How do you think the soul works?
Hello, newbie philosopher here!
Alright, so there have been these questions that have been eating at me from the inside ever since I've read a little about religion and very little about philosophy. I haven't read a lot mind you, but still.
They can be according to any religion, doesn't matter. I just want as many answers as possible.
Question 1: If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it?
Question 2: If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you? In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose. And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things.
Question 3: If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?
Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say?
Keep in mind that I haven't read the Bible, I just know what they taught us in school.
I wish you an amazing day!
Signed,
-Luca "Null"
Alright, so there have been these questions that have been eating at me from the inside ever since I've read a little about religion and very little about philosophy. I haven't read a lot mind you, but still.
They can be according to any religion, doesn't matter. I just want as many answers as possible.
Question 1: If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it?
Question 2: If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you? In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose. And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things.
Question 3: If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?
Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say?
Keep in mind that I haven't read the Bible, I just know what they taught us in school.
I wish you an amazing day!
Signed,
-Luca "Null"
Comments (105)
It seems to me the only way immaterial souls could be confirmed to exist for certain is if a revealed God has bequeathed us with them. Otherwise, we would have to discover the existence of souls with science or something, and that sounds unlikely, or least difficult, to me.
Quoting Null Noir
I feel like if God has given us souls, he would have worked some free will magic into it, even if we are not wholly, physically identified with said souls. That being said, there could be deterministic mechanisms in a soul, too, I think. Thus, the issue of whether or not one is truly in control of oneself goes deeper than just the question of the existence of souls and whether or not they encompass our entire being (that is to say, including the body). If Christianity were specifically right, then we should listen to the relevant theologians on the matter - and I am no theologian.
Quoting Null Noir
God could just load our souls with our entire psychological being seamlessly upon death and, given he has given us the ability to choose freely according to our wills, the choices we make would indeed matter in terms of avoiding hell. Honestly, this would be a trifle for an omnipotent God.
Quoting Null Noir
I suppose so, but that seems to imply that the soul is physically housed in, or connected to, the body or brain in some way.
Welcome to the forum, by the way.
The concept of the 'soul' is one which is believed in by most religions and ancient philosophers, but rejected by many materialistic thinkers. In many ways, the soul could be seen as consciousness itself, including the interface between 'mind' and 'body'.
It was partly Descartes' thought which led to the separation of mind and body. This has been challenged by ideas of embodiment as central to consciousness.
The idea of the soul doesn't in itself require the existence of God, or a deity. However, it could be argued that some approximation towards 'God' or a 'supreme reality could be figured from the idea of a source of consciousness from the nature of soul. This is suggested in Plotinus's idea of the 'One', which is the connective source.
Welcome to the forum,
Jack
I see. So the only way of actually telling if we have something like a "soul" would be through science. But, as we know, scicence is very rigurous and strict. Thus, proving souls would be near impossible within our lifetimes due to how slow science is at accepting these kinds of ideas, not to mention they were most probably tested before. And let's say we had souls, we would know... right? I don't mean scientifically. I mean both intuitively, and by the fact that God, or perhaps even Jesus Himself would visit us regularly. And angels would be on watch and visible to us 24/7 driving most of us insane since we would not be capable of "withstanding them" unless they are in our dreams. But if they were to show up in our dreamns, we would not believe them. That's how I view it, at least.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Thank you for answering this question even if you're not a theologian. It means a lot, because Question 2 was the one that was bothering me most.
Indeed, I didn't think of the fact that there could be "Free Will Magic," as you've described it. I have nothing else to add to this part of your answer, since you're right. Theologians are more suited.
Quoting ToothyMaw
I didn't think of that, this is an amazing response! I have tried to figure out whether it truly mattered to be a good person for the longest time. But I never thought that if God is truly omnipotent, he could seamlessly transfer our old consciousness into the soul and punish us that way.
Quoting ToothyMaw
This was the reason I was kind of skeptical of the claims that say "you are the soul living in a human body."
Quoting ToothyMaw
Thank you ToothyMaw for the warm welcome! I appreciate it a lot!
Quoting Jack Cummins
I believe I have read of that possibility somewhere... maybe I listened to it in a video or podcast or something. But I agree, the "soul" could just be what we call "consciousness."
Quoting Jack Cummins
Sadly, I don't know much about Descartes' ideas apart from "I think, therefore I am." I really need to read one of his books... but Im not that good at reading books. I get intimidated by the number of pages a book has, but I digress.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Indeed, the soul doesn't need the existence of a God in order for it to exist. If we look at Buddhism, for example, they don't really have a "God" per se. They have the Buddha, sure. And yes, they pray to him. But the Buddha was not a "God" in any way shape or form. He was just a man who achieved what people call "Enlightenment." That's it. I could be very wrong, though...
Quoting Jack Cummins
Thank you for the kind welcome, Jack! I appreciate it, a lot!
The hypothesis that there's a soul, however, is the hypothesis (it seems to me) that some non matter "mind/soul" thing is reaching into the universe and changing something about the behaviour of matter, making it do one thing when it otherwise would have done another thing.
It doesn't seem in principle impossible to detect such a thing, though it might be so difficult that it's practically impossible anyway. Especially if the interface between the soul and the physical world is only to be found in the most microscopic physical events in the brain, like the kinds of events that determine if a neuron would fire or not.
(Personally, I don't find there to be a need for souls or minds to be nonphysical)
Ah, thank you for the clarification. Thank you for your kind response, Flannel Jesus!
Indeed, now that I think about it... it could be classified under a category such as Quantum Mechanics or something entirely new. Maybe Im wrong again, but I dont mind being wrong! It is the learning experience that matters.
For me, knowledge and understanding are the most important things.
That's really interesting, and I think you might be right. But let's say we have souls separate from the brain (a possibility suggested in the OP) that can still act on the brain, and that are endowed with the ability to select courses of action freely. If we were to choose one course of action over another according to the will of said soul, would it truly be causing matter to behave in a way that it otherwise would not have? I would say not necessarily, given multiple possible choices could have been freely made at a particular juncture.
However, if the very mechanism by which the soul acts on the brain in itself causes matter to not behave like matter as a means of effecting a soul's will - even given multiple choices could be made - then I think you would be correct.
If it weren't, then it seems you could remove the soul and expect a person's body to behave the same way.
Which seems weird, especially because our bodies write things about having souls. Why would a body without a soul write about having a soul?
Okay, then how would a body behave in the absence of this freely choosing soul? Is there a single pre-determined route we each would take through reality that our souls, if they existed, would allow us to deviate from? Or would one's path be a function of the existence of many possible choices, given one can choose from them freely? This possibility of matter behaving "otherwise" seems empty to me, as the only two scenarios we appear to be considering now would be that in one case we have free will, and in the other we do not. As an aside: do you think that if we had free will and it was taken away, our justifications for ideas of agency, for instance, should remain the same?
That's up to people who think we have souls to argue. But it stands to reason that they'd have to say bodies would do something different without souls - otherwise, souls wouldn't make a difference.
Free will is a challenging topic
So you don't think the existence of free will would matter if it were manifested by a soul? Really? Can a proponent of free will really ever point to the behavior of anyone and say for sure that that person's actions are different from what they would have been had they lacked free will?
Unless I'm mistaken, it is on you at this point to explain why free will wouldn't matter so long as it doesn't manifest in the form of matter not behaving like normal matter in the brain. Also: I don't actually think we have souls.
