue which I am trying to think about is how these concepts emerged and inform thinking, especially in relation to human consciousness.
I have not read Lacan at present, but your reflection on his thinking is important, especially in the dialogue between psychoanalysis and philosophy.
So tell us what you think ...
My perspective is that the various terms of mind, soul, spirit and self overlap and probably capture partial aspects of the inner experiences of human beings. Self is definitely the most popular at the present time, especially as the others suggested some kind of disembodied form. Spirit may be the the most complicated because it captures some kind of transcendent reality and this may not be ruled out entirely but it is entirely speculative and fits most easily into spiritual worldviews.
My personal favourite term of the group may be mind because, unless one is a dualist, is not separate from the body. The difficulty with it may be that it is often associated with the brain most clearly and consciousness may be not entirely reduced to the body. In some ways, self enables a more expansive view but it may be too focused on the social negotiation of the person's core of being. Of course, every person exists in a social context as recognised in the social sciences. The issue may be that the idea of the self may be too socially reductive and not allow for the unique and separate consciousness of the person to be valid in it's own right.
However, I would not wish to use the idea of mind and reject all the others because, as discussed in the earliest discussion on the thread it does all depend on the context of the usage of the terms, especially as all philosophy has a linguistic aspect. It may be that it is simply worth thinking of our own favoured use of the four terms, as well as others, such as the ego, in the way in which the subtle differences point to underlying approaches to in understanding the nature of consciousness and what it means to be a human being.
Tell me how do you know that any other human being than yourself has "inner experiences". None of the concepts in the OP make clear how you (or anyone) can know that.
We know that other people have inner experiences because we are able to talk about them in a comparative way. For example, we can talk about our experiences of music or dreams. With knowing about what it means for others to think about what it means to think of one having a soul, mind, spirit or self. The term spirit is the most complicated because it may involve relationships beyond the physical world and it gets into the realm of metaphysics. But, to compare soul is about thinking of the depths of experience of being, mind probably as reflective consciousness and self as what it means to have a centre in the phenomenological and social fabric of reality. It is likely that we would not even be able to engage in this discussion of inner experiences if we were not able to look inside ourselves introspectively and identify common aspects of such experience.
Yet if another didn't have "inner experiences" but acted or spoke as if she did, you wouldn't couldn't know. It seems to me, Jack, that's not a reliable way of knowing.
If by "inner experiences" what you mean is subjective, then I don't see what about them can possibly be called "common" (i.e. public, objective). :chin:
Of course, we have subjective experiences. Your experience of listening to The Doors is unique to you and mine to me. However, they are not so subjective that there are not any common grounds. That would be bordering onto solipticism. It may not be objective but intersubjective. We can make some guess at others' minds on the basis of both behaviour and their own testimonies, in addition to our own experiences. Without this, there would be no empathy. Of course, people may make mistakes about others' inner experiences if they simply base their assumptions on their own, which is why listening to others is of vital importance.
True, we're teleologically-oriented people and we work towards an ideal - we want, sensu amplissimo, a long (eternal), happy life, but this is exactly what [I]The Architect[/i] and Agent Smith say we rejected in The Matrix. Hence, I suppose, me question.
You take it as a given but you don't know. I agree it's a handy heuristic, and maybe that's all it is.
... and your / my own "mind" too since it's also "subjective" perhaps an introspection illusion ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
I would agree that people often make too many assumptions about other's psychological experiences. That is why I specify the importance of listening. Of course, our listening to others is filtered by our own cognitive biases too. So, the models we make of other people's inner experiences are only working models and like most other aspects of everything in life knowledge is partial, with an underlying uncertainty.
I'll quibble with your term "requires equilibrium". The thesis merely accepts as a fact of life, that this world is not perfect for human needs & desires, so it's necessary for us humans to work within the physical constraints of the natural world. In that case, equilibrium would be like a Mexican Standoff, in which nobody wins. Despite the odds stacked against us, we "teleological" people tend to aim for perfection (Heaven). But a fatalistic "happiness" is to settle for stable equilibrium. Yet, in the Hegelian dialectic, notice the dashed arrow down the middle of the zig-zag path of evolutionary progress. That is an interpolation of the average path through history. It's neither Good nor Evil, but acceptable, it's OK..
However, as you said, humans are both teleological and idealistic. So we shoot for the stars, and settle -- temporarily -- for a small hill. The ancient Greeks tended to be Pragmatic and Fatalistic. So, the Stoics advised that we avoid setting our sights too high, because failure to achieve your aims can lead to anxiety & depression. Nevertheless, humanity as a collective does have more control over Nature & Fate, than as individuals. Therefore, even though equilibrium allows us to barely survive, shooting for the moon (dis-equilibrium), can give us a "leg-up" (advantage) over implacable Nature. If we settled for equilibrium, we'd still be chimps climbing trees.
