- Aug 1, 2007
- 37
- 2
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
I sense that I am distinct in reality from my body and physical brain because I can observe them in the first person. This experience, my conscious subjective state, appears radically different from simply a lump of brain detecting the world or itself in a computerlike way. Viewing the world as me appears drastically different than some other brain viewing the world, even if our physical brains were exactly the same, since it would not be "my" self undergoing the experience. That this difference exists despite the two physical brains being physically the same tends to suggest to me the existence of my soul having a reality distinguishable from my physical brain alone.
Others have noted this same perception of the Self:
The Skeptics' answer that I've heard is that consciousness and the Self are just processes and illusions by the brain, whereby what really happens is that the physical brain lump detects (or is conscious of) itself, and this generates the perceptive that it has its own "Self".
This reminds me of the line of reasoning that the mind's experiences cannot be revealed in purely physical terms, and so this subjective experience must have a reality and existence that is not purely physical:
I also think that the anecdotal evidence of ghosts who exist in an afterlife state also suggests that the soul exists in reality distinct from the physical body. However, skeptics argue that the existence of ghosts is not shown to be real.
Perhaps one argument can be that "meaning" is real and yet not physical, and so not everything that is real in the world is purely physical. Further, a being that creates meaning - an animal, its mind and its soul - must be real and yet not be physical either.
I think that this might be what the writer below was getting at:
This reminds me of the argument based on intentionality:
Another argument recently has been that the soul exists in quantum particles and thus can survive the death of the brain, as in the form of information:
Since the soul is immaterial, I am not sure that it is possible to prove whether the soul has a real existence instead of just being a product of some people's imaginations and myths.
One argument is that God and the soul are not provable through science and scientific material experiments, but only through experience:
Others have noted this same perception of the Self:
The Skeptics' answer that I've heard is that consciousness and the Self are just processes and illusions by the brain, whereby what really happens is that the physical brain lump detects (or is conscious of) itself, and this generates the perceptive that it has its own "Self".
This reminds me of the line of reasoning that the mind's experiences cannot be revealed in purely physical terms, and so this subjective experience must have a reality and existence that is not purely physical:
Still, while I can experience the electrochemical processes that show me hot or cold, and other senses, I am not experiencing a metallic metereological device's electronic senses of weather changes, but most would say that this doesn't mean that the weather device has a soul and mind. Likewise, even a rock or leaf can react to a raindrop and can show the raindrop's effects on itself. But just because something has an experience, reacts to, or detects something doesn't mean that it has a soul or mind, right? Conscious experience is different than just a mere sensation or reaction, but skeptics would say that this difference is just a matter of the physical object detecting itself.
I also think that the anecdotal evidence of ghosts who exist in an afterlife state also suggests that the soul exists in reality distinct from the physical body. However, skeptics argue that the existence of ghosts is not shown to be real.
Perhaps one argument can be that "meaning" is real and yet not physical, and so not everything that is real in the world is purely physical. Further, a being that creates meaning - an animal, its mind and its soul - must be real and yet not be physical either.
I think that this might be what the writer below was getting at:
This reminds me of the argument based on intentionality:
Another argument recently has been that the soul exists in quantum particles and thus can survive the death of the brain, as in the form of information:
But I think that this is not a very good theory. First, it would equate the soul with physical material - quantum particles. Second, just as the brain's memory cells could deteriorate and get rearranged as the body decays and is taken up by new natural and organic processes (eg. when eaten by a vulture), the same could happen to the quantum particles, thus making the soul not really "immortal", even if it could outlive the brain. Third, if it was material quantum particles, the soul would still be considered part of the physical brain, even if it could separate from the rest of the brain's physical lump.
Since the soul is immaterial, I am not sure that it is possible to prove whether the soul has a real existence instead of just being a product of some people's imaginations and myths.
One argument is that God and the soul are not provable through science and scientific material experiments, but only through experience: