The Soul - is there proof?

[Chesterton]

The focus of this thread seems to be on how we can give an account for "rational thought" in the absence of some supernatural force; for some posters, strict "nobody-here-but-us-atoms" physicalism/naturalism does not seem up to the task.

I haven't read every post. Has anyone mentioned quantum mechanics? Science has conclusively proven that there aren't really atoms here; more like "nobody-here-but-our-minds".

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As to Evolution giving rise to Rationality:

1: Irrational causes cannot result in Rational arguments. If the axioms cannot be shown to be trustworthy, then no matter how reasonable the steps followed, the resulting structure is not trustworthy in entirety. If I hold X to be true on account of evolutionary processes that moulded my thoughts in that manner, than X need not necessarily be true, but Y could have been. Evolution is not a rational process, but irrational selection for fitness based on reproductive success - an organism holding X might have a survival advantage, but that doesn't mean X is true nor was X 'Reasoned' but essentialy inherited. A system predetermined to hold a certain view, cannot but hold it and therefore no logical verification or argument could have taken place.

2: It is a fallacy to think Evolution would necessarily result in trustworthy Reason. - If something was advantageous or merely irrelevant, it would thrive or survive respectively in Evolutionary thought. Why would Reason correspond to reality? As my previous example of a brave man and a timid one illustrates, unrealistic ideas could just as easily be propagated and deliver an advantage.
Likewise ideas like 'Tigers are dangerous' need not be reasoned and often isn't. Many people are afraid of snakes or spiders while most of these are innocuous. Evolution is more likely to develop a mean population with a proportion of groups within it, as this delivers maximum advantage and flexibility - such as in Fidelity in populations where we would have 'always faithful', 'cheaters' and shades in between, for instance. In this case though, if only a proportion of our population had Reasoning which reflected reality, how do we tell which? By nature using our reason to do so would be begging the question.
Even here though, to assume a 'perfect' correspondance to reality is itself unlikely as Evolution would not favour perfection per se, but only 'good enough', as it invariably does in all other facets. We don't see a perfect respiratory system for instance, but one with innate errors and redundancies.

 

[expos4ever]

I haven't read every post. Has anyone mentioned quantum mechanics? Science has conclusively proven that there aren't really atoms here; more like "nobody-here-but-our-minds".

I am aware of quantum mechanics. I don't agree, though, with your "nobody-here-but-our-minds" characterization. But we can discuss this - perhaps I don't really know what you are saying.

 

[Chesterton]

I am aware of quantum mechanics. I don't agree, though, with your "nobody-here-but-our-minds" characterization. But we can discuss this - perhaps I don't really know what you are saying.

At this point in history it's more of a scientific fact than a characterization. Fundamental matter is not real. Our consciousness causes it to emerge from mere potentiality. Soul is preeminent.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Skepticism is only a virtue when you guys do it?

Skepticism is good in many ways, but it can be misapplied. Every virtue requires wise moderation, and the point is that he wasn't doing that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

At this point in history it's more of a scientific fact than a characterization. Fundamental matter is not real. Our consciousness causes it to emerge from mere potentiality. Soul is preeminent.

This is a very good point.

If we accept the Copenhagen interpretation, as inevitably seems to be the case, then the probalistic nature of quantum mechanics is not temporary but final. It is therefore a rejection of causality as it is usually understood as the arrangement of the experiment and experimentor will directly impact the results obtained. Only under observation does the electron appear from a field of potentiality for instance. In essence their is a conjugate nature between experiment and evidence obtained.

Unless we adopt multiverses and such frankly unprovable suppositions, the observation of matter directly influences its state. If we therefore ascribe our ability to observe, our consciousness and reason, to a soul, then that is paramount. If we do not ascribe it to a soul, then the act of observation would impact the matter expressed as well as the matter of the observer as consciousness would merely be an expression of the underlying matter and therefore Reason cannot exist as such. For to Reason based on available information, one's reason cannot alter the information itself and in return be altered by it as this merely creates a self-replicating chimaera that is not based on logical deduction but temporary states. This is essentially quantum entanglement writ large for observer and observed, a quantum superposition. Thus again, either Reason does not exist but only a complex of interconnected probability states masquerading as such, or we are forced to posit an additional component to maintain it.

But as Feynman said: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" - so who knows if anything is valid once we enter that murky world.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps I was not clear: my point was that, in a purely naturalistic framework, it seems (repeat seems) miraculous that we can get from the jumble of particles that sprang into existence as a result of the big bang to structures (brains) that can accurately model the external world.

It doesn't seem that way to me. Sure, it comes across as amazing, but not as miraculous, unless miraculous simply means "amazing".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Skepticism is good in many ways, but it can be misapplied. Every virtue requires wise moderation, and the point is that he wasn't doing that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Because you are the arbitrar of when it is wisely applied? That we can use it as much as required when we dismiss what we do not prefer, but when we approach a proposition we do prefer then suddenly it is excessive?

That is not how scepticism works. It isn't a golden mean thing. Either we are skeptical of everything until it is proven conclusively or scepticism has no value as a principle, but merely becomes a form of self-justification of your set positions.

 

[DiamondKut]

You can also tackle this issue from the perspective of somebody who already believes in the existence of the soul.

"The soul is that which gives life to the living" --a la Aquinas or Aristotle (I think).​

Problem N°1: If the soul is that which gives life to the living, does the soul itself has a life of its own? In other words, is the soul alive? If the answer is 'yes', then how is it that it is alive? (is there a soul's soul?) If the answer is no, then where is it that life itself resides? Because my body is just that: my body. And a soul, on the other hand, a soul. Is life some third element in the mix? (body, soul, life?).

Problem N°2: How is it that the soul provides the living with its own life? Again, this is like the last part of the first Problem. You have a lifeless body, then a soul: where is life in all of this? The life that the soul provides for that lifeless body?

Problem N°3: That which is alive consists of body + soul. But a body does not possess life of its own. How is it that a body is alive, then, like when we say that it is 'imbued with soul'? At most you have a soul moving different parts of some inert body (Problem N°1: where is the 'life'?).


Now, on the other hand, when you say that the soul is some sort of 'conscience', I ask: a conscience of what? Isn't it conscience always the conscience of something? And if conscience is just some sort of feeling, there you have it: the soul is just a feeling... (?).

 

[expos4ever]

At this point in history it's more of a scientific fact than a characterization. Fundamental matter is not real. Our consciousness causes it to emerge from mere potentiality. Soul is preeminent.

I am very skeptical about this claim. I believe the mainstream view is that measurement of any kind - including by an 'unconscious' instrument - causes the famous "waveform collapse". I will look into this more.

 

[expos4ever]

It doesn't seem that way to me. Sure, it comes across as amazing, but not as miraculous, unless miraculous simply means "amazing".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Semantics - we really mean the same thing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please explain to me how you came to your conclusions from what I said and then we can discuss it.

I came to my conclusion that your claims and objections were fuzzy and imprecise when you couldn't provide a way to see if they actually applied to reality.

Really? Ok. If a train always runs on tracks, does that mean the tracks are responsible for its locomotion?

But in this case you cut the tracks and the train disappears. Yours might not be the best analogy.

Besides, there are many studies showing thought with less associated brain activity than expected, mostly done under meditation. The fMRIs are often much less active while the subjective activity state of the practitioner is reported as being increased.

Could be evidence of magical forces at work, could be evidence that subjective reports of brain activity aren't representative of what it actually going on. Given we know the latter is a fact seems like the answer is pretty obvious.

There are also dodgier things like astral projection etc. that I am not even going to talk about.

Neither will I, then.

This is classical begging the question, but that is what happens when Naturalistic Materialism is employed.

Tell me more about how bad the basis of modern technology - using the internet as your medium. If it is so unreliable why are you even bothering? Seems like even you know deep down that objecting to naturalism is irrational.

 

[KCfromNC]

I haven't read every post. Has anyone mentioned quantum mechanics? Science has conclusively proven that there aren't really atoms here; more like "nobody-here-but-our-minds".

