Brain vs Soul

[Davian]

Because the whole thing sounds really cool and it fits the story.

lol. For I second I thought this was Smidlee's response.

 

[Davian]

Explain how did I made it up? Where does this "stuff" come from?

I don't know. How am I to know that you are not just making up this "soul" thing?

 

[lesliedellow]

An unevidenced assertion. You would you first have to establish what consciousness *is* - you have not done that.

No I don't, I only have to establish what consciousness isn't. The trouble materialists have with what they euphemistically call "the hard problem," is that the mind is self evidently not made of "hard stuff", no matter what else it is. Mind certainly isn't a synonym for the brain, because there would be no "hard problem" if it was.

I do not see how this applies.

You cannot both make it a matter of policy to EXCLUDE the mind's activity from your account of what we experience, and science is just a specialised area within that broader category, and INCLUDE an account of conscious mind at the same time.

Another unevidenced assertion. How do you know that neuroscientists are mistaken on their goals of understanding the brain?

You seem to completely miss the point. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what neuroscientists goals may or may not be. The only mind we can know about is our own. I know what it feels like when somebody sticks a pin in me, but I do not, for sure, know what it feels like for somebody else, when somebody sticks a pin in them, because I have no access to their mind or conscious experience. If I assume that the subjective experience of pain is the same for them as it is for me, it is just an assumption. It may be that an EEG machine would reveal the electrical activity in their brain to be similar, but watching an EEG machine is not the same thing as sharing in their subjective experience.

Therefore, if the only mind we can directly observe is our own, it is fallacious to try and understand that mind by examining the external world, as it is to try and understand nuclear fusion through pure introspection.

Then present your arguments, not just your assertions.

It is self evidently the case that all of our concepts, including the concept of matter, are products of our minds.

Those are big, broad brushstrokes you are painting people with. Perhaps you could be more concise.

Science is the altar the new atheists worship at. They can hardly utter a sentence without the word science, or one of it derivatives, appearing in it somewhere. So far as they are concerned, anything which can't be labelled "scientific" is superstitious, and since they could never ever be the latter, so they think all their beliefs must necessarily be "scientific".

Presumably? Is not 'wetness' the property of a liquid? Citation, please.

Wetness hasn't got an exact definition, but it seems to involve a combination of three things:

a.) Substance X is a liquid.

b.) Substance X is slightly sticky, so it clings to you.

c.) Substance X evaporates relatively easily, leaving you feeling chilly.

Post #44:
- "...it won't work with consciousness, which is not a force or a bit of solid stuff."

That is not an assumption. It is as self evident as complex numbers one not being made out of solid stuff.

- "For us, our own consciousness is the fundamental datum, and matter is an abstraction which the mind invents for itself, in order to understand its experiences."

That is also self evident. We can't be aware of anything else, unless we are first possessors of consciousness. Try observing the action of sulphuric acid on iron whilst you are asleep.

The same for me, from theists.

You do not have to be a theist before you refuse to believe the bluster and bombast you get from materialists over the nature of mind. David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel are two atheist philosophers who do not buy it. And before you turn up your nose at the word "philosopher," at least one of them has a scientific training.

 

[Steeno7]

I find the idea of a "soul" nearly impossible to believe, and that's in large part to this long article: A Ghost in the Machine

In it are many examples of personality changes that occur due to brain injury/illness. After reading it I have found it very hard to believe in something like a soul that exists separate from the body.

-From the article.

The soul is not a separate 'section' or 'part' of us. Biblically the soul is our psychological function. Man has the capacity for life-function at three levels: body (soma), soul (psuche) and spirit (pneuma). Psuche is the Greek word from which we get the English words "psyche," "psychology" etc..

That our psychological function can and is affected by our brains function is undeniable. But that does nothing to change the reality that man functions on a psychological level, regardless of how well he functions psychologically.

.....at least until there is no psychological function, at which point we are dead.