But that ambitious path is full of hardships & disappointments. So, while we fight Fate, we must be prepared to take our lumps without quitting. For example, putting a man on the moon was a human dream for ages. But only when technology caught up with our teleology, did that idealistic ambition become practical. In that case, persistent progressive Enformy (Good) won a round against big bad digressive Entropy (Evil).
The primary difference between the Religious "boat" and the Technological rocket is hard work instead of blind faith. 2000 years ago, one upstart Religion aimed for Heaven, but waited for a miracle. A century ago, rocket scientists made practical plans to put a man on the moon. And voila! We can now see boot prints in moon dust on YouTube. So, the lesson of Enformationism is : Nature rules, but humans are unruly. :smile:
Fatalism (revised):Everything happens due to a cause, but due to proximate and accessory causes, not to perfect and principal causes.
https://uh.edu/~cfreelan/courses/fate.html
Stoic acceptance is about accepting what is outside of what is under one's control. Human minds are prone towards agonizing over the future or the past.
https://stoameditation.com/blog/the-four-pillars-of-stoicism/
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
___Robert Browning
BLUE = GOOD ; GREEN = BAD ; PINK = ONE STEP FORWARD (one giant step for mankind)
THE RESULT OF BLOOD, SWEAT & TEARS, AND INTELLIGENT AIMS
I figure all the kinds of psychology are joined at the hip with philosophy because each system demarcates what will be recognized as phenomena and what will be excluded. This condition obviously includes the presuppositions about what is happening but also includes the praxis of therapy and evaluating what is helpful or not.
Technology to the rescue ... again? Yep, I concur, it seems possible to turn earth into a paradise, but then when yin peaks, yang is just around the corner.
Philosophy and psychology have such an important relationship. In the beginning of the last century they overlapped and it was the movements of behaviorism, psychodynamic theory, psychiatry and cognitive psychology which changed all of that. In some ways, philosophy became the forgotten twin. This is rather unfortunate because it the essential partner in thinking about 'mind', especially as all psychological rest upon philosophical assumptions, including ideas about human nature.
Actually I had 2 recurring dreams as a child. At the age of around eight learning something of the facts of life, I realised that they were memories of birth trauma. They were wordless of course, but became describable to myself as I learned to speak. The first: I am in a field and a huge thing is coming down, crushing me. That is a contraction. The second was associated with the house I was living in as a child. I had to go from the warm sunny kitchen along a dark passage to light a fire in the cold gloomy living-room, but there was an unnameable monster in the passage. That was the memory of the birth-canal and actual birth.
I think this is fairly rare, and one reason I think I had these memories available even as dreams is that I was my mother's 5th child and had a very easy birth. I think for most, birth trauma is too extreme and the memories have to be shut off completely.
Anyway, in relation to @Gnomon's dialectic there is no memory of the life in the womb as such; there is no event, nothing much happens; "there's absolutely no strife, living the timeless life". Birth is the antithesis of life in the womb, the first event, and awareness is the first synthesis. Thus is the problem of evil easily answered: without the pain and terror, there would be no awareness, no subjectivity.
Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is optional. Roger Crawford
I suppose what you're implying is that "pain is a necessary evil". Hence Evil is not optional for a learning & growing process. Positive & negative feedback are how we learn in a heuristic (trial & error) process. But a nudge in the right direction should be sufficient, so why the torment of cancer? What do we learn from pain without a lesson? Maybe bad things happen to good people, simply so we can learn that "God is no respecter of persons" (Romans 2:11). Without experience of Evil (Satan), we would not recognize Good (God) -- life would be meaningless. "No awareness, no subjectivity", no cognizance, no knowing. . . . no progress, no growth, no maturation. :smile:
Is pain a necessary evil? :
No. Pain is a vital function of the body to indicate something is wrong. Without pain, wed leave our hands on hot stoves, or walk on nails. Wed never seek treatment for many life-threatening things. We may not even notice were injured, or that our appendix ruptured, etc. Pain is a very, very important part of life.
https://www.quora.com/Is-pain-a-necessary-evil
That's a bit of a weasel question - I don't mind a bit of discomfort, but...
Life is the dialectic. Bliss plus torment produces awareness. Again and again; more and more. Take the heroin and ease the pain at the cost of your life. Yeah, leprosy does not directly cause disfigurement, but numbness, that leads to damage to the extremities, infection, and loss. But this is more. The heaven that is the womb cannot be experienced, because there is no comparison, only the loss of paradise can be felt.
This is rather a hijack of the thread though. Perhaps we should get back to discussing the language ...
I intelligo.
:death: :flower: