Monism, Dualism, ???

[GrayAngel]

I've been reading Descartes and Spinoza recently (for my Modern Philosophy class) and their theories about reality. Descartes was a dualist, meaning he believed that humans can be divided into two distinctly different parts: body and mind (what he considers the "soul"). Spinoza was kind of a monist in his thinking, but not quite. He considered the body and soul to be of the same "mode," that they are two different ways of looking at the same substance.

However, I do not ascribe to either view. Dualism has a few problems, as does monism. I actually believe in something different, but I don't even know it there's a name for it.

I think that Descartes' problem was that he was trying to lump two things together that are entirely separate things. As many of you are well aware, science has proven that the physical brain is the center of the mind. If you alter it's chemical balance, or it's electrical currents, you will alter behavior and the mind. The mind, then, cannot be something separate on its own. It is connected to the world. The human mind is like the electrical signals of the physical computer, which is somehow translated into logical patterns of meaning. The mind cannot be the soul, or at least not the common understanding of the soul.

I don't completely disagree with Descartes', however. I do agree that there does seem to be something distinct about the mind. The mind itself is not a physical thing, although it is highly dependent on the physical body.

In my view, I consider what Descates calls the "soul" and the actual intangible self, or "spirit," as two different things. One could say that a computer has a mind, as it works very similarly to our own brains. Of course, they can't freely think, being bound by the limits of their programming, but what if we could build a robot that functions the same as us? At what point will it become more than just an inanimate, empty shell of an object?

I don't think any amount of engineering could create a spirit. The spirit is what makes the difference between us and the computer. Both we and computers have information processing through a physical medium, but there is something more in us, something that cannot be compared to anything else. We are not empty shells just robotically collecting and responding to information, we have an awareness of our existence.

I must define what I mean by "awareness," because it can refer to something entirely different from what I mean. When people think of awareness, we think of it as something in a matter of degree, something measurable. If you're wide awake, you have a high measure of awareness, but you have no awareness when you're in a coma. This kind of awareness is attributable to the brain, not the spirit.

What I mean by spirit is something that doesn't change or turn on or off. When you're in a comatose state, you don't cease to exist for a while until you reawaken. Your awareness is your personal connection to the world. This is your inner life, and your true self. Without a body, without a soul, the spirit would still exist.

Another trait that make the spirit distinct from the soul is its constancy. People with Alzheimer's disease go through changes in personality, a division of the mind, and they are often said to "lose themselves." Well, if you define yourself as being your mind, then you could become a different person. But is that really true? Does the victim of Alzheimer's really cease to exist and get booted out by somebody else? I think this is a silly point to argue, once thought through. You wouldn't say the same of a child who has grown up. They haven't "lost themselves," although they've undoubtedly changed much between birth and adulthood. In fact, if you define the mind as your true self, then by the time you finish reading this, the physical makeup in your brain will change, thereby changing your mind, and the you who started reading this sentence has ceased to exist. If, however, you define yourself as being your spirit, then you are the same person from birth to death.

Now, the reason why I shared this theory is this: I don't know if this is a recognized alternative to the other views or not. I've never heard of a philosopher who argued for a three-way reality instead of two. Even my professor seemed to think it a strange idea, but I know I'm not smart enough to come up with something that hasn't been thought up already. So are there any philosophers out there who hold a view similar to this? Is there a small group of triplists or somewhere?

 

[Davian]

...
I don't think any amount of engineering could create a spirit. The spirit is what makes the difference between us and the computer. Both we and computers have information processing through a physical medium, but there is something more in us, something that cannot be compared to anything else.

This still presupposes that a thing such as a 'spirit' actually exists.

We are not empty shells just robotically collecting and responding to information, we have an awareness of our existence.

We certainly *think* we do.

I must define what I mean by "awareness," because it can refer to something entirely different from what I mean. When people think of awareness, we think of it as something in a matter of degree, something measurable. If you're wide awake, you have a high measure of awareness, but you have no awareness when you're in a coma. This kind of awareness is attributable to the brain, not the spirit.

What I mean by spirit is something that doesn't change or turn on or off. When you're in a comatose state, you don't cease to exist for a while until you reawaken. Your awareness is your personal connection to the world. This is your inner life, and your true self. Without a body, without a soul, the spirit would still exist.

Another trait that make the spirit distinct from the soul is its constancy. People with Alzheimer's disease go through changes in personality, a division of the mind, and they are often said to "lose themselves." Well, if you define yourself as being your mind, then you could become a different person. But is that really true? Does the victim of Alzheimer's really cease to exist and get booted out by somebody else? I think this is a silly point to argue, once thought through. You wouldn't say the same of a child who has grown up. They haven't "lost themselves," although they've undoubtedly changed much between birth and adulthood. In fact, if you define the mind as your true self, then by the time you finish reading this, the physical makeup in your brain will change, thereby changing your mind, and the you who started reading this sentence has ceased to exist. If, however, you define yourself as being your spirit, then you are the same person from birth to death.

I have watched the effects of Alzheimers first hand. My wife leaves the room for a moment, and her grandmother asks "where did the girl go?". So who was sitting there, with no memories of her grandchildren or great-grandchildren? Was that still her grandmother - "in spirit"? What does that mean?

Now, the reason why I shared this theory is this: I don't know if this is a recognized alternative to the other views or not. I've never heard of a philosopher who argued for a three-way reality instead of two. Even my professor seemed to think it a strange idea, but I know I'm not smart enough to come up with something that hasn't been thought up already. So are there any philosophers out there who hold a view similar to this? Is there a small group of triplists or somewhere?

Admitting that I am new to this philosophy stuff, I will ask if there are philosophers that still hold on to (Cartesian) dualism?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In the Middle Ages IIRC we were sain to have:

anima bruta (spirit shared with animals / "brutes")
anima humana (spirit peculaar to humans)
anima divina (immortal part of ourselves)

 

[GrayAngel]

This still presupposes that a thing such as a 'spirit' actually exists.

As Descartes put it, it is impossible to deny that you exist. Just by trying to deny it, you confirm your existence. However, Descartes makes the assumption that his ability to think = existence, which I disagree with. He says "I think, therefore I am." I prefer, "I'm aware, therefore I am."

We certainly *think* we do.

It's pretty hard to argue that you don't. But if you would like to try it, feel free. There is such a thing as monism, and it has some scientific evidence. But I think monism is incomplete.

I have watched the effects of Alzheimers first hand. My wife leaves the room for a moment, and her grandmother asks "where did the girl go?". So who was sitting there, with no memories of her grandchildren or great-grandchildren? Was that still her grandmother - "in spirit"? What does that mean?

I would argue that your wife's grandmother never stopped being your wife's grandmother. Her mind was failing her, but she didn't cease to exist.

Admitting that I am new to this philosophy stuff, I will ask if there are philosophers that still hold on to (Cartesian) dualism?

Of course. I don't know how many there are, but they exist. I'm sure some of them subscribe to a slightly modified version of Cartesian philosophy, though.

In the Middle Ages IIRC we were sain to have:

anima bruta (spirit shared with animals / "brutes")
anima humana (spirit peculaar to humans)
anima divina (immortal part of ourselves)

Could you explain this a little more? I don't really understand it.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't completely disagree with Descartes', however. I do agree that there does seem to be something distinct about the mind. The mind itself is not a physical thing, although it is highly dependent on the physical body.

I think this is called emergence. The immaterial mind is produced and dependant on the brain, but very much distinct from it in type. This is sort of what I believe.

In my view, I consider what Descates calls the "soul" and the actual intangible self, or "spirit," as two different things. One could say that a computer has a mind, as it works very similarly to our own brains. Of course, they can't freely think, being bound by the limits of their programming, but what if we could build a robot that functions the same as us? At what point will it become more than just an inanimate, empty shell of an object?

I think if you say a computer has a mind you highly underestimate the huge difference between consciousness and unconsciousness. Perhaps you might attribute this to the spirit/ soul though. In that case the mind and soul are very connected as well. I would rather think that the soul is the mind and that the soul is produced by the brain, but capable of being sustained by God beyond death. I am using one of Swinburne's ideas here.

I would say the difference between a robot object and a robot person is self-consciousness.

I don't think any amount of engineering could create a spirit. The spirit is what makes the difference between us and the computer. Both we and computers have information processing through a physical medium, but there is something more in us, something that cannot be compared to anything else. We are not empty shells just robotically collecting and responding to information, we have an awareness of our existence.

Well I don't know if we have a spirit.

I must define what I mean by "awareness," because it can refer to something entirely different from what I mean. When people think of awareness, we think of it as something in a matter of degree, something measurable. If you're wide awake, you have a high measure of awareness, but you have no awareness when you're in a coma. This kind of awareness is attributable to the brain, not the spirit.

Why can't it be part of the mind rather than spirit? Why can't they be the same thing in some sense?

What I mean by spirit is something that doesn't change or turn on or off. When you're in a comatose state, you don't cease to exist for a while until you reawaken. Your awareness is your personal connection to the world. This is your inner life, and your true self. Without a body, without a soul, the spirit would still exist.

Well if you have some sort of mental activity while in a coma then you can be considered existent, but if you have no brain activity then that is commonly known as death. It is hard to say what happens in the brain and mind of a coma patient though.

Another trait that make the spirit distinct from the soul is its constancy. People with Alzheimer's disease go through changes in personality, a division of the mind, and they are often said to "lose themselves." Well, if you define yourself as being your mind, then you could become a different person. But is that really true? Does the victim of Alzheimer's really cease to exist and get booted out by somebody else? I think this is a silly point to argue, once thought through. You wouldn't say the same of a child who has grown up. They haven't "lost themselves," although they've undoubtedly changed much between birth and adulthood. In fact, if you define the mind as your true self, then by the time you finish reading this, the physical makeup in your brain will change, thereby changing your mind, and the you who started reading this sentence has ceased to exist. If, however, you define yourself as being your spirit, then you are the same person from birth to death.

It is the drastic shift of the mind in a short space of time that is the problem for the Alzheimer's patient. When I consider it happening to myself, I can't help imagining myself gone from my body. I can't imagine Alzheimer's from inside. I suppose I am talking about the later stages more so though.

Now, the reason why I shared this theory is this: I don't know if this is a recognized alternative to the other views or not. I've never heard of a philosopher who argued for a three-way reality instead of two. Even my professor seemed to think it a strange idea, but I know I'm not smart enough to come up with something that hasn't been thought up already. So are there any philosophers out there who hold a view similar to this? Is there a small group of triplists or somewhere?

I think Aristotle (or was it Plato?) understood the human soul as having three parts: reason, moral impulse, and desire. You could call this a four way view, or a two way (perhaps) if you call the soul one thing.

 

[Beechwell]

As Descartes put it, it is impossible to deny that you exist. Just by trying to deny it, you confirm your existence. However, Descartes makes the assumption that his ability to think = existence, which I disagree with. He says "I think, therefore I am." I prefer, "I'm aware, therefore I am."

I think this is trickier than it first seems. What is this "I" that supposedly thinks? Certainl thoughts are happening, but is there really a distinct entity that creates these thoughts, or do the thoughts create the (illusion of) "I"? I don't think just because we experience ourselves as distinct, continuous beings doesn't necessary mean we actually are.
On the other hand, if we do experience ourselves as such beings, it probably is justified to think of ourselves as such, and base our philosophy on this. Just don't expect that the physical science will necessarily agree with this perception.

It's pretty hard to argue that you don't. But if you would like to try it, feel free. There is such a thing as monism, and it has some scientific evidence. But I think monism is incomplete.

Maybe. But to be honest I have the feeling that this spirit-identity of yours is more a construct to save some aspect of our self from being disected by psychology and neuroscience. I don't see any compelling reason to assume such a seperate identity beyond our thoughts (and I'd argue that being aware is essentially the same as thinking, or at last a result of thoughts.

I'm just thinking: Your idea does bear some resemblance to existentialism (as represented by Jean-Paul Sartre or Simone de Beauvoir) - at least as I understand it. A person is a person first and foremost because it exists ("is aware" as you would say); thoughs, feelings, or our physical existence are just secondary to that.

I would argue that your wife's grandmother never stopped being your wife's grandmother. Her mind was failing her, but she didn't cease to exist.

But how can we know that she is indeed still the same as she was before? Certainly we think of her as the same, but would we really notice if someone else "took over" her body or her thoughts? How do we ourselves even know we are the same entity as we were before? We certainly experience only a tiny timeframe at "present". Anything beyond that we only have as memories, and those are stored in our physical brain.

Let me try to perform a thought experiment on this:
Assume that beaming - a la Star Trek - was indeed possible. I.e. you can destroy a human being and reassemble it (with the same or different material) at some other location in exactly the same state as the one destroyed.
So after being beamed in this fashion, are you still the same as you were before before? One would assume that you would experience yourself as the same person. You would be aware, remember everything from before the beaming, and have the same personality. Or not? Would something be missing now, destroyed with the old body? I honestly don't know. I assume we would at least percieve ourselves indeed to be the same person, even if we have in fact died and were born again.

Any thoughts what might happen to your spirit identity?

 

[GrayAngel]

I think this is called emergence. The immaterial mind is produced and dependant on the brain, but very much distinct from it in type. This is sort of what I believe.

