1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hey Guest, is it this your first time on the forums?

    Visit the Beginner's Box

    Introduce yourself, read some of the ins and outs of the community, access to useful links and information.

    Dismiss Notice
Cookies New to the forums?

Galen's Soul (SYTO's thread [Fine, "Philosophy Thread"])

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Sytoplasma, Nov 5, 2014.

Mods: BlueLuigi
Page 3 of 9
  1. SAcptm

    SAcptm Haxor Staff Alumni

    Messages:
    134
    There are two broad possibilities about how things are. Either:
    1) Mind = brain and/or physical electrochemical activity of the brain. That is, your mind literally is the physical processes occurring in your brain. All the things that you experience as a mind, well, that is just what its like when you arrange a bunch of matter in the right way and stimulate it with all the right things. [My position and, given the last 30 years of research on this topic, the obvious position]
    2) Mind =/= brain, and/or mind consists of something non-physical and yet somehow still manages to have a relationship to a physical object (the brain). The details of this are necessarily ambiguous, and its not clear how and why you would be able to say this. [Some people still argue for it for various other motivations, i.e. they want to defend it because it supports something else they believe. Typically religious beliefs.]

    If (1) is correct then your question "if the brain is destroyed, and the mind remains..." is not a coherent question because brain = mind (or they are at least existentially codependent). "If the X is destroyed, and the X remains..." well, your question can't be answered because it isn't presenting a logically possible counterfactual.

    The reason people find this difficult to grasp at first is because you are completely used to experiencing a mind from an internal, first person perspective. That is to say, you notice what it is like to be a brain doing brain-stuff and you call that "mind" (or "soul"), and then you learn about the physical attributes and characteristics of a brain and you call that "brain". You have two different conceptual approaches to the same actual concept, which tricks you into thinking that you're talking about two different, separable concepts. That's why you naturally feel inclined to suggest that you can still separate the mind from the brain, but the two different internal/external perspectives don't mean that the concept is itself logically divorceable.

    It is still possible that (2) is true, of course, it's just that outside of religious motivations there really isn't any good reason to think so.
     
    SAcptm, Dec 4, 2014
    #41
    Beef likes this.
  2. J-man2003

    J-man2003 Haxor

    Messages:
    352
    The reason I believe in the theorem that science and theology/religion are competing subjects is proved in your post: one is trust and the other proof. Although someone who is religious and a scientist shouldn't be hated, I recall about 40% of scientists today are religious, so persecution for being a religious scientist would be quite odd, and/or generally ignorant. (yes, I'm calling an action a atheist scientist may do ignorant, ironic)

    So here's more proof for that, you may not know, theology is only used to explain things that currently have no explanation, or even theories, about them, with the exception being if you are hyper-religious and don't believe science, at all. Opposing that religion is a philosophy so, the Vatican recently announced that theories like the big bang and evolution don't disagree with the Christian religion, so theology incorporates science, making it even dumber to say someone religious can't be scientific.
     
    J-man2003, Dec 4, 2014
    #42
  3. Sytoplasma

    Sytoplasma Haxor

    Messages:
    88
    What monster have I created?
     
    Sytoplasma, Dec 4, 2014
    #43
    Galen and Dargona1018 like this.
  4. Hella

    Hella The Nightmare of Hair Global Moderator Donator Tester

    Messages:
    1,655
    Firstly, persecution purely because someone thinks differently to you is a dick move, and people who do it are dicks. They may not necessarily be ignorant of the beliefs they are persecuting against, although that's a strong possibility, but there's a 100% chance that they're a dick.

    Secondly, theology =/= religion. A religion is the overall organisation of a particular faith, generally with some kind of 'governing body' or top dog, i.e., the Pope, imams, the Dalai Lama.

    What you're trying to argue isn't about theology, but about religion. You're saying that religion and science are incompatible.
    Saying theology is only focused upon things which have no explanation is like saying that science is only focused upon things which have no explanation. Of course they're both trying to work out and discover new things, but there's also a huge wealth of information that you're simply ignoring, evidenced by highlighting the 'irony' in calling an atheist scientist ignorant, implying that it is, in fact, the theist scientist who is the ignorant one.

    Talking about the Vatican recently announcing that the big bang theory and evolution as non-conflicting with the Catholic faith also suggests that it wasn't already believed by many Christians. Popes beforehand had already acknowledged much the same, such as Pope Pius XII, who died in 1958. His advisor said "Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Gallileo." Pius felt that religion and science both dealt with the same concepts, and that they couldn't possibly contradict one another in the long term.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
    Hella, Dec 4, 2014
    #44
  5. Infiniterising

    Infiniterising Amorous Duelist Donator

    Messages:
    192
    8663413956_792acc114b_z.jpg
    This is my soul. Not a breach of religion or science.
    Possibly ethics.
    It just is.
     
    Infiniterising, Dec 5, 2014
    #45
  6. Hella

    Hella The Nightmare of Hair Global Moderator Donator Tester

    Messages:
    1,655
    Let's see them ninja their way out of this one, the bastards.
     
    Hella, Dec 5, 2014
    #46
    FuzzyBlueBaron and Infiniterising like this.
  7. J-man2003

    J-man2003 Haxor

    Messages:
    352
    Scientifically, a soul is your conscious, your mind, so you would die if your "soul" got removed, because your a part of your brain would be removed, which is fatal.
    --- Double Post Merged, Dec 5, 2014, Original Post Date: Dec 5, 2014 ---
    Not to start an atheist vs. Christian thread or anything stupid like that, but the soul is basically neurological connections in the mind, the brain, which is real and of this "realm".

    EDIT: Also this has proof, just sayin :rekt:
     
    J-man2003, Dec 5, 2014
    #47
  8. NinjaCell

    NinjaCell Haxor

    Messages:
    358
    It's fine, everything sounds bitter and hateful on the internet. Please note I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, I was simply curious as to what other people thought about souls.

    Being religious, I believe they exist. However I am not sure exactly how they work within a body. Pretty sure "removing" it would result in death (or more correctly, the only way to remove would be to die). I think brains are at least in someway a physical reflection of the soul, but then again I don't know how brain damage would come into that. (Would people in vegetative states be spiritually dead, if not physically?) I believe you need a soul to have free will though.
     
    NinjaCell, Dec 5, 2014
    #48
  9. Hella

    Hella The Nightmare of Hair Global Moderator Donator Tester

    Messages:
    1,655
    "I'm not racist, but..."
    If the soul was purely physical, then it wouldn't be a soul anymore. The soul in the sense being discussed here is the immortal and immaterial spirit of a person, essentially containing all the shit for making that person them.
    As far as there is an empirically perceived universe, the mind, or at least neural activity that correlates with a human or animals activities, is proven. Whether there are immortal souls is something that cannot be proven without, in theory, death, and even then it's kind of a one-way road. However, it also cannot be fully proven to be false for the same reasons.
     
    Hella, Dec 5, 2014
    #49
  10. Dargona1018

    Dargona1018 Ballista Bolt Thrower

    Messages:
    569
    No, don't worry, I am not religious.
    But, ya know, souls aren't just religious.
    Same as ghosts aren't anti-religious or anything like that.

    But, remember, that is what science tells us, and science is still quite primitive. We are only taking what we are seeing and comparing with other things that we see, whether they are related or not. Science doesn't matter unless it knows everything, since then Science would truly be Science. Until then, it's what we humans take as the world, how we see, and how we want to see it.

    Ghosts, for example. Science says that it really isn't possible. And yet, phenomena happen. Because they don't have tangible proof and because they don't want to begin to fathom things like that (same happening with ancient astronaut theory, where there are things that are PROVEN to be older than humankind itself, but it's pushed under the rug). Science is not complete, and thus, Science cannot be trusted. Souls are like ghosts; fake until proven real.
     
    Dargona1018, Dec 5, 2014
    #50
    J-man2003 likes this.
  11. J-man2003

    J-man2003 Haxor

    Messages:
    352
    True that science is not complete, but if you treat it like that it never will.

    Phenomena is described is not explainable with science, although sometimes a lot of "phenomena" where the human mind playing a trick on what we see, hear, etc. (ex. people in a dark room see hallucinations or things that aren't what they seem, either they aren't real or they're another object like a coat or piece of paper.) Also you should always account that the person telling the story could be lying, even if he/she has evidence it could be fake, (ex. although UFO sightings can be somewhat explained, a lot of these sightings are hoaxes.)

    So ghosts could be like this, also, it could be about what that person believes in that could cause hallucinations, (ex. I don't think any scientist has ever reported ghostly activity in their lives, because they don't believe in it, thus they don't see it unlike people who do believe in ghosts, I don't and I've never seen anything truly suspicious other than regular objects on my floor that appear to be something else.)

    And souls have literally no proof, sure people say "if you have free will or sentimental sensory than you have a soul" but that's all the human brain/mind (synonyms). Free will and sentimental sensory are proven with neuroscience, so I see no proof of souls, though you could say the same for some scientific theories I believe in, there's not much proof for it.

    As for phenomena that was caught on tape and wasn't a hoax and had multiple unrelated victims, I say IDK WTHECK is going on here, GG m8 8/8 wow gr8. In other words, I have no earthly idea.

    EDIT: I love how a discussion on Galen's Soul turned into a philosophical debate. Thanks FBB.
    --- Double Post Merged, Dec 5, 2014, Original Post Date: Dec 5, 2014 ---
    Ethics is philosophy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2014
    J-man2003, Dec 5, 2014
    #51
  12. Hella

    Hella The Nightmare of Hair Global Moderator Donator Tester

    Messages:
    1,655
    Again, souls may have no physical proof, but there is no proof against them either, so whilst you may not believe they exist, there is no way to conclusively prove their non-existence to those who do believe in them. That's not to say that it's not worth the effort involved in discussion, but you can't truly win because you can't provide empirical evidence that something doesn't exist if there is nothing existing to provide said evidence.

    On the note of scientists believing in ghosts, what about scientist believing in God? Does it not entail that if no scientists believe in ghosts, then no scientists should believe in God either. Just because you're a 'scientist' does not render you above human beliefs, as proven by the fact that many scientists are religious folk, and have been for years. Reason flows both ways, and, whilst the views of faith are most credible when concerning that which is beyond observation. To believe in a god is just as reasonable a point of view as to believe there isn't a god.
     
    Hella, Dec 5, 2014
    #52
    hierbo, NinjaCell, FuzzyBlueBaron and 2 others like this.
  13. Sytoplasma

    Sytoplasma Haxor

    Messages:
    88
    This is that thread. You know, the one every forum has few of, where the wordier and more eloquent of members go to duke it out in the fashion of word-banter filled essays which none can bear to read.
     
    Sytoplasma, Dec 6, 2014
    #53
    Sir_Walter likes this.
  14. Beef

    Beef ก็็็็็็็็็็็็็ʕ•͡ᴥ•ʔ ก้้้้้้้้้้้ Global Moderator Forum Moderator Tester

    Messages:
    1,054
    Science is a method for understanding the world, not an ideology. Here it is;

    86144647.png

    If you can find a flaw with the scientific method you'll win the Nobel Prize, get a buttload of grant money and advance human knowledge by also a buttload.

    So far we have no reason to think it can't be trusted. There's a few ideas floating around as to why it may not be valid; it relies on some assumptions like there's an objective reality with reliable laws of physics (meaning control experiments should always give the same result) which may not be true, but based off all available evidence, it is.
     
    Beef, Dec 6, 2014
    #54
    TheAverageMan, Superblackcat, hierbo and 3 others like this.
  15. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    Re: souls--

    Philosophical zombies.
     
    FuzzyBlueBaron, Dec 6, 2014
    #55
  16. J-man2003

    J-man2003 Haxor

    Messages:
    352
    Your first argument is valid, your second isn't referring to what I was talking about IMO.