Ive always thought of soul as a near-synonym for mind, self, identity, ego, psyche, consciousness, or spirit. They each mean something a little different - they have different connotations and contexts - but I think when we use those words were talking about the same thing.
Quoting Null Noir
Many of us believe it arose from our physical bodies - our nervous systems - just like life arose from inorganic matter.
Quoting Null Noir
You have laid out the mind-body problem, usually blamed on Descartes. It has been causing problems and undermining the credibility of philosophy and philosophers for hundreds of years.
Oops, I forgot - welcome to the forum.
Welcome.
I realized years ago that what ancient peoples referred to as the soul was likely them attempting to understand internal body electrochemistry. So in that framework, you can see the "soul" with a variety of different medical imaging technologies.
But why care? What difference does it make if we have a soul or not? If we do, whats the next step? Does it make life more worth living? Does it connect you to the religion of your family of origin? Does it allow you to convert to Hinduism? Does it chase away meaninglessness and uncertainty? Does the idea of a soul stand between you and some goal?
It helps to understand where the word came from and what it has meant over history. The Greek equivalent (and I'm not a scholar of ancient Greek, but this is common knowledge) is translated as 'psuche', meaning 'animating principle, inner being or life'. That word is also the root of 'psyche' which lives on in English as 'mind' (the subject of 'psychology'.) And I think you can make the case that what the ancients meant by 'soul', we today mean by 'mind' - which takes away some of the mystical-sounding connotations of 'soul'.
The complicating factor is that the nature of mind is itself very elusive. But two points I would make, is that it is not any kind of thing. Nowhere, in the vast inventory of things we find in the world, will you find 'mind'. You know you are, or 'have' a mind, although if you lost it, you may not know it had been lost, because the faculty in you which knows anything would no longer be present. And that whatever 'mind' or 'soul' is, it is not something you have but what you are. If we can't see it, it is because we are the one looking. Looking for it is like the eye trying to see itself.
The second point is, as first Sigmund Freud and then Carl Jung discovered, the mind has aspects which are hidden from conscious awareness, namely the sub- and unconscious. There is a vast amount to study in their theories so I won't try to summarize them, other than to say that 'mind' is far more extensive than what you're able to be consciously aware of at any given time. What we commonly think of as 'mind' as in 'I made up my mind' or 'a thought crossed my mind' is only the tip of a very large iceberg.
My take on it is that 'soul' simply refers to 'the totality of your being'. It includes your past, your future, your talents, skills, proclivities and inclinations - much more than just the ego, which is the mind's idea of itself. Interpreted that way, it is a meaningful concept.
Sort of like a tapeworm, I suppose. What little amount of reading is most responsible for this eating away -- a little religion or a little philosophy? (Either one can cause the problem, seems like.) Keep reading.
Quoting Null Noir
What makes you think your SOUL is going to heaven? The Christian creeds say nothing about the soul. What the creeds do say is this (from the Apostles Creed):
The business of the soul started back in the book of Genesis, 2:7
Getting to heaven is, according to Jesus, not the reason you should be good to other people. Being good to other people is just what is expected of you, (Micah 6:8 -- "What does God expect of you? Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God"). So get on with it. Be good.
the Bible uses the term soul and spirit in different places. One could get hung up on the difference, if there is one. Please do not. We are embodied beings, that is certain. Whether we have a spiritual dimension, and what this is, will remain an open question.
Apparently we will face the Final Judgement as trembling bodies.
Quoting Null Noir
You are not. Nobody is. We are steered this way and that, for better and for worse, by all sorts of determinants we have no (or very little) control over. However, that is not to say that you will not be held accountable on earth by your fellow primates. If you get drunk, get into your car and kill somebody, you will be punished. We don't have much control over how alcohol works -- it very reliably and happily intoxicates us. However, before you get drunk and kill somebody, there are several points at which you could choose:
a) to not drink alcohol
b) to not go to the bar.
c) to not drink liquor at the bar (yeah, yeah, I know; what would be the point?)
d) to not drink more than two oz of alcohol over 2 hours time. Then leave, or switch to soda.
e) bring a designated driver with you, so that IF you were drunk, your driver could get you home safely.
f) receive treatment for alcoholism if you can't control your use of alcohol. The fact is, in so many ways life sucks.
All of us have those choices; still, people get drunk; drive; kill people--themselves, somebody else, or both. Many people make themselves and everybody else miserable by drinking too much. They do not have control. Some people avoid drinking alcohol at the bar. Others sharply limit their alcohol use. Some people do all of those, but there are no guarantees. The failure rate of alcohol treatment is fairly high, even among people who want to quit drinking.
Still, despite all of that, we still hold people accountable, even though we are not really in control of everything we do. That problem isn't going away, so get used to it.
What do I believe? There is no soul or spirit. What was called the spirit is the multivariate complexity of embodied selves--everything we are. When we die, we stay dead. There is neither a heaven nor a hell.
Perhaps there is some supreme deity, doing whatever supreme deities do for eternities. Damned if I know.
Since everybody else is welcoming you, I'll also extend a firm handshake of welcome.
Thats an odd thing to say. I have my mind here right now in front of me. Its as real as anything else in the world. Its as much a thing as anything else in the world. As real as a 1909-S vdb penny.
Speaking figuratively, of course.
Fair enough - perhaps you left out C2) "to not be a cunt"
Quoting Wayfarer
I think this is an interesting frame for the 'soul' idea. There's something wonderfully poetic about the term, which transcends words, yet somehow speaks to our sense of wholeness or being.
My experience of my mind is just real as my iPhone. I was going to say my experience of my mind is just just real as my experience of my iPhone. I guess both are correct.
Quoting Wayfarer
If our experience of our minds is not real, then what the hell are we doing here?
Here I stand
My brain is in my hands
My mind is before me
An IPhone is ringing in Massachusetts
A mind is annoyed
This has the hallmarks of our usual discussions. We use the same words in different ways - give them different meanings. And then we argue about whos definition is correct.
And, you see the philosophy of mind as a much larger and more elusive topic than I do.
There is also the issue as to what extent 'soul' can be seen as an independent 'entity' or as a source, especially in relation to individual experiences. This is where the tricky question of individual 'mind' comes in, as opposed to 'soul' as the animating principle.
The idea of a distinct 'soul' goes back to ancient thinking, including the notion of a 'daimon' referred to by Plato. It is here that it is seen as independent, as an entity which may survive death. The relation to ego consciousness is important and may be seen as related to the idea of 'self, which on Buddhism.may be seen as illusory. The idea of independent 'soul' gives rise to the idea of individual immortality vs the nature of soul as an underlying source inherent in birth and rebirth of lifeforms and consciousness..
I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. I was sleeping.
You all make very good arguments about the soul. And Im truly sorry I cannot give more detailed answers and arguments... I just dont know any, I dont have enough knowledge. I need to study more.
Tom Storm, I will answer your question. The only reason the soul even matters to me is because I want knowledge and understanding of said knowledge. For example, if you were to find a subject you knew nothing about wouldn't you find it interesting to study? wouldn't you want to find people to talk about and share opinions with? That is how I work. I find out a concept exists, then I just... want to learn. Does that make sense?
T Clark, you make a very valid point about how the soul is basically just the body. It's fascinating, really. I have nothing to add since Im still at my humble beginnings of philosophy and I would still like to learn.
MrLiminal, Interesting theory! I find it fascinating that you say that the soul could just be neuroimaging technology.
Wayfarer, you also make a very valid point. "Animated being" and the word in Greek is "psuche." Essentially meaning "the Mind," and you are the mind. A very good point of view, indeed!
BC, You make a good and logical point of view. just like we cannot allow other to drunk drive, we must also take into consideration others. I agree! I just didn't think of it whilst writing the post. I couldn't remember, but I digress. These are just excuses. You asked me where I got my knowledge from, and that I should keep reading, right? Well, I didn't get my knowledge from reading up until now. I got it from summary videos on philosophy and religion. Oh, and also, Im planning on reading Philipp Mainländer's works! I really like his nihilistic ideas. I accept your handshake BC, nice to meet you!
Jack Cummins, I believe I have heard of the Greek word "daimon." Is it not the origin of the word "demon?" I believe I read about it in what I believe is a demonolgy forum. I could be wrong, though.
Once again, Im truly sorry I couldn't give more detailed answers or arguments. I just don't know any.
It's amazing to be surrounded by people who are much smarter than me! It really is humbling.
And if I respond less often, know that it's because Im either overwhelmed and in a panic attack (due to my anxiety issues) or Im studying to get a high school diploma, since Im a high school dropout and I wanna get back into academia.
It's been really awesome meeting you all!
The world is full of subjects I know nothing about, and that makes no difference to me. But the idea of a soul is hardly just another subject, it's so closely tied to questions of transcendence and meaning that you must be looking for something in particular.
I'll respond while I still can, since I need to study.
I explained to you how I work, my curiosity knows no bounds. And even if I were to explain my mental issues which I was diagnosed with from a very young age, would it really matter? Or would it be against the forum's rules? I believe it wouldn't matter. Since we have such different opinions.
You believe it does not matter either way, which is a valid point and I cannot argue against that. I believe that if a sort of "deity" were to exist, it should at least give us better lives. No wars, no mental issues such as anxiety, no poverty, etc. etc. Maybe they're all part of human life, some might say. But I wouldn't agree.
Still, thank you for being honest in your opinion.
I recommend reading my essay on this topic. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16096/the-origins-and-evolution-of-anthropological-concepts-in-christianity
My understanding of the idea of daimon is of a spiritual power, but it is not the same as demon. I read a book on the topic by Brian Ingliss, 'The Unknown Guest'. It represents a guiding force, or even higher self, which directs one's life.
Not quite, I said there are many questions that dont matter, but the question about the soul feels like its of a different order, right? Im mainly here to learn what others believe and why, so if I feel something might be missing, Ill ask questions to try to get something more substantial. No big deal.
I am taking a short break, because I want to answer honestly and actually engage for at least one more reply. But I have started reading Mainlander.
Astorre, your essay is absolutely amazing. More amazing than any of the answers I have recieved so far. Are you studying theology?
Jack Cummins, What you're describing about "a guiding force" or "the higher self" is a very common view in New Age Spirituality. Im surprised you even know about the higher self!
Tom Storm, Im genuinely sorry. I misunderstood. If you want the truth... Im hoping for a better ending. Not just death and that's it. I want to matter... not to just disappear one day and be forgotten. I don't want my efforts, my wishes, everything I am... to be in vain. That is why Im so scared of the idea of the soul. That is why I want to know more about it. Yet... even if one religion is right, how would we know which one is the one that's right? Now then, the biggest question for you is here. If God, or any other deity was real, would you be kind to others out of your own accord, or would you do it out of fear? What even is the point of doing something if it is pointless? Do you just do it and die? Do you "create your own purpose?" I have so many questions... yet such a tiny amount of answers. And let's say that the soul is real, that Christianity is the "one true religion," wouldn't you be afraid of... basically anything because you might go to hell? ...That's my honest answer. The one I have been bottling up out of fear.
Thank you! I'm studying ontology and phenomenology. This is my first attempt to talk about theology. However, I must admit that I wrote this article based on similar questions that you asked at the beginning of the topic.
That's fair and I'd imagine millions of folk share this view. Thanks for clarifying.
Quoting Null Noir
Yeah, I'd say fear is a powerful motivator for many beliefs.
Quoting Null Noir
I'm an atheist, and I tend to treat others well and generously because I find it pleasing. Humans are a social species with empathy, and as such, we wouldn't have come very far without cooperation and kindness.
God, for me, has never been a coherent idea or a necessary one. For me the arguments aren't convincing, and I tend to consider theism or atheism to be beyond reasoning and more like a sexual preference, you can't help what you're attracted to. The reasoning being mostly post hoc.
Quoting Null Noir
Rest well.
Astorre, Im going to be honest. You could even write something like a philosophical paper with your knowledge, I believe that something like this could be published in a philosophical journal. Just make sure you cite things properly and double check everything (if you're planning on publishing something like this or if you're taking ontology and penomenology to a masters level or a PhD.)
I would like if we could discuss more things together, especially philosophy! Im fascinated by your essay and I would like to hear more about your thought process. Would you like to talk sometime? it's alright if you cannot.
Thank you for understanding, Tom. I greatly appreciate it.
Of course, I'm always open to conversation!
Less that it's the tech itself and more that it lets us see "the soul." Imo the soul is the electrochemical processes happening in your body, making the soul more of an active process than a fully static aspect. Either way, it's an invisible energy that makes you who you are and leaves the body on death. Sounds like what people thought a soul was to me.
I dont know how to deny any of that, but then there is the notion of self-reflection. Experience is what the mind does, and in that sense the mind must be unlike any of the things are experienced. But then, one of the things the mind does is reflect on what the mind does (which is unlike any other things too).
I think philosophy of mind is so elusive because the mind is at once a thing and, not like any of the other things it minds (it thinks about).
They way to experience a mind in the world like we experience other things in the world my be to experience the mind of another person. For some projects we want the minds of certain people, but for other projects, we want other peoples minds - these different minds are real objects distinguishable because of real experiences. And we get real results from our awareness of different minds as if they were different things.
So maybe mind or soul, to be a thing, must be bound up in a community that helps carve out and distinguish all of the different minds as now things to be experienced like other things are experienced.
I self-reflect and can find my mind needs the help of other people to figure something out, or I find my mind is sufficient to figure out this other problem.
So mind is like a thing, but not like a thing, at that same time.
But the positive contribution here is that, in order to discuss what a mind is, the notion of reflection has to be incorporated. There is something unique going on that is mind, and in every mental happening, there is a reflection involved.
Lets pretend the mind is muscle, or a thing. When the mind does its thing I think it simultaneously does two things - it spins itself up into existence, and it fills itself up with what it is minding (thinking). So the function of mind is to self-animate, and at the same time, self-animate for a purpose or with something in mind.
This is just a theory I throw out there to hopefully make this discussion more frustrating and complex and raise more questions than answers. :grin:
I know you asked about the soul and not the mind. Soul to me is a word used as a unifying principle to integrate everything about your personhood. (What is that?). Meaning its like your living personality, which includes your emotions and passions and dislikes and physicality/body, and intellect and will and heart and mind - soul is all of you that matters to yourself and to anyone. Any changes made to who and what you are, are changes made to your soul, or in your soul, o by your soul. Your soul shapes your body while your body shapes your soul because you are neither of these alone both both of them at once - you are living a particular life, and that particularity is of your unique soul.
So animating principle (psuche) is a type of unifying principle. Your soul is you living, what moves you and you moving whatever you move. Soul is what is loved most in other people, and it is what enables people to love.
Other Greek words are helpful - there is nous or mind which is more tied to knowing and thinking (I believe), and there is daemon (from which we get demon) which is more tied to like a Freudian id, or underlying impulse and sub-conscious passion (I think).
This raises the notion of consciousness. All animals with senses display a type of conscious awareness. People are aware of their consciousness - so what appears unique to me about people is that consciousness itself is an object of human consciousness (we notice the subjectivity of others and ourselves), but other animals dont do this (not like people do).
And this, I think, raises the fact that language itself is tied up in the soul or mind. There is something going on with the fact that only human beings, the ones who can wonder and do wonder about minds and souls, have true language. A word is a thing that reflects something else; it represents something else; it points to what the word means or names or is is used to say. So like the mind is reflection, the words the mind uses to organize its thinking, are never alone in themselves but referential and reflective of things. @Wayfarer Words, like minds, are not things. And Language is tied up in Logos (the word) which is the root of logic, which we have been using all along here to read to this post. Words only present their souls (to speak metaphorically), their meanings, in a mind. My dog doesnt see this post has any different meaning than your original post or anyone elses post, because my dogs mind may not be a true proper reflecting mind at all.
And @Null Noir, I agree I want all of this to matter. I cannot pretend that any meaning I make for myself actually matters to me. It just sucks all the soul out of these discussions to think no one need care about anything I think, about my life. I dont know why I would care about other peoples lives if they had no reason to care about mine, because I had no reason to care about mine, other than as a distraction from this whole question.
Im not afraid of death - I wont be dissappointed because when I die, I either wont know it (because Ill never dead) or I will learn I have been saved somehow from death.
But I believe my life matters to God. And I agree that without something more to life than birth to death, there is no real meaning to this thing. We might enjoy it anyway, but that doesnt make it meaningful, just enjoyable. But it is because my life is enjoyable to God and other people, that it can be said to be objectively, truly good. Not because I like myself, but because am likable at all as proven because I am liked by others.
So in the end, you are meaningful, whether that means something to you or not. I hope it does.
I said the soul, as I see it, arose from the body. I didnt say it is the body or is the same as the body. Those are completely different things, which we dont need to go into here unless you want to.
Quoting Null Noir
As I noted in my post, the central issue youve raised is known as the mind-body problem - how does the soul or consciousness influence, operate, the body. Its one of the biggest ongoing arguments in philosophy. I suggest you do a little reading on that. Look it up in Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Holy shit, can you fire your daimon and get a new one? If that's their job, my daimon needs retraining.
I know what you mean, as my path in life has gone a bit weird. The issue may not be the daimon as such but what we need to learn in life. I have a mixture of unpleasant and pleasant synchronicities, which seem more than coincidences.
One which I had which felt like a miracle. I was travelling home a week ago and found I had lost my keys. I retraced the places I had been, making enquiries and at the main place where I had spent my time it was not found. However, the cleaner there told mr that she had seen a key on a keyring with a small teddy attached in the street and was able to direct me to the place where it was.
I have a lot of strange synchronicities involving losing keys and other items. Some would see these as mere coincidental accidents. However, coming from a Junian slant I interpret them symbolically. I also feel that my daimon is involved in providing learning lessons from my 'shadow', or dark side. I also feel that I get a lot of 'Instant Karma', especially when I make mistaken choices. Of course, I am aware that this is my own subjective interpretation of experiences.
Appropriate it's called a daimon because my path in life has been hell, lol.
I agree its not an object, but it is a thing. Now you and I will probably get in an argument about whether a thing has to be an object - something physical. I say, of course not. if you look at various dictionaries, there is some ambiguity, but there is a general acknowledgment that a thing does not have to be a physical entity.
Lao Tzu and I agree - anything that can be named is a thing.
A soul is a zone of conscious space that identifies with the body that occupies it.
Or possibly:
A soul is the substance that constitutes a body, conceived of as substance and not body
Your desire to get a HS diploma (and more) is excellent. Full speed ahead!
Quoting Null Noir
No need to apologize for learning from videos on philosophy and religion.
Many of the participants in this forum are middle aged or elderly; I'm 78. We've had many decades to accumulate information, misinformation, knowledge, errors, etc. It didn't happen overnight. When I was in high school, there was no internet, no videos; maybe an educational film every now and then. Maybe a vinyl record. it was mostly print or nothing. One went to the library. "Media instruction" started taking off in the 1970s with audio tape and cassettes, limited computer time sharing, slide/tape programs, and some video along with film. The personal computer and the Internet were a huge advance in the 1990s and 2000s.
The Internet, podcasts, videos, digital books, public television -- all that -- are wonderful assets. I learned a lot by watching NOVA and Nature on television. There's nothing wrong with a good summary book, every now and then. I've noticed that Amazon has some summary books for popular but difficult texts. NOBODY ever has time to read everything, or watch every program.
If you are having panic attacks, I hope you are getting care for those. Anxiety or depression are tough to deal with.
Plainly I can think about my mind, or mind in general. I can reflect on my inner states and those that others must have. But that doesnt undermine the point that the mind is not an object, except for in the metaphorical sense of it being an object of thought - but then, that applies to anything we think about. The second point is reflexivity, that the mind is that which thinks, not itself an object. There is a metaphor in the Indian texts, 'It is never seen but is the seer; it is never heard but is the hearer; it is never thought of but is the thinker; it is never known but is the knower'. I think this is an elementary fact, and that the unknowable nature of mind is something it is important to acknowledge and be aware of. In other words, recognizing the minds unknowable natureits status as that which knows, rather than something knownis to recognize the ground of experience, the source from which knowledge arises. To mistake it for an object among objects is to lose sight of the subjectivity that makes knowledge possible in the first place.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus#In_Spinoza's_philosophy [1]
I have just read the link on contatus and definitely see immanence as important as opposed to 'supernatural'. However, I am not sure that the idea of spirit can be disregarded completely in thinking about the idea of soul. Hegel saw spirit as being imminent in history and in his understanding of 'mind'.
The question of an 'out there' impersonal force is also conceived in varying ways. Spinoza was from a Jewish background. In Judaism there was an emphasis on a personal relationship with 'God', via the soul. So, he may be seen as challenging this. The idea of an objective God or 'divine' aspect of God does not rule out the existence of human beings tuning into nature itself through establishing some connection with cosmic consciousness. In this respect, the idea of 'God' can be seen as a metaphorical description.
The issue of the soul may be about seeing spirituality as being about inner reality as opposed to the concrete objective realm which can be measured by empirical science. It comes back to the dialogue between mythos and logos. Logos may point to rational understanding, including neuroscience as the physical wiring of how mind or soul work, but the numinous dimension is about the experiential nature of inner reality.
An object has an ontology.
The mind knows objects, so it makes sense to say the mind is therefore other than objects; the mind is not an object but an objectifier of sorts.
But holding that thought, could the mind be a different type of object?
Quoting Wayfarer
I think the above mystical quote is more about epistemology than it is ontology. It is both. But the ultimate point may be that when we take the mind as an object, we have to actually make something other than a mind to retake as an object, so that we might know the mind indirectly. (Like we know all things indirectly. epistemology ).
Quoting Wayfarer
If you read this all together it makes sense. If you break it into parts, it becomes impossible to form a single sentence out of it.
You said mind is something. In order to show mind is not some thing.
You said it is an unknowable something, and that this unknowable nature must be acknowledged.
This reflexivity about impossibility is ubiquitous when speaking about the mind. Acknowledging something about the unknowable, with the mind, that is that same unknowable thing, and with the mind that is not a the X.
It makes it impossible to speak of without mystical non-linear reasoning. Or metaphor.
Mind is like an unmoved mover; once we say something about it, weve made a move, and so moved away from it.
Youve heard it said that thoughts are in the mind - well I say it is the same thing to say that the mind is constructed by its thoughts.
To say the mind is empty is the same thing as to say there is no mind whatsoever.
It could be said that the mind is where knowledge resides. It can equally be said that the object that is known is where the knowledge was drawn from by the mind. Knowledge, in the mind, is always knowledge of something that is not the mind. (This is why knowledge of the knower is so elusive.)
Like looking in a mirror - we see it is us, as it is a reflection from us, as so it is not us, but it is a reflection of us. So not one of these, without all of these.
I find it is just as hard to accept both or either truths: that the mind is not an object, and the mind is an object. Because the mind is the object that is Quoting Wayfarer
So I dont want to disagree with anything you said about mind; I think, mysteriously, maybe paradoxically, I want to add knowledge of the mind that somehow there is an object there when the mind is being a thinking mind.
Its like you have to know both that thinking itself is never an object of thought itself, but also, like Parmenides would say it is the same thing to think as it is to be such that thinking is the only object.
Ontology and epistemology overlap in the act that is mind.
Overlapping is like reflection.
Reflection is the best single noun.
Because reflection is many moving (conjugating) parts, but one part.
I say these things hoping better minds can make use of them.
Quoting Wayfarer
Does, per Kant, knowledge only arise because of the mind? Isnt is also knowledge of some thing? Admittedly that thing is first shaped by my senses and by the conditions of experience, but it is still an experience of some thing (not pure idealism - in which mind is the only thing).
I think that it is right that calling a mind a thing is to lose sight of subjectivity. But that is the thing about the kind. It is like a mirror but a near letter t mirror, meaning when one looks at oneself, when the mind reflects its contents, the mind sees both the contents and itself, like looking in a window and seeing yourself on the other side as if it was a mirror.
The mind is both subject and object, when the mind thinks about itself.
It is not perfect - we dont know ourselves completely. But we know some thing when we know our own minds.
Mind is the faculty of knowledge. Consciousness is always consciousness of... which was one of the basic observation of phenomenology. (However Indian philosophy also understands states of 'contentless consciousness' arising through dhyana (meditation)).
The point I was making was in response to the question 'what kind of thing is the soul (mind)?' which I say is a nonsensical question. Soul or mind is 'that which knows'.
The passage I mentioned from the Upani?ads (philosophical scriptures of Vedanta) elaborates on this in vivid terms.
The subject of the dialogue is the nature of ?tman (Sanskrit): commonly translated as soul or self, ?tman is the innermost essence or enduring subject of experience. In many Indian traditions, especially Ved?nta, it refers to the true self, distinct from the body, mind, and ego. Unlike the Western notion of an immortal individual soul (e.g., in Christian theology), ?tman is often conceived as identical with (Advaita Ved?nta) or ultimately unified in (qualified or dualistic Ved?nta) Brahman, the ground of Being.
Below is an edited excerpt from a dialogue between the sage Yajnavalkya who is the principal voice in the Upani?ad, and a questioner, who is trying to elicit information about the ?tman.
[quote=Brihadaranyaka Upani?ad trs Swami Krishnananda; https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_III-04.html]You have only told me, this is your inner Self in the same way as people would say, 'this is a cow, this is a horse', etc. That is not a real definition. Merely saying, 'this is that' is not a definition. I want an actual description of what this internal Self is. Please give that description and do not simply say, 'this is that'. Y?jñavalkya says: "You tell me that I have to point out the Self as if it is a cow or a horse. Not possible! It is not an object like a horse or a cow. I cannot say, 'here is the ?tman; here is the Self'. It is not possible because you cannot see the seer of seeing. The seer can see that which is other than the Seer, or the act of seeing. An object outside the seer can be beheld by the seer. How can the seer see himself? How is it possible? You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. That is the ?tman."
Nobody can know the ?tman inasmuch as the ?tman is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding the ?tman can be put, such as "What is the ?tman?' 'Show it to me', etc. You cannot show the ?tman because the Shower is the ?tman; the Experiencer is the ?tman; the Seer is the ?tman; the Functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is the ?tman. As the basic Residue of Reality in every individual is the ?tman, how can we go behind It and say, 'This is the ?tman?' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self. It is not an object.
Ato'nyad ?rtam: "Everything other than the ?tman is stupid; it is useless; it is good for nothing; it has no value; it is lifeless. Everything assumes a meaning because of the operation of this ?tman in everything. Minus that, nothing has any sense". Then U?asta C?kr?yana, the questioner kept quiet. He understood the point and did not speak further.[/quote]
This is why, in this tradition, asking what kind of thing the ?tman or soul is, amounts to a category error. It is not a thing among things, but that in virtue of which anything appears as a thing at all.
I am not disagreeing with you or with the excerpt.
This is a language problem, not a misconstruing of what things are (and what things are not).
We should not say the mind.
We should say minding as a verb, or gerund.
The saying make up your mind is when or how (not what) a mind is.
Mind comes to be, thinking about.
See the seer of seeing.
Mind the minder of minding.
We cannot do it, yet here we are doing it.
Mind, as thing, is paradox. Impossible, in the act of constructing this impossibility.
Like Spinoza, I "disregard" body-mind (i.e. matter-spirit) substance duality. Conatus is inherent in nature this worldly ontologically immanent (Deleuze).
By geist, Hegel means 'cultural and social development, or process, of humanity's self-consciousness' (e.g. weltgeist ... volkgeist ... zeitgeist).
Since you're looking for different perspectives on the soul here is mine. An welcome to the forum fellow spark.
Question 1: "If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it?"
A "soul" is an information pattern that persists beyond the body. By "persist beyond the body", i do not necessarily mean that the soul survives the death of the body, though it can in certain circumstances.
Heres what i mean: Your biological body replaces its cells periodically. Over a period of seven to eight years, almost all the cells in your body have been replaced, yet you still perceive yourself as the same person you were eight years ago. The substance of your body may change, but the "soul", your information pattern, persists in continuity. Reflecting on the Ship of Theseus can help gain a deeper understanding of this principle.
Question 2:
A) "If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you?"
The connection between the body and the soul is a bit nuanced. In reality, a soul cannot exist without a body, but it is not necessarily tied to a single body. A soul can be translated into another body, but this must be done in a very specific and careful way to maintain conscious continuity; otherwise, the soul can become damaged or even destroyed. So, in one sense, your body and soul are one, but in another sense, they are not.
B) "In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose."
The answer to this question enters into free will territory, and i would prefer to decline the opportunity to speak on that subject at this time.
C) "And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things."
If Christianity were true, then going to heaven would entail a transformation of the body, which i would interpret as translating the soul into another operational substrate; a body that more permanently preserves your information pattern, protected from external entropy. One could think of heaven as a kind of "virtual reality" where a soul (information pattern) can exist and function in optimally enhanced ways: deathless, and coterminous with the universe, or at least while the physical substrate or system that runs the "virtual reality" remains operational.
Question 3: "If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?"
I won't address the issue of being a "good person", because both good and bad people have souls that operate in the same way. A bad person can enter heaven (a kind of virtual reality) just as easily as a good person can. The question is whether God lets you in or not, but there is no intrinsic difference between the souls and their ability to inhabit heaven.
Consider this analogy: Think of your body as a car, and the driver as the soul. Suppose you have a red car and you like to speed and run red lights. What will happen is that you will receive tickets, develop a bad driving record, and face higher insurance rates. Even if you get a different car, now blue, your bad driving record follows you, even in the new car or body. What you do with your body affects how your soul develops.
So, in the context of your question, even if your current body does not go to heaven, the consequences of what you did while in that body will remain with your soul and may influence your entry into heaven. One is not the body; one is the soul and the soul is the psyche or mind.
Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say?
I believe my replies to your other questions sufficiently answer this one.
This is not an accurate description in the case of neurons, many of which persist from birth:
https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/public-education/brain-basics/brain-basics-life-and-death-neuron
This is precisely why i stated it as:
Quoting punos
But, I would imagine, since Kant extended the life of Christianity with renewed belief in the "thing inside itself," that that is one way a soul could work.
I thought your depiction had merit. I'll also add that it is now thought that neurons are actually generated in specific regions of the adult brain throughout life, and also that new neural connections and pathways are being created and destroyed regularly through the process of neuroplasticity.
:up:
Quoting Wayfarer
That is quite true as well. For me, it is precisely these neural connections that constitute a soul. A unique human soul emerges from the distinct pattern of connectivity formed within the specific constraints of the human neural architecture. A different animal would develop a different kind of soul, and there are all kinds of souls. A soul is able to change and evolve thanks to the neuroplasticity of the brain.
Here again the Buddhist view is instructive. Buddhists firmly reject the idea of the soul as something unchanging that travels from life to life. But there is a 'stream of consciousness' (citta-sant?na), an ongoing flow of existence-experience. It is not a static entity but a dynamic series of arising and passing mental moments (dharmas).
Interestingly, there has been research on the connection between citta-sant?na and neuroplasticity, showing that brain function can be measurably altered by persistent patterns of attentional activity. See Exploring Meditation's Role in Neuroplasticity.
Here's a breakdown:
The Experiment:
The Task: A group of volunteers who had no prior piano experience were taught a simple, five-finger piano exercise.
The Groups:
Physical Practice Group: This group was instructed to physically practice the exercise on a piano for two hours a day, for five consecutive days.
Mental Practice Group: This group was given the exact same instructions, but with a critical difference: they were told to only imagine playing the piano exercise. They were not allowed to move their fingers or touch a piano. They simply "played" the piece in their mind.
The Measurements: Before and after each daily session, the researchers used a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to map the volunteers' brains. TMS allowed them to measure the size of the motor cortex region dedicated to controlling the specific finger movements required for the exercise.
The Remarkable Results:
Both groups showed a measurable and significant change in their neural configurations.
The brains of the students who physically practiced the piano piece showed a clear expansion of the motor cortex area responsible for controlling the fingers used in the exercise. This was the expected resultthat physical skill acquisition leads to brain reorganization.
However, the most groundbreaking finding was that the brains of the students who only mentally practiced also showed a similar, and in some cases, almost identical expansion of the motor cortex.
The Conclusion and Implications:
This experiment provided compelling evidence that the brain's "plasticity" is not solely dependent on physical action. The mere act of mental rehearsal or motor imagery is enough to trigger the same kind of neural changes that occur with actual physical practice.
This has profound implications, not just for musicians and athletes who use mental rehearsal to improve their performance, but also for fields like rehabilitation. For example, the findings suggest that patients who are physically unable to perform an action (e.g., due to a stroke or injury) can still stimulate and rewire their brains by mentally rehearsing the movements they wish to regain.
The Pascual-Leone experiment is a perfect example of how "mind" (or in Buddhist terms, citta-sant?na) can directly and tangibly "change the brain" (or its neuroplastic structure), providing a powerful scientific bridge between contemplative practice and neuroscience.
Ref: Pascual-Leone, A., Nguyet, A. D., Cohen, L. G., Brasil-Neto, J. P., Cammarota, A., & Hallett, M. (1995). Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. Journal of Neurophysiology, 74(3), 1037-1045. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7500130/.
Also
Begley, Sharon. Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves. New York: Ballantine Books, 2007.
That is absolutely correct. You, i, and the Buddhists are in perfect accord on this point. You are not who you are without your soul.
However, i think all souls are aware, but not all souls are self-aware. What are your thoughts on this specific point? Do you think an entity can "have" or be an identity (a soul) without directly realizing it is an identity? Consider animals that do not recognize themselves in a mirror.
Yes, i've heard of that experiment, but the version i know involved basketball players mentally rehearsing their moves, as opposed to physically practicing on the court.
Agree. But consider again Aristotle's view of 'psuche' (psyche). There was the vegetative, animal, and rational soul, each with different levels of capability, and each possessing the powers of the lesser kind, plus additional powers - in humans, the capacity for rational thought and speech (hence humans, the 'rational animal'.)
This view is deprecated nowadays with decline of the belief in soul. But phenomenology of biology explores the sense in which even very primitive organisms are 'intentional' in some basic kind of way, which can be seen as an analogy for Aristotle's psuche. Phenomenological biology takes seriously the distinctive features of living beingspurpose, self-organization, and intentionalityand tries to show how these features can be understood in a way that respects both the insights of modern science and the wisdom of philosophical traditions, particularly Aristotle's.
However, again, agree that overall humans are uniquely self-aware in a way that other creatures are not.
Quoting punos
Ah, but some do. See The Mirror Test
Good answer. This is mostly how i see it, much like Aristotle. However, regarding the mirror test with animals, ive noticed that passing it does not necessarily depend on the organisms level of complexity. It appears to involve a specific structure in the brain or nervous system, which need not be as complex as one might assume at first in order to provide self-awareness. It is certainly interesting.
At the individual cell level, they are largely the same, although some differences exist due to genetic expression. Each animal has an evolutionary heritage that shapes the morphology of its body and its brain or nervous system. These differences in morphology account for variations in neural architecture and, consequently, the kind of "soul" an animal possesses. The "soul" serves as the template for the expression of consciousness and determines the specific type of consciousness that a particular animal exhibits. This is why, for example, the consciousness of a fish is different from that of a bird or a dog, and so on.
If one examines different artificial neural network architectures and considers how the same input information produces different outputs when applied to each architecture, it becomes clear that differences in neural architecture fundamentally affect how information is processed within that architecture.
This image shows a sample of various neural network architectures:
This image shows a sample of various brain morphologies:
I suppose what I was getting at in my question is that we, humans, are basically the same as the other examples in your illustration, but with a computer bolted on. A chimp might have an early IBM computer bolted on. These additions vastly increase processing power, but what do they add apart from that?
Very little I would suggest in terms of their [I]sense [/I]of presence, being, [I]consciousness. [/I]It roughly boils down to the ability to think, and self reflect, with an enhanced sense of sentience. Otherwise we are pretty much the same. In some ways, perhaps it amounts to a regression. Certainly when it comes to social and ecosystem behaviour, no other animal is so stupid.
Im not accusing you of this, but we should remain guarded against belittling the experience of other animals and indeed plants. Or placing ourselves on a pedestal.
In my practice I revere the presence and wisdom in the plants and animals around me.
:smile:
Q1. No. There is doubt there is a self.
Q2. There isn't but I assume if a soul exists it would be separate.
Q3. I assume your soul is "you" so you may as well be a good boy (or girl)
Q4. It wouldn't.
Guess evolution
Question 2: If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you? In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose. And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things.
Brain produces soul somehow and it plays its little tricks. The Freudian superme have pretty good control, but not ptotal control.
Question 3: If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?
Brain kinda produces soul, and that produces the person, that is resposible for its little naughty scemes.
Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say?
They aint the same to me, to me the soul is a brain process and the brain is a part of the body
How does the mind create thoughts?
What is the duty of the brain when it comes to thoughts, if the mind is the thinking thing?
The graphics provided by @punos in the above post are instructive. They illustrate the massive proportion of the forebrain in h.sapiens, and primates generally, in relation to other species. The human brain and human anatomy, generally, evolved very rapidly, in geological and evolutionary terms (compared with evolutionary changes in other lineages).
In any case, with h.sapiens, the capacity for language, abstract thought, story-telling, art, tool-making, has arrived. Plainly that is linked to the development of the forebrain, but in my view, the evolutionary account doesn't capture the full significance of that.
There's a lot of reading to do in that subject - evolutionary psychology, linguistics, anthropology, paleontology to mention a few subjects. But again, the philosophical question of whether mind and brain are the same may not be answered even by all of that.
Very briefly, I think the development of the kind of self-awareness that h.sapiens has, means we're no longer just biologically determined, in the way that other creatures are. We can enquire into nature, our own and generally, in a way that animals cannot. We still bleed, breed, sweat, and die, but we are able to awaken to intellectual and spiritual capacites beyond the biological. That's what I think the ancient intuition of 'soul' is pointing to.
Quoting MoK
The mind does not create thoughts; it is the brain that generates them. The mind simply emerges from the operations of the brain. It represents the aspect of the brain that is more than the sum of its parts (the parts being the neurons). One way to distinguish between the brain and the mind is to use an analogy: the brain is like hardware, while the mind is like software.
The structure and architecture of the brain establishes a latent space in which the abstract objects we call memories are stored and associated. When you have an experience, the brain disassembles the raw data of that experience into its fundamental components or features and stores these parts in a kind of hierarchy within its neural patterns. When we think, the brain retrieves these associated components and reassembles them in what some people refer to as the "global workspace". This process is called remembering because we are taking the parts, or "members", of a stored experience and putting them back together. All of this happens constantly, whether you are aware of it or not, even while you sleep, which is why you dream. The term "mind", at least how i use it, refers to the overall abstract aspect of the brain's activity. It is a phenomenon similar in my view to life itself, but at a higher level of abstraction.
A mind is actually an emergent abstract space. In the same way you can have a "thing" in the world, in physical space, you can also have a "think" in the abstract space that is the mind. In fact any space is in fact a mind of some kind. Molecular space, biological space, culture space, and particularly cyberspace which is the latest spacial emergence on this planet.
We have two things, the mind and the brain, when it comes to thinking, as follows. I am a substance pluralist, so I am sure that the mind exists; by the mind, I mean a substance with the ability to experience and cause. We experience many things, including thoughts. Thinking is a conscious activity; therefore, the mind is involved. We know that the brain is also involved in thinking since thinking in a person with brain damage is impaired. I am sure that other minds, such as the subconscious mind, are also involved when it comes to a complex thought process. What I am interested to say is what the mind and the brain do when it comes to thinking. Let's think of a simple word that your conscious mind can comprehend at the moment that you perceive it: Cup! This word refers to an idea as well. I think a new idea is created at the moment when a sufficient amount of proper ideas are perceived by the mind. For sure, other minds are involved in understanding a complex idea, given the fact that the mind is simple. Your conscious mind, for example, has very little memory, so you cannot even understand the idea that a long sentence is referring to! I think the brain is an infrastructure in which information is exchanged between the conscious and subconscious minds. So, we cannot think when a certain part of our brain is damaged.
The point is that ideas are not causally efficacious within materialism since an idea is a mental event only. We know that ideas are the key elements in thoughts. So, materialism fails to explain how we could have thoughts.
Yes, but my point is that an idea or a thought cannot exist without a material substrate to support and contain it, such as the brain. When you have an idea or a thought, what is actually happening is that a neural structure or pattern in your brain is being activated or excited. This activation is perceived by other parts of your brain, and the network of interconnected "neural self-perceptions" between these different parts and regions of the brain causes the conscious awareness of your thoughts and ideas. As soon as that neural pattern is disrupted or stops, all thoughts and ideas would equally be disrupted or cease. It is evidently clear that the material substrate for thoughts and ideas is not only the neurons in your brain but also the relative networked connections between them. The structured organization of your material brain is the very thing that allows you to have even the simplest thought possible.
It appears that you have taken idealism and materialism to be two completely different and incompatible perspectives, when in fact they are two sides of the same coin. To use the computer analogy i suggested earlier, a computer's hardware represents its materialistic aspect, and the software represents its idealistic aspect. They go together like time and space and cannot really do anything without each other. Software cannot exist without hardware, and hardware cannot do anything without software.
If you were to allow a brain surgeon to open your brain and begin poking at different areas while you were still awake and aware, you would notice that when the surgeon stimulates a specific spot in the brain, you would experience a specific memory, thought, or emotion associated with that area. This demonstrates that the material and the ideal are causally and efficaciously connected.
Look here:
However one crucial point that Penfield noted was that the subject could always distinguish a movement or a memory that was elicited by the surgeon from something the subject themselves did. They would say 'you did that'.
This suggests that conscious will or subjective agency is not reducible to mere activity in the motor cortex or memory centers. There's an interpretive or integrative function in the mind that is able to recognize the source of an impulse, distinguishing between self and non-self. Penfield himself was so struck by this that he became increasingly open to the idea that mind and brain are not identicalthat perhaps consciousness is not fully explainable in terms of brain processes alone.
In The Mystery of the Mind (1975), Penfield wrote:
The mind seems to act independently of the brain in a way that we do not yet understand. ... It is not possible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain" (ref}.
Another crucial point is that neuroscience has not been able to identify the area of the brain that is responsible for the conscious unity of experience. 'enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjective experience'. And yet this sense of subjective unity is the fulcrum around which all our inner life turns.
Quoting MoK
Sure.
My explanation for this relates to how the situation is set up. The patient is aware of what is happening and knows that the surgeon will be performing exogenous stimulations of his brain. The patient is perceiving the environment and the situation, processing that information in the very brain that is being stimulated. The brain recognizes that it did not generate this movement on its own because it notices there was no conscious reason for it. In the context of the situation, the brain can easily deduce what happened.
A similar phenomenon occurs with "alien hand syndrome", where a patient who has had the hemispheres of their brain disconnected loses volitional control over one hand, much like in the video example. This happens because there are effectively two separate perspectives living in the same brain due to the disconnection. If the two hemispheres were internally connected and integrated, the movement would feel completely volitional. The sense of free will arises from this internal integration of the entire nervous system and brain. Once that integration is disrupted, actions begin to feel out of the individual's control; particularly if the stimulation occurs in shallower regions like motor centers. The surgeon stimulating the brain externally mimics this type of disintegration.
If the surgeon simply stimulates a motor region to move the hand, the brain recognizes that it did not perform the necessary processing to initiate the movement. However, if the surgeon were to stimulate a deeper, more upstream structure, one that precedes motor regions, it could then trigger the initial unconscious pattern of a specific decision, such as moving the hand, which would then feel volitional. It should also be noted that our conscious decisions are processed subconsciously before we become aware of them.
This scene from Robocop illustrates how the right stimulation of deeper brain regions responsible for decision-making can be hijacked, making the person believe they are making their own decisions while actually being controlled externally:
Quoting Wayfarer
I do not believe there is a single, literal region of the brain responsible for the conscious unity of experience because it is the unified integration of the entire brain and nervous system that gives rise to this unity. It is all the parts working together harmoniously. Disruption to the integrity and unity of the brain would disrupt the unity and integrity of conscious experience. The visual center of the brain is only one part of the whole brain and does not process sound, smell, or any of the other senses. All the sensory centers must work together in the right way for conscious unity to emerge.