Right. In this way, I agree with monism, that the mind and body are inseparable. But it doesn't make sense to me that we could be anything more than empty bags of meat if all we are is physical. The physical world is nothing more than a machine. We can give an eye to a machine, and it will respond to and make sense of the light. I've done this before with a Lego robot, and the robot car was able to follow a black line. But did the Lego robot see the colors, like we do when we see the picture in our heads, or was it just responding to the information?

I think if you say a computer has a mind you highly underestimate the huge difference between consciousness and unconsciousness. Perhaps you might attribute this to the spirit/ soul though. In that case the mind and soul are very connected as well. I would rather think that the soul is the mind and that the soul is produced by the brain, but capable of being sustained by God beyond death. I am using one of Swinburne's ideas here.

Using Descartes' terms, I like to use mind and soul interchangeably. But I consider our basic existence to be the spirit/consciousness.

I don't think I've read Swinburne's theories, but since I have a tendency to disagree with everyone, I would probably find a few points I would argue against.

Concerning the afterlife, I believe what the Bible says: that our body and mind will be exchanged for a perfect body and mind. But if the mind = our existence, then that would mean we would stop existing and we'd be replaced with somebody else. This is one reason why I don't equate the mind with out existence.

I would say the difference between a robot object and a robot person is self-consciousness.

What do you mean by self-consciousness? Is it our awareness of our own thinking (meta-cognition)?

Well if you have some sort of mental activity while in a coma then you can be considered existent, but if you have no brain activity then that is commonly known as death. It is hard to say what happens in the brain and mind of a coma patient though.

Unless I'm mistaken, there is a difference between being in a state of dreamless sleep and being in a coma. In a coma, there's no thought going on.

Also, if we assume there is an afterlife we go to after death, then how does the mind become transferred? If our mind is produced by our brain, then how does our mind go from brain to afterlife?

It is the drastic shift of the mind in a short space of time that is the problem for the Alzheimer's patient. When I consider it happening to myself, I can't help imagining myself gone from my body. I can't imagine Alzheimer's from inside. I suppose I am talking about the later stages more so though.

What does it matter how quickly the change happens? Yes, it's tragic, but in the grander scheme of things, all of our lives are short. Should we assign a certain amount of change without a set amount of time that would qualify as losing oneself? What if the change is caused by the a tragic event instead of a disease? Does that still qualify?

I think Aristotle (or was it Plato?) understood the human soul as having three parts: reason, moral impulse, and desire. You could call this a four way view, or a two way (perhaps) if you call the soul one thing.

I would be more willing to combine body and soul than soul and spirit.

 

[Theofane]

The body and the mind are not separate. Where does the mind end and the body begin? I guess you could say I believe in the dualism of material phenomena in that everything is divided up into pairs of opposites. Who but God can exist beyond all dualism?

 

[Davian]

As Descartes put it, it is impossible to deny that you exist. Just by trying to deny it, you confirm your existence.

That did not address my statement.

Is all you call 'spirit' only the self-awareness constructed by your brain?

When "you" are not aware, are "you" still there? (I am not referring to your physical body)

However, Descartes makes the assumption that his ability to think = existence, which I disagree with. He says "I think, therefore I am." I prefer, "I'm aware, therefore I am."

Again, when you are "not aware", is there anything in your head to say "I am"?

It's pretty hard to argue that you don't. But if you would like to try it, feel free.

I am not arguing that we don't. I am referring to the idea of "illusion of self". The brain creates a 'model of self', that feeling of self awareness, as a way of processing information.

"Arguably, until now, the conscious self-model of human beings is the best invention Mother Nature has made. It is a wonderfully efficient two-way window that allows an organism to conceive of itself as a whole, and thereby to causally interact with its inner and outer environment in an entirely new, integrated, and intelligent manner." - Thomas Metzinger, in Being No One

Being No One - YouTube

There is such a thing as monism, and it has some scientific evidence. But I think monism is incomplete.

What do you mean by "monism" and how is it incomplete?

I would defer to Daniel Dennett, when he proposed that the solution to understanding consciousness is bound to be counter-intuitive, since if it was intuitive, we would have already figured it out.

I would argue that your wife's grandmother never stopped being your wife's grandmother. Her mind was failing her, but she didn't cease to exist.

That did not address my question. Of course the body was still there (she has since died) - but the personality wasn't. So where did that personality go, in relation to this 'spirit' you are positing? Perhaps you could be more explicit on what you claim are the properties of 'spirit'.

 

[Davian]

Right. In this way, I agree with monism, that the mind and body are inseparable. But it doesn't make sense to me that we could be anything more than empty bags of meat if all we are is physical.

Does an explanation have to 'make sense'? What does that mean?

The physical world is nothing more than a machine. We can give an eye to a machine, and it will respond to and make sense of the light. I've done this before with a Lego robot, and the robot car was able to follow a black line. But did the Lego robot see the colors, like we do when we see the picture in our heads, or was it just responding to the information?

How is the human brain demonstrably different in reacting to its environment?

What does it matter how quickly the change happens? Yes, it's tragic, but in the grander scheme of things, all of our lives are short. Should we assign a certain amount of change without a set amount of time that would qualify as losing oneself? What if the change is caused by the a tragic event instead of a disease? Does that still qualify?

Likewise, are you the same person as you were when you were 5 years old? 10? 5 years ago?

 

[GrayAngel]

I think this is trickier than it first seems. What is this "I" that supposedly thinks? Certainl thoughts are happening, but is there really a distinct entity that creates these thoughts, or do the thoughts create the (illusion of) "I"? I don't think just because we experience ourselves as distinct, continuous beings doesn't necessary mean we actually are.
On the other hand, if we do experience ourselves as such beings, it probably is justified to think of ourselves as such, and base our philosophy on this. Just don't expect that the physical science will necessarily agree with this perception.

I've heard of this theory before. It is a possibility, but I prefer not to think that way. Part of it may be my Christian bias, but it also seems to go contrary to common sense.

Maybe. But to be honest I have the feeling that this spirit-identity of yours is more a construct to save some aspect of our self from being disected by psychology and neuroscience. I don't see any compelling reason to assume such a seperate identity beyond our thoughts (and I'd argue that being aware is essentially the same as thinking, or at last a result of thoughts.

Consciousness, as the ability to gather and respond to information effectively, is a part of the mind. But the "ghost in the machine" is something different. I do not see how it could ever be possible for a physical object to create an awareness, which is completely intangible.

I'm just thinking: Your idea does bear some resemblance to existentialism (as represented by Jean-Paul Sartre or Simone de Beauvoir) - at least as I understand it. A person is a person first and foremost because it exists ("is aware" as you would say); thoughs, feelings, or our physical existence are just secondary to that.

I'll have to do some reading on them. Thanks.

But how can we know that she is indeed still the same as she was before? Certainly we think of her as the same, but would we really notice if someone else "took over" her body or her thoughts? How do we ourselves even know we are the same entity as we were before? We certainly experience only a tiny timeframe at "present". Anything beyond that we only have as memories, and those are stored in our physical brain.

I don't think it would be possible to be able to tell if, somehow, a spirit took the place of another. That spirit would be operating under the same memories, personality, etc., but it would be a different person experiencing the world through those things.

It would sort of be like having a desktop, after you replace the monitor with a new one. The computer parts would be the same, and you'd have the same information to work with, and the images that appear on the screen of the monitor should be the same. However, it would be a completely different screen displaying those images.

Let me try to perform a thought experiment on this:
Assume that beaming - a la Star Trek - was indeed possible. I.e. you can destroy a human being and reassemble it (with the same or different material) at some other location in exactly the same state as the one destroyed.
So after being beamed in this fashion, are you still the same as you were before before? One would assume that you would experience yourself as the same person. You would be aware, remember everything from before the beaming, and have the same personality. Or not? Would something be missing now, destroyed with the old body? I honestly don't know. I assume we would at least percieve ourselves indeed to be the same person, even if we have in fact died and were born again.

Any thoughts what might happen to your spirit identity?

If it's teleportation, then you'd have the same body at the end that you'd begin with. However, if the teleporter were destroying a person on one end and creating a mirror image of that person out of different by similar materials, I'd say that would be equivalent to murder. I'm not sure what would happen with the new copy of yourself, however. I don't think the spirit would be transferred to it, as we could just as easily create a brand new human being instead of a copy, and what if we created more than one copy? Perhaps we'd get new spirits to match those bodies.

The copies would definitely think they're the same person as before, but I don't think they would be. They'd be like identical computers of the same model and parts, as well as the same software, essentially identical, but not completely equal.

That did not address my statement.

Is all you call 'spirit' only the self-awareness constructed by your brain?

When "you" are not aware, are "you" still there? (I am not referring to your physical body)

By "aware" are you referring to alertness, with sleep and wide-awake as two extremes?