    1. That's true, we can never know if something without proof for or against it is real or fake, but theoretically the person who came up with the idea had no proof for or against it, so they just made something up that was fake/false, so most likely this applies to things like souls and ghosts, and like I said it's scientifically proven people can see hallucinations when scared. (ex. in a dark room)

    2. That's just my analogy-type argument stating that 'if you don't believe in ghosts than you won't see them' I used scientist because I highly doubt even a religious scientist would believe in ghosts, especially someone like a physicist.
    --- Double Post Merged, Dec 6, 2014, Original Post Date: Dec 6, 2014 ---
    My new KAG hero, *clap, clap, clap, clap* realizes the worth of science and how well it works.
     
    J-man2003, Dec 6, 2014
    #56
    hierbo and Beef like this.
  17. Hella

    Hella The Nightmare of Hair Global Moderator Donator Tester

    Messages:
    1,655
    Continue? You gotta explain it here, I'm not gonna do it for you, I can't be arsed. :P

    1. The people who came up with the concept of the soul didn't have access to the complex sciences that we have developed in this day and age. From their point of view, when someone dies, they could see that at one time they have life and a personality, and the next they have neither. Therefore, it's logical reason that the two are connected, and that life has simply left the body, meaning that such an entity, the 'soul' that provides life and personality to that body, must exist in a separate state to the body itself.
    In short, the idea of a soul wouldn't merely have been some kind of "fake/false" idea, because it would have been an idea based on everything they knew at the time. Evidence doesn't necessarily contradict such a theory even now.
    Also, yes, it's a fact that hallucinations can happen, which, if I remember rightly, brings on the problem of perception, which I can't remember well enough to do justice, pls help @SAcptm , think of it as practice. <3

    2. The majority of major religions teach that souls exist. Ghosts are merely disembodied souls, with apparent ability to interact with the material world. Christianity explicitly calls part of the trinity the Holy Ghost. Belief in a soul implies belief in ghosts, to the point where belief in ghosts requires belief in souls, and potentially vice versa.

    A religious scientist may believe in ghosts if that's what their belief system teaches. Again, what you're doing is revering the concept of a scientist as an infallible user of reason to suggest that anyone who reasons as well as you do would agree that ghosts do not exist.

    That final point is augmented by the way you laud Beef as a hero purely for calling out a foolish implication on Dargona's behalf. Beef isn't a hero, he's a villain of the finest form.
     
    Hella, Dec 6, 2014
    #57
    FuzzyBlueBaron likes this.
  18. SAcptm

    SAcptm Haxor Staff Alumni

    Messages:
    134
    I know what he's referring to. It was a fairly long-standing objection to 'physicalism' (the position that minds are broadly physical things) which proposes that:
    1) it is possible to conceive of people just like us who don't actually have any experiences but still go around doing human stuff all day just like the rest of us, but without any inner mental life. Aka philosophical zombies.
    2) that it is conceivable shows that it is logically possible
    3) if it is logically possible for people to act entirely as we do but without any inner mental experience, then there must be something more going on in those that do have inner mental experience.

    I probably haven't given a great or necessarily fair summation of the argument, but thats the basic approach. It is no longer treated very favourably as an objection in the literature however, and there's a bunch of things you can say about it. Firstly you can deny (2), that conceivability = logical possibility. Secondly, and most importantly, it is possible to conceive of these 'zombies' precisely because you are already in error about the nature of mind, and therefore you are imagining it wrongly. If brain doing brain stuff = mind experiencing mind stuff, then it wouldn't be possible to have philosophical zombies. You can still kind of conceive of them, however, because you divorce the internal concept of mind from the external concept of brain illegitimately - just as I mentioned in my last post. You act as if the internal view of mind is its own independent concept (when in the physicalist view it isn't) and then make a conceivability argument on the strength of what you can imagine using this potentially illegitimate concept. That's one brief reason why the philosophical zombie argument doesn't work.
     
    SAcptm, Dec 6, 2014
    #58
    FuzzyBlueBaron and Hella like this.
  19. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    >____________<

    Hella, remind me to gently slap you about the head with some kind of fish someday when I'm not terribly busy studying for a Victorian literature exam. I'm trying my best to limit my procrastination, but even briefly:
    • I think we'll need to reach a mutually agreeable definition of "soul" for this thread, because I keep seeing people, including SAc and your estimable self, that make me cringe. Fair to say I'm probably exercising the right of any expert in a given field to be an insufferable jerk re: terminology, but I also feel it'd be worth the time/effort to establish a clearer voicing of the term "soul" within a theological context (after which we can put our heads together and work out if it's possible to have a cross-discipline definition re: soul between theology and philosophy).
    • There are a few (okay, three) points in the section I've quoted that I take mild issue with, but seeing as I'm actually serious about not procrastinating too hard tonight I'll go straight for the eye-sore: "Christianity explicitly calls part of the trinity the Holy Ghost." Yes. This statement is 100% factually correct. But it's also completely out of place in a discussion about the interrelation between ghosts and souls. There is an explicit reason for the "Ghost" in HG being there, but it's got literally nothing to do with souls. In this case "Ghost", like the more current rendering "Spirit", is nomenclature highlighting the eternal, spiritual, and non-corporeal nature of this person of the Trinity. Its only association with ghosts of the Halloween variety is that both big and little G ghosts have these features.
    • Also, for the record, anyone claiming to give notions of ghosts more than a passing glance --when this same person also claims to be basing their stance on Christian doctrine-- is a terrible, terrible nub. There is almost no credence given ghosts (as actual representative fragments of deceased persons) in the literature and their surrounding traditions of interpretation (like, I can only think of one, maybe two edge cases in the entirety of the everything I've read for the past nearing-on two decades-- that's how rarely possibly plausible cases come up). If anything, the suggestion would be that while it's possible that there are isolated instances of "ghosts" that the overwhelming majority of cases are actually: a) hoaxes, b) hallucinations, or c) other spiritual entities (probably demonic, in most/all cases) impersonating a deceased person, by presenting as said person's "ghost", for their own ends.
    • Fuck, I'm really failing at this being brief thing. Stopping here.
     
    FuzzyBlueBaron, Dec 7, 2014
    #59
  20. FuzzyBlueBaron

    FuzzyBlueBaron Warm, Caring, Benign, Good and Kind Philanthrope Global Moderator Forum Moderator Donator Tester
    1. The Young Blood Collective - [YB]

    Messages:
    2,508
    <Quick! Before I have to seriously engage with Dickens again!>

    Thank you, good sir, for that. I'll confess I had slightly dishonest motives for raising the PZ question. Briefly (hah!):
    • I'd come across the notion thanks to Hella, some time ago, but I wasn't sure what the state of current literature was on it. Merci for the update.
    • I have to wonder as to whether the argument against PZ doesn't come unglued by it's own solvent in that in the same stroke as it highlights the a priori assumptions PZ is smuggling into the argument (of a non-physicalist baseline) it also would seem to demonstrate a priori assumptions in re: physicalism -- just aimed in the other direction. It's possible I've missed something and that's not what's actually happening (in which case please elucidate me), but it strikes me that if this is occurring then leaves the PZ argument in a (heh ::P:) zombie state wherein it has nothing to say on the physicalism debate per se but, should an answer come from another quarter (say, for example, in favour of a non-physicalist baseline), presents some interesting musings re: other topics.
    • NB: previous point was hastily written and possible confusing, but rest know that it was aimed at the following point, so hopefully some reverse engineering of my otherwise appalling sentence structure is possible.
    • Ever since I was introduced to the PZ argument I've wondered whether PZ (if it were upheld to be relevant, ofc) and the idea of a soul don't together comprise a reasonable argument against the possibility of a true AI. I realise I'm that person in that I haven't yet explained what I mean by a "soul", but I guess that's motivation for me to get this exam over so I can return to real life with you people here. <3
     
    FuzzyBlueBaron, Dec 7, 2014
    #60
Mods: BlueLuigi
Page 3 of 9