 

[Davian]

No I don't, I only have to establish what consciousness isn't. The trouble materialists have with what they euphemistically call "the hard problem," is that the mind is self evidently not made of "hard stuff", no matter what else it is. Mind certainly isn't a synonym for the brain, because there would be no "hard problem" if it was.

You have not established what "consciousness" is not. You have yet to define it, or what this "hard problem" is. What is this evidence that you allude to?

You cannot both make it a matter of policy to EXCLUDE the mind's activity from your account of what we experience, and science is just a specialised area within that broader category, and INCLUDE an account of conscious mind at the same time.

I do not.

You seem to completely miss the point. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what neuroscientists goals may or may not be. The only mind we can know about is our own. I know what it feels like when somebody sticks a pin in me, but I do not, for sure, know what it feels like for somebody else, when somebody sticks a pin in them, because I have no access to their mind or conscious experience. If I assume that the subjective experience of pain is the same for them as it is for me, it is just an assumption. It may be that an EEG machine would reveal the electrical activity in their brain to be similar, but watching an EEG machine is not the same thing as sharing in their subjective experience.

Therefore, if the only mind we can directly observe is our own, it is fallacious to try and understand that mind by examining the external world, as it is to try and understand nuclear fusion through pure introspection.

We do have access to what other brains experience.

Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind

Scientists Reconstruct Brains' Visions Into Digital Video In Historic Experiment

"The subjects were exposed to two different groups of Hollywood movie trailers as the fMRI system recorded the brain's blood flow through their brains' visual cortex.

The readings were fed into a computer program in which they were divided into three-dimensional pixels units called voxels (volumetric pixels). This process effectively decodes the brain signals generated by moving pictures, connecting the shape and motion information from the movies to specific brain actions. As the sessions progressed, the computer learned more and more about how the visual activity presented on the screen corresponded to the brain activity.

After recording this information, another group of clips was used to reconstruct the videos shown to the subjects. The computer analyzed 18 million seconds of random YouTube video, building a database of potential brain activity for each clip. From all these videos, the software picked the one hundred clips that caused a brain activity more similar to the ones the subject watched, combining them into one final movie. Although the resulting video is low resolution and blurry, it clearly matched the actual clips watched by the subjects."

Now it becomes a question of granularity.

It is self evidently the case that all of our concepts, including the concept of matter, are products of our minds.

No, it isn't. Present your arguments, not just your assertions.

Science is the altar the new atheists worship at. They can hardly utter a sentence without the word science, or one of it derivatives, appearing in it somewhere. So far as they are concerned, anything which can't be labelled "scientific" is superstitious, and since they could never ever be the latter, so they think all their beliefs must necessarily be "scientific".

A brush so big you cannot see past it.

Wetness hasn't got an exact definition, but it seems to involve a combination of three things:

a.) Substance X is a liquid.

b.) Substance X is slightly sticky, so it clings to you.

c.) Substance X evaporates relatively easily, leaving you feeling chilly.

Emergent properties. A useful term, would you not agree?

That is not an assumption. It is as self evident as complex numbers one not being made out of solid stuff.

This is not self evident. I do not see the relevance of your analogy.

That is also self evident. We can't be aware of anything else, unless we are first possessors of consciousness. Try observing the action of sulphuric acid on iron whilst you are asleep.

"For us, our own consciousness is the fundamental datum, and matter is an abstraction which the mind invents for itself, in order to understand its experiences."

It is not self-evident. In your opinion, is the "mind" an object, or a process?

You do not have to be a theist before you refuse to believe the bluster and bombast you get from materialists over the nature of mind.

lol. I was referring to the "bluster and bombast" I get from theists, such as yourself.

David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel are two atheist philosophers who do not buy it. And before you turn up your nose at the word "philosopher," at least one of them has a scientific training.

Are you not sure of which one?

The philosophers cited in my link (if you followed it) use neuroscience to support their work.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is self evidently the case that all of our concepts, including the concept of matter, are products of our minds.

No, it isn't. Present your arguments, not just your assertions.

Oh for heaven's sake, where do you think concepts originate, if not in your mind? Your right big toe, perhaps? Or maybe they grow on a tree somewhere.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh for heaven's sake, where do you think concepts originate, if not in your mind? Your right big toe, perhaps? Or maybe they grow on a tree somewhere.

Nothing wrong with coming up with your own personal concepts. Also nothing wrong with someone asking you to support them.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nothing wrong with coming up with your own personal concepts. Also nothing wrong with someone asking you to support them.

How does the idea of matter qualify as my own private concept?

 

[bhsmte]

How does the idea of matter qualify as my own private concept?

Let me ask you this.

Do you believe a soul exists based on faith, or objective verifiable evidence?

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you believe a soul exists based on faith, or objective verifiable evidence?

I am fairly agnostic about whether or not the soul exists, but I am not agnostic about the impossibility of present day physics being unable to account for sentience.

You can find plenty of Christians who hold belief in a soul to be unnecessary for Christian belief - John Polkinghorne for example. But, as I say, I am fairly agnostic on the subject.

 

[bhsmte]

I am fairly agnostic about whether or not the soul exists, but I am not agnostic about the impossibility of present day physics being unable to account for sentience.

You can find plenty of Christians who hold belief in a soul to be unnecessary for Christian belief - John Polkinghorne for example. But, as I say, I am fairly agnostic on the subject.

I have no problem with that.

I do believe, as we learn more about the brain, some unknowns will be answered.

 

[lesliedellow]

I do believe, as we learn more about the brain, some unknowns will be answered.

Maybe, but no matter how closely you observe neurological processes, you will still only be observing neurological processes. You will not be observing the taste of the smoky bacon somebody happens to be eating at the time. At most you will be observing the physical processes which correlate with that conscious experience.

In terms of the current scientific paradigm, there is an unbridgeable gap when it comes to getting from the one to the other.

 

[Davian]

Oh for heaven's sake, where do you think concepts originate, if not in your mind? Your right big toe, perhaps? Or maybe they grow on a tree somewhere.

Again, I can only guess at how you have defined "concepts" and "mind".

It is my understanding, from a scientific perspective, that the mind is what the brain does, a process.

I think of concepts as memes:

"Proponents theorize that memes may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influence a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[7]"

Meme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Davian]

I am fairly agnostic about whether or not the soul exists, but I am not agnostic about the impossibility of present day physics being unable to account for sentience.
...

To properly declare that something is impossible, you first need to define that thing ("sentience") in a manner that details why scientific methodology cannot explore it.

Are you positing a god-of-the-gaps?

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe, but no matter how closely you observe neurological processes, you will still only be observing neurological processes. You will not be observing the taste of the smoky bacon somebody happens to be eating at the time. At most you will be observing the physical processes which correlate with that conscious experience.

In terms of the current scientific paradigm, there is an unbridgeable gap when it comes to getting from the one to the other.

In time, I tend to be a bit more optimistic in what science will be able to figure out regarding the brain.

I could be wrong though.

 

[Chesterton]

I think of concepts as memes:

Prove there's such a thing as a "meme".

 

[lesliedellow]

Again, I can only guess at how you have defined "concepts" and "mind".

Buy yourself a dictionary.

 

[Davian]

Prove there's such a thing as a "meme".

 

[Davian]

Again, I can only guess at how you have defined "concepts" and "mind".

It is my understanding, from a scientific perspective, that the mind is what the brain does, a process.

I think of concepts as memes:

"Proponents theorize that memes may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influence a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[7]"

Meme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Buy yourself a dictionary.

I take it you are done?

 

[KCfromNC]

Maybe, but no matter how closely you observe neurological processes, you will still only be observing neurological processes. You will not be observing the taste of the smoky bacon somebody happens to be eating at the time.

You will if the taste of smoky bacon is just neurological processes. Why are you assuming there's something more?

At most you will be observing the physical processes which correlate with that conscious experience.

Yeah, just like when we see a person walking we're simply observing the physical processes which correlate with running instead of the the running itself.

This whole line of argument presupposes some sort of magic that we can't observe. Concluding the same thing you're assuming isn't all that convincing.