Using the same computer analogy I've been working with, imagine the spirit were the screen of a desktop monitor. If you turn off the computer, the screen will become inactive, receiving no information from the computer. The screen will not cease to exist, it just won't be doing anything. A similar thing happens when you're in a state of dreamless sleep. Your awareness isn't being stimulated, but your awareness still exists. When you become alert, the image on your monitor will become active.

Again, when you are "not aware", is there anything in your head to say "I am"?

I'd love to ask a fully AI/"self-aware" robot (if one ever exists in my lifetime) if they believe they exist, and see what kind of response I'd get.

Yes and no. Without a mind, I can't wonder if I exist at all. But the mind is not necessary for existence. If the mind existed without a spirit, it would be like a robot, an empty shell. If you could produce such a spiritless mind that was capable of asking itself if it existed, that would be an interesting scenario.

I think I've just grown a fully appreciation for the Terminator series. Can't really blame those robots for acting out after going through that kind of torture.

I am not arguing that we don't. I am referring to the idea of "illusion of self". The brain creates a 'model of self', that feeling of self awareness, as a way of processing information.

"Arguably, until now, the conscious self-model of human beings is the best invention Mother Nature has made. It is a wonderfully efficient two-way window that allows an organism to conceive of itself as a whole, and thereby to causally interact with its inner and outer environment in an entirely new, integrated, and intelligent manner." - Thomas Metzinger, in Being No One

Being No One - YouTube

I'll have to take a look at that video later. Fifty-six minutes is a bit long for a YouTube video.

What do you mean by "monism" and how is it incomplete?

Monism is the belief that there is no distinction between body and soul (or spirit). The only reality this position accepts is the physical. I consider this an oversimplification.

Common sense should tell us that there are some things that exist that are not fully explainable by physical energies. Yes, you can alter the mind by changing the electrical-chemical signals in the brain, but how does a collection of cells create a mind? Why shouldn't rolling a ball down a cliff produce the same result? What's so special about a neurotransmitter binding to a nerve cell, causing that cell to send an electric pulse down its axon, which causes the release of more neurotransmitters?

That did not address my question. Of course the body was still there (she has since died) - but the personality wasn't. So where did that personality go, in relation to this 'spirit' you are positing? Perhaps you could be more explicit on what you claim are the properties of 'spirit'.

Personality is part of the mind, which is dependent on the brain. The spirit is independent of personality, emotion, memory, or thought.

Soul = Mind, dependent on the body, temporary
Spirit = Awareness, independent, eternal

The spirit cannot turn off. It either exists or it doesn't. Personality is constantly changing from moment to moment. When the personality is gone, it's lost, but the person remains. This is why Alzheimer's is so tragic, because the person outlives their mind. But if the spirit is really independent, it will outlive the body as well.

Does an explanation have to 'make sense'? What does that mean?

A common assumption in philosophy is that they world could be explained through logic. If something is illogical, it can't be true. And so we get statements like "ex nihilo nihil fit," "nothing comes from nothing."

But of course, some things are beyond our realm of understanding.

How is the human brain demonstrably different in reacting to its environment?

Humans react in more complex ways. I am a determinist, so I consider humans to physically and mentally resemble machines. But the mental is not the ghost of the machine. The ghost is a blank observer. Logical thought, emotions, ect., are fed to it.

Likewise, are you the same person as you were when you were 5 years old? 10? 5 years ago?

I believe so. Physically, I've changed shape. Mentally, I've sharpened. But as far as I'm aware, I'm still the same spirit as I was when I was formed.

 

[Paradoxum]

Right. In this way, I agree with monism, that the mind and body are inseparable. But it doesn't make sense to me that we could be anything more than empty bags of meat if all we are is physical. The physical world is nothing more than a machine. We can give an eye to a machine, and it will respond to and make sense of the light. I've done this before with a Lego robot, and the robot car was able to follow a black line. But did the Lego robot see the colors, like we do when we see the picture in our heads, or was it just responding to the information?

Robots can't currently see. Even the most advanced machines aren't aware.

I don't know what we are. It depends if I am being optimistic or pessimistic. Do you think we are determined or free?

Using Descartes' terms, I like to use mind and soul interchangeably. But I consider our basic existence to be the spirit/consciousness.

I also tend to consider the mind to be the soul, but I think the mind is consciousness. So I don't see what role the spirit plays.

I don't think I've read Swinburne's theories, but since I have a tendency to disagree with everyone, I would probably find a few points I would argue against.

I haven't read alot by him, I just know a few of his ideas.

Concerning the afterlife, I believe what the Bible says: that our body and mind will be exchanged for a perfect body and mind. But if the mind = our existence, then that would mean we would stop existing and we'd be replaced with somebody else. This is one reason why I don't equate the mind with out existence.

Well it could be just that our bodily desires are removed. It would appear to be our natural desires evolved to keep us alive that cause us to be evil. With no need for survival we could be freed to act rationally, morally, and lovingly.

What do you mean by self-consciousness? Is it our awareness of our own thinking (meta-cognition)?

Well I mean self-reflection. Animals can't self-reflect, but obviously have minds and experience the world in a more profound way than modern robots. I have seen the word sentience used for animals and self-consciousness/self-reflect used for humans. Of course animals like apes will be in some middle grey area though.

Unless I'm mistaken, there is a difference between being in a state of dreamless sleep and being in a coma. In a coma, there's no thought going on.

I don't know. I have heard alot that they can hear to speak, but I don't know if they are just lying

Also, if we assume there is an afterlife we go to after death, then how does the mind become transferred? If our mind is produced by our brain, then how does our mind go from brain to afterlife?

One idea (by Swinburne I think) is that the mind is like a light bulb, but only works when attached to a source of electricity. This normally means being screwed into a light fitting (body) but can mean being attached to loose wires or given its own battery (something God can provide). So pretty much God can restore the mind and then give it a spiritual body to power it. Or as John Hick might say; we are replicated in heaven. I think he died this month.

What does it matter how quickly the change happens? Yes, it's tragic, but in the grander scheme of things, all of our lives are short. Should we assign a certain amount of change without a set amount of time that would qualify as losing oneself? What if the change is caused by the a tragic event instead of a disease? Does that still qualify?

Perhaps we shouldn't say that the person is even gone (until death), but that they are slowly losing themselves. I think one key point is that they aren't simply changing, but rather that the mind slowly dying.

I would be more willing to combine body and soul than soul and spirit.

I don't understand what role this spirit plays though.

 

[Davian]

Grayangel - can you please separate you posts/responses - it really makes a mess when trying to respond.

By "aware" are you referring to alertness, with sleep and wide-awake as two extremes?

And the shades of gray in between. Is the "I am" always there? How would "you" know?

Using the same computer analogy I've been working with, imagine the spirit were the screen of a desktop monitor. If you turn off the computer, the screen will become inactive, receiving no information from the computer. The screen will not cease to exist, it just won't be doing anything. A similar thing happens when you're in a state of dreamless sleep. Your awareness isn't being stimulated, but your awareness still exists. When you become alert, the image on your monitor will become active.

Introspection may not be as reliable as you make it out to be.

I'd love to ask a fully AI/"self-aware" robot (if one ever exists in my lifetime) if they believe they exist, and see what kind of response I'd get.

Actually, the more interesting question:

You meet this AI that, from all intents and purposes, appears to be self-aware... and it then asks *you* if you are conscious/self aware... and to explain it in objective terms.

Yes and no. Without a mind, I can't wonder if I exist at all. But the mind is not necessary for existence. If the mind existed without a spirit, it would be like a robot, an empty shell.

How would you demonstrate that claim?

If you could produce such a spiritless mind that was capable of asking itself if it existed, that would be an interesting scenario.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, and without a testable definition of what you mean by "spirit", the human brain is already there.

I think I've just grown a fully appreciation for the Terminator series. Can't really blame those robots for acting out after going through that kind of torture.

It was my understanding that Skynet was acting out of a sense of self-preservation.

I'll have to take a look at that video later. Fifty-six minutes is a bit long for a YouTube video.

I used the youtube link for its embedibilty. Here is the formal link the the Metziner lecture:

Being No One: Consciousness, The Phenomenal Self, and First-Person Perspective - UCTV - University of California Television

Monism is the belief that there is no distinction between body and soul (or spirit). The only reality this position accepts is the physical. I consider this an oversimplification.

Common sense should tell us that there are some things that exist that are not fully explainable by physical energies.

I do not see why it should. Common sense is not science. On what evidence to you base this claim?

Yes, you can alter the mind by changing the electrical-chemical signals in the brain, but how does a collection of cells create a mind?

That is why I linked to the Metzinger lecture, a philosopher using neuroscience to explain consciousness.

Why shouldn't rolling a ball down a cliff produce the same result? What's so special about a neurotransmitter binding to a nerve cell, causing that cell to send an electric pulse down its axon, which causes the release of more neurotransmitters?

Individually, nothing. Billions of them, working together, and the story changes.

Here is a lecture from the philosopher Daniel Dennett, on The Magic of Consciousness

Daniel Dennett is Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

Here Professor Dennett lectures on the philosophical obstacles to understanding consciousness. This lecture includes topics covered in detail in his wonderful books "Consciousness Explained" and "Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness".

He covers Cartesian dualism, and at the 47 min mark, talks about 'common sense' solutions.

The Magic of Consciousness - YouTube

Personality is part of the mind, which is dependent on the brain. The spirit is independent of personality, emotion, memory, or thought.

Soul = Mind, dependent on the body, temporary
Spirit = Awareness, independent, eternal

The spirit cannot turn off. It either exists or it doesn't. Personality is constantly changing from moment to moment. When the personality is gone, it's lost, but the person remains. This is why Alzheimer's is so tragic, because the person outlives their mind. But if the spirit is really independent, it will outlive the body as well.

And how would you demonstrate all of these assertions you are making about "the spirit"? can you come up with a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

A common assumption in philosophy is that they world could be explained through logic. If something is illogical, it can't be true. And so we get statements like "ex nihilo nihil fit," "nothing comes from nothing."

Thats sounds very dated. At the quantum level, cause-and-effect break down, and thing do appear to come from 'nothing', following a new definition of what is meant by 'nothing'.

But of course, some things are beyond our realm of understanding.

That may be so.

Humans react in more complex ways. I am a determinist, so I consider humans to physically and mentally resemble machines. But the mental is not the ghost of the machine. The ghost is a blank observer. Logical thought, emotions, ect., are fed to it.

So how are humans more than biological machines? what is this 'ghost' that you are talking about?

I believe so. Physically, I've changed shape. Mentally, I've sharpened. But as far as I'm aware, I'm still the same spirit as I was when I was formed.

Again, introspection may not be a reliable way of determining such things.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

A trichotomy "body, soul, spirit" is hinted at in 1 Thes 5:23; and Heb 4:12.

 

[Davian]

Robots can't currently see.

They can see well enough to drive cars on public roads:

Let the Robot Drive: The Autonomous Car of the Future Is Here | Wired Magazine | Wired.com


Mapping the Road Ahead for Autonomous Cars | Autopia | Wired.com

Even the most advanced machines aren't aware.

But what if they were programmed in a manner to appear as if they were?

 

[Paradoxum]

They can see well enough to drive cars on public roads:

Let the Robot Drive: The Autonomous Car of the Future Is Here | Wired Magazine | Wired.com


Mapping the Road Ahead for Autonomous Cars | Autopia | Wired.com

I don't mean that by the word see.

But what if they were programmed in a manner to appear as if they were?

Then they would appear aware.

 

[Davian]

I don't mean that by the word see.

What do you mean by "see"?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I take a dual-aspect view of the mind-body distinction, coupled with some emergentism. My view is similar to the one found in this article.

http://rogerbissell.com/id11aaa.html

It's not precisely neutral monism, but it is similar. I don't regard myself as either a monist or a dualist on this issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

I take a dual-aspect view of the mind-body distinction, coupled with some emergentism. My view is similar to the one found in this article.

A Dual-Aspect Approach to the Mind-Body Problem

From that page:
"The difference between man and the lower animals is not that man alone is self-determining. All living beings are self-determining; i.e., all living beings generate their own actions themselves. Man's distinction in this respect is that he is self-determining psychologically.

Man has the ability, by virtue of his capacity for self-awareness (introspection) to integrate his consciousness into the top of his organismic hierarchy, allowing it to be more than just an automatic system of signals of danger and safety, pain and well-being, etc. With the awareness of future consequences and alternatives, with the awareness that he is a being who can weigh the alternatives and choose the one he thinks best, a man's consciousness becomes subject to his control. he is able to use it actively, instead of automatically responding to its data."

This is demonstrably false. Pick any optical illusion, where, despite being fully aware of it being an illusion, you still see the illusion.

Checker Shadow - Planet Perplex

Or take 'priming' as another example. My favourite demonstration of this is by Darren Brown.

Derren Brown - Mind Control - YouTube

 

[DisingenuousChristian]

In the wisdom traditions spirit is normally seen as male, I believe, whereas our fleshlier, visible part, which partakes of creativity, is feminine.

You need both and so I would subscribe to a non-dualism. Thus it is that woman finds herself in man's spirit and man finds himself in woman's form. This may strike one as overly essentialist, but in truth this is the primal dynamic underlying all opposites.