Citation needed.

 

[KCfromNC]

As to Evolution giving rise to Rationality:

1: Irrational causes cannot result in Rational arguments.

Citation needed.

If the axioms cannot be shown to be trustworthy

How is evolution an axiom? Seems like a giant category error to me. As I mentioned before, you're confusing the method used to construct a machine and the things generated when that machine runs.

If I hold X to be true on account of evolutionary processes that moulded my thoughts in that manner, than X need not necessarily be true, but Y could have been.

Who is claiming that human brains are a necessary outcome of 4 billion years of evolution?

Evolution is not a rational process, but irrational selection for fitness based on reproductive success

How do you determine if an unintelligent process is rational or not. Please apply it to show how rational each of these processes are :

- nuclear fusion
- evaporating water
- photosynthesis

Why would Reason correspond to reality?

Because falling off cliffs hurts.

Even here though, to assume a 'perfect' correspondance to reality is itself unlikely as Evolution would not favour perfection per se, but only 'good enough', as it invariably does in all other facets. We don't see a perfect respiratory system for instance, but one with innate errors and redundancies.

And we don't have perfect brains, either. Your point?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I came to my conclusion that your claims and objections were fuzzy and imprecise when you couldn't provide a way to see if they actually applied to reality.



But in this case you cut the tracks and the train disappears. Yours might not be the best analogy.



Could be evidence of magical forces at work, could be evidence that subjective reports of brain activity aren't representative of what it actually going on.



Neither will I, then.



Tell me more about how bad the basis of modern technology - using the internet as your medium. If it is so unreliable why are you even bothering? Seems like even you know deep down that objecting to naturalism is irrational.

I came to my conclusion that your claims and objections were fuzzy and imprecise when you couldn't provide a way to see if they actually applied to reality.

That is the whole point. We cannot actually see if anything applies to reality if we accept Naturalistic Materialism.

But in this case you cut the tracks and the train disappears. Yours might not be the best analogy.

You are assuming that thought disappears on death, but the whole point here is whether this occurs or not. Begging the question.

Could be evidence of magical forces at work, could be evidence that subjective reports of brain activity aren't representative of what it actually going on. Given we know the latter is a fact seems like the answer is pretty obvious.

Begging the question again.

Tell me more about how bad the basis of modern technology - using the internet as your medium. If it is so unreliable why are you even bothering? Seems like even you know deep down that objecting to naturalism is irrational.

The basis of modern technology is Scientific Method and not Naturalism. They aren't the same.

Citation needed.

Read my earlier posts. Explained ad nauseam.

How is evolution an axiom? Seems like a giant category error to me. As I mentioned before, you're confusing the method used to construct a machine and the things generated when that machine runs.

Not what I said. I was speaking of Axioms in general, not calling Evolution one.

Who is claiming that human brains are a necessary outcome of 4 billion years of evolution?

Not what I said. I said a specific thought was a necessary outcome of physiology which would in this construct be evolutionarily derived.

How do you determine if an unintelligent process is rational or not. Please apply it to show how rational each of these processes are :

- nuclear fusion
- evaporating water
- photosynthesis

None are rational. Rationality implies logical deduction. The descriptions of these phenomena may be rational, but they themselves are irrational events of matter.

Because falling off cliffs hurts.

Begging the question.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is the whole point. We cannot actually see if anything applies to reality if we accept Naturalistic Materialism.

That's not what I was talking about. Remember that my question was how you identify true reasoning or understanding from the appearance of it.

You are assuming that thought disappears on death

Nope.

Begging the question again.

Not in any way you can actually demonstrate.

The basis of modern technology is Scientific Method and not Naturalism. They aren't the same.

Are you saying there's a supernatural component to science?

Read my earlier posts. Explained ad nauseam.

If you say so.

Not what I said. I was speaking of Axioms in general, not calling Evolution one.

OK. So if a brain produced strictly by evolution generates the correct answer to 1+1=2, exactly which axiom is it that is irrational. Remember that you're not saying evolution is an axiom so there has to be something else.

Not what I said. I said a specific thought was a necessary outcome of physiology which would in this construct be evolutionarily derived.

OK.

None are rational. Rationality implies logical deduction. The descriptions of these phenomena may be rational, but they themselves are irrational events of matter.

What specifically is irrational about them? Or are you confusing arational with irrational?

Begging the question.

Nope again. The definition of "begging the question" is not "a point I want to run away from addressing".

 

[expos4ever]

As to Evolution giving rise to Rationality:

1: Irrational causes cannot result in Rational arguments. If the axioms cannot be shown to be trustworthy, then no matter how reasonable the steps followed, the resulting structure is not trustworthy in entirety. If I hold X to be true on account of evolutionary processes that moulded my thoughts in that manner, than X need not necessarily be true, but Y could have been. Evolution is not a rational process, but irrational selection for fitness based on reproductive success - an organism holding X might have a survival advantage, but that doesn't mean X is true nor was X 'Reasoned' but essentialy inherited. A system predetermined to hold a certain view, cannot but hold it and therefore no logical verification or argument could have taken place.

If you are going to introduce this concept of rationality, and define it as you appear to define it, then, yes, evolution cannot produce "rational" thought in humans. But so what? From my perspective you appear to arguing a different point than the one that others are arguing:

1. You are, correctly in my view, arguing that evolutionary process alone cannot endow us with an ability to determine "necessary truths" or to "reason" in the abstract sense we normally intend when we talk about reason. In this regard most of us have this gut feeling that "logical reasoning" floats free of "experience" and enables us to grasp what "must be true". Fair enough - I agree that we are denied this kind of reasoning capability if evolution is the only force that has shaped our minds.

2. Others are arguing that evolution can indeed give us minds that correctly model the real world "out there" in a useful way. Thus, when an image of a saber tooth tiger appears on the retina, we run. And I agree with these people too - I see no reason to assume that evolution cannot produce minds that are good at "getting by" in the world. And while we think we have access to that form of reasoning that enables us to grasp necessary truths, this is an illusion.

In short, I think a lot of us are talking "past" each other.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Has anyone mentioned quantum mechanics? Science has conclusively proven that there aren't really atoms here; more like "nobody-here-but-our-minds".

That's not the case.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

At this point in history it's more of a scientific fact than a characterization. Fundamental matter is not real. Our consciousness causes it to emerge from mere potentiality. Soul is preeminent.

That's not what the science tells us.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is a very good point.

No, it isn't.

If we accept the Copenhagen interpretation, as inevitably seems to be the case, then the probalistic nature of quantum mechanics is not temporary but final. It is therefore a rejection of causality as it is usually understood as the arrangement of the experiment and experimentor will directly impact the results obtained. Only under observation does the electron appear from a field of potentiality for instance. In essence their is a conjugate nature between experiment and evidence obtained.

This applies whatever interpretation you choose, but is not necessarily a rejection of causality. That the arrangement of the experiment affects the results obtained is an explicit example of causality.

Unless we adopt multiverses and such frankly unprovable suppositions, the observation of matter directly influences its state. If we therefore ascribe our ability to observe, our consciousness and reason, to a soul, then that is paramount. If we do not ascribe it to a soul, then the act of observation would impact the matter expressed as well as the matter of the observer as consciousness would merely be an expression of the underlying matter and therefore Reason cannot exist as such. For to Reason based on available information, one's reason cannot alter the information itself and in return be altered by it as this merely creates a self-replicating chimaera that is not based on logical deduction but temporary states. This is essentially quantum entanglement writ large for observer and observed, a quantum superposition. Thus again, either Reason does not exist but only a complex of interconnected probability states masquerading as such, or we are forced to posit an additional component to maintain it.

A couple of points - an observation in QM is any interaction with the system (e.g. a particle interacting). That a conscious observer enters a superposition with the quantum system they interact with has no more effect on reason than on any other aspect of their being.

If you define reason in such a way that it can't exist in a quantum mechanical universe without some undefined 'additional component' to maintain it, I suggest your definition is awry. YMMV.