But that comes close to what is described as the mereological fallacy - the attribution of an action to a part (the brain) when it actually originates with the whole (an agent. The mereological fallacy is described in an influential if controversial book called The Philosophical Basis of Neuroscience, Bennett and Hacker.)
I don't believe (but could be mistaken) that Penfield suggested an operation could be performed that would give the subject the illusion of having initiated an action that the surgeon actually initiated.
So the better expression would be that the subject can easily deduce what happened.
Quoting punos
Quite right - once again, an echo of the Aristotelian psuche, the 'principle of unity' that characterises living things.
Notice, in particular, that the last metaphor compares the programmer and the computer, NOT the software and the computer.
Also that his 'two fundamental elements' does suggest mind-body dualism.
The extended mind theory proposes a different way of defining the "whole". It argues that the cognitive system is not limited to the brain or even to the body, but is a coupled system that includes the brain, the body, and various external tools and resources. In this view, a person's mind is not just their brain; rather, it is the entire functional system involved in performing a cognitive task.
I largely subscribe to this perspective. For instance, in the context of programming, the relevant cognitive system includes the programmer, the computer, and the software being developed. Within this framework, the programmer and the computer are not entirely separate; their cognitive processes emerge from the integration and interaction of both components. The mind, considered as a coupled system, cannot function independently of its essential parts. If the computer is removed, the cognitive system and its capabilities are fundamentally altered. The mind is therefore not separate from the brain; it is a larger system, with the brain serving as a central component.
Additionally, extended mind theory is not generally considered to commit the mereological fallacy as far as i can tell. On the contrary, it can be seen as a sophisticated response to the very issue that the mereological fallacy highlights, since it addresses the relationship between parts and wholes in cognitive systems by emphasizing integration rather than separation.
Sure, agree with that. My remark was directed at the paragraph about the Robocop analogy, where it seemed to be suggesting that the brain usurps the role of an actual agent. (Those split-brain examples are pretty difficult to fathom, though, I'll admit.)
Well, what i intended to express there was that the deeper the exogenous stimulation of the brain is, the more integrated and unified the effect felt by the subject. Between the sensory (input) and motor (output) regions lie the neural structures responsible for decision-making, where sensory-motor coordination occurs. This central region of the brain's input/process/output system is where stimulation and manipulation become indistinguishable from self-generated decisions.
I'm curious if that is at all related to the brain/gut interactions we are discovering now.
It most certainly is. :smile:
Interesting. I will admit to not being deeply read on philosophy these days, but is that related to gestalt consciousness?
One of the key books is this one The Embodied Mind
I agree that the brain is required for thinking. What I am saying is that thinking cannot be done solely by the brain.
That's interesting, but can you tell me specifically what else is needed apart from the brain in order to think or have thoughts?
First things first, I have to say that thinking is a process in which we work with old ideas and create new ones. Ideas are mental events that are experienced and created by the mind. Ideas are not reducible to something else. When I say "cup", I am referring to an idea we both understand and we can talk about. A meaningful sentence also refers to an idea as well. When it comes to understanding a long writing, we at least need two minds, namely the conscious and subconscious minds. That is true since the conscious mind has very limited memory, so it can only understand a short sentence or a part of a long sentence if we only use our conscious mind. In the same manner, both the conscious and subconscious mind are involved when it comes to writing about complex ideas that are normally long.
Right, i agree that thinking is a process. If the process stops, thinking stops; if the process starts, thinking starts. Excellent.
Now, would you agree with this line of reasoning? If something can be created, then that same thing can be broken down into the parts that were used to create it, although the thing itself ceases to exist once it has been reduced or decomposed. Furthermore, if you take those same parts and reconstruct the original arrangement and relationships would that not result in the original irreducible thing once again?
To put it another way a car stops being a car when reduced to its parts, and becomes a car again when the parts are put together again. Would you agree?
Quoting MoK
So, are you saying that the missing requirements for thinking, apart from the brain, are consciousness and subconsciousness?
Well, to have a normal modern human's capacity for thinking thoughts, a lot of brains over the course of history have been needed.
I would like to make a distinction between building and creating. For example, when we build a car, we put the parts together in a way that the whole, car, has specific function. If you put the part the other way, the whole loses its function. The same applies to a meaningful sentence. When we build a meaningful sentence, we arrange the parts such that the sentence has a meaning. A meaningful sentence refers to an idea, though. The conscious mind creates the idea once the last word in the sentence is read. Although you can break a sentence into its parts, you cannot break an idea since it does not have any parts. Once a new idea is created, we have have a common understanding of it, so we can talk about it, give a name to it and build new sentences using it that refer to other new ideas.
Quoting punos
The missing parts are the conscious and subconscious minds.
Youre right that when we hear a meaningful sentence, an idea is created. For most of us, ideas feel complete and indivisible. Continuing with the same example, if i say a car, the idea that forms in your mind is a single, unified concept. You dont consciously think about the engine, wheels, or chassis as separate components. The mind creates a cohesive, emergent form from the assembled sentence. However, the apparent unity of an idea doesnt mean it lacks parts. The complexity and quality of an idea is directly proportional to the number of parts and their relationships to each other that an individual recognizes.
An idea may appear indivisible to your conscious mind, yet its underlying parts typically reside beneath the surface in the subconscious. These hidden components, however, can rise into conscious awareness when examined or reflected upon.
Consider the difference between a car mechanic and someone who simply drives a car. An average drivers idea of a car is a unified whole, composed of only a few high-level parts: the steering wheel, the pedals, and the body. A mechanics idea of a car, however, is far more detailed and complex. Their knowledge and experience allow them to break down the unified idea into a multitude of additional components and their relationships to each other: the fuel injection system, the differential, the transmission, the sensors, and the control units. The mechanics mind has taken the same unified concept and, through a process of deconstruction, revealed its hidden assembly. Because of this his or her idea of a car is imbued with different affordances than the average person's idea of a car, and thus can do more with it than the average person can. This is where the value of an idea comes from. The more parts of an idea one is aware of, the more capacity for creativity one is afforded with that idea.
Questions:
What do you think is responsible for the differences between different ideas? Why isn't every idea the same idea? Do you think an idea can exist on its own without some form of physical representation or scaffolding that holds it together?
Quoting MoK
More questions:
Okay, but are the conscious and subconscious minds separate from the brain, coming from outside the brain to interact with it, or do you think they are generated by the activity of a living brain? Also, what do you think accounts for the difference between the conscious and subconscious minds?
Ideas are irreducible yet distinguishable. Only the mind can experience them since they are mental events.
Quoting punos
I think you are talking about thoughts here rather than ideas. Ideas are simple. Thoughts are complex. A fruitful chain of thought leads to a new idea that explains the thoughts, though.
Quoting punos
Ideas are irreducible, yet they can affect us differently. Ideas are mental events, and they are a subset of a larger set of mental events. All mental events affect us somehow.
Quoting punos
No.
Quoting punos
To me, experience is the result of the mind perceiving the object. So, minimally, we are dealing with substance dualism. We need at least three sorts of substances; the last substance is matter, in the case of humans. I think there are at least two minds in a human being, too.
Quoting punos
The conscious and subconscious minds belong to the category of the mind. They are the same in the sense that they are minds. They do different things, though.