Please Explain a Soul

[Davian]

I didn't suggest an alternate methodology. That was what you wanted.

Yes, that is what I asked for.

I suggested a way to get an answer ... though I guess I'm not sure what I would call getting an answer if it's not a methodology.

"Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study, or the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge. It, typically, encompasses concepts such as paradigm, theoretical model, phases and quantitative or qualitative techniques." (wiki)

Do you think of geology as "looking at rocks"?

So, are you suggesting that an invalid method is better than just asking me if I want chocolate ice cream?

I didn't ask about your ice cream.

What method did you invalidate? Is it your position that neuroscience is an invalid method for exploring and describing the 'self'?

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you think of geology as "looking at rocks"?

Really? You expect me to take that as a serious question? It seems fitting to answer your question with a question: Would geology be an appropriate method to use for studying "self"?

I didn't ask about your ice cream.

I suggested it as one aspect of "self". Are you going to prove to me that it is not?

What method did you invalidate?

In a formal manner? None. I expressed skepticism.

Is it your position that neuroscience is an invalid method for exploring and describing the 'self'?

Yes. Since you seem to disagree, explain to me how neuroscience is going to "explore and describe the 'self'".

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is a very interesting reply. Are you familiar with Star Trek and the ongoing debate that Spock and Dr. McCoy used to have about the transporter? The idea of the transporter was that the computer disassembled the body of the person (basically killed them), and then assembled an exact replica in the new location. Exact. Same personality, same memories, same exact physical structure - just maybe using different electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. to do it.

Spock always took the position that it was the same person. McCoy took the position that it wasn't, and objected to having to use the transporter.

So, you're taking McCoy's position here. Why exactly is there some kind of discontinuity here such that the resurrected body is not you?

Well let's ask a similar hypothetical question...maybe you'll understand why. If I were to take your dna, create and exact replica of you, put it through some elaborate simulation so that it has all your memories, experiences, etc., and somehow accelerated it's aging to meet yours....would it be you? Or just a really good (let's say perfect) copy of you?

Now ask yourself...why would transported you, or resurrected you, be any different from this elaborate copy?

 

[Resha Caner]

....would it be you? Or just a really good (let's say perfect) copy of you?

I asked you first.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I asked you first.

Well the answer is pretty obvious, isn't it? Lol you're you...the copy isn't...no matter how perfectly it's made. You couldn't possibly be both yourself and the copy, now could you? It doesn't matter if you die first or you're still alive, it's not you.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well the answer is pretty obvious, isn't it? Lol you're you...the copy isn't...no matter how perfectly it's made. You couldn't possibly be both yourself and the copy, now could you? It doesn't matter if you die first or you're still alive, it's not you.

Why? Why isn't the copy you and you the copy?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why? Why isn't the copy you and you the copy?

That's really the most absurd question I've ever heard. Have you ever been two people, two selves?

 

[Resha Caner]

That's really the most absurd question I've ever heard. Have you ever been two people, two selves?

[edit] I never said anything about one person being two selves. That's not what my question asked, so let me try it this way. You are suggesting precedence in time determines which is the "true" self and which is the copy. Why? Let's try this:

John is a person (which we'll call John A).
John is copied - exactly (and we'll call the copy John B).
John A loses an arm.
Isn't John B now "truer" to the original?

Does the copy have a self? It seems you're saying it does.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I never said anything about one person being two selves. That's not what my question asked.

Does the copy have a self? It seems you're saying it does.

Why wouldn't it? Nothing magical about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

[edit] I never said anything about one person being two selves. That's not what my question asked, so let me try it this way. You are suggesting precedence in time determines which is the "true" self and which is the copy. Why? Let's try this:

John is a person.
John is copied - exactly (and we'll call the copy Juan).
John loses an arm.
Isn't Juan "truer" to the original?

Does the copy have a self? It seems you're saying it does.

Yea, precedence in time would determine the copy for this hypothetical. The copy is a copy of you, not the other way around. Arms have nothing to do with it.

 

[Davian]

Really? You expect me to take that as a serious question?

No, I do not. I posed the question - a second time, as you have a habit of trimming my posts down to alter their intent - as a means of establishing a frame of reference, to see if we can agree on the meaning of the terms at hand.

It seems fitting to answer your question with a question: Would geology be an appropriate method to use for studying "self"?

Bad analogy. I was not talking about what is appropriate, but of being more quantitative or qualitative in our approaches.

I suggested it as one aspect of "self". Are you going to prove to me that it is not?

Why would I try to do that?

In a formal manner? None. I expressed skepticism.

So, it was improper to refer to it as an 'invalid method', it was just your opinion.

Yes.

So why do you think neuroscience is an invalid method for exploring and describing the 'self'? Are your reasons scientific or theological?

Since you seem to disagree, explain to me how neuroscience is going to "explore and describe the 'self'".

It would seem to be the only viable option at this time. However, if your objections are theological in nature, there really is no point in going further, is there?

 

[poolerboy0077]

IMO it's not a red herring. Are you familiar with the TV show The Big Bang Theory? One of the central premises of that show is how people with a scientific world view deal with human relationships. In that regard, the character of Sheldon Cooper is often portrayed as the best scientist but also the one least capable in people skills. He's the butt of many jokes on the show because he "doesn't get it." Of course TV exaggerates, but at the same time the reason it's funny is because it so closely matches my experiences with real engineers.

Whether someone's socially awkward is not relevant to empiricism. Nor are they mutually exclusive.

The phrase "naturally-occurring" is throwing me. So you want to capture a spirit out in the wild somewhere and test it like a lab rat?

Minds are naturally occurring. We don't "capture" them or "test them like a lab rat." These are silly non-sequiturs.

As I said, I am quickly underwhelmed by the qualitative musings of scientists in this area. Neuroscience has it's uses. IMO, finding the "self" is not one of them.

In general I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla - unless it's my mother's recipe for home-made vanilla ice cream. And actually, given a choice between chocolate ice cream and potato chips, I would probably choose the chips ... but that depends on the weather. I'd probably lean toward the ice cream on a hot day.

I consider that part of my "self". Is what I just said all illusory? I don't really have those desires? Could Dr. Hood scan my brain while I'm thinking about all those things and extract that information?

I think it would be much easier to just ask me.[/quote]
...

That's not what he's pointing out as the illusion. The illusion he's referring to is an autonomous individual with a coherent identity and sense of free will. That’s not to say that the illusion is pointless. Experiencing a self illusion may have tangible functional benefits in the way we think and act, but that does not mean that it exists as an entity.

 

[brightlights]

In your first portion, you seem to equate the soul with feelings. Is that about correct?

Equation isn't the word that I would use because I think that "soul" gets at more than feelings. It's getting at the whole inner life. I was reading the Psalms this morning and there was a verse that said something to the effect of: "I will praise you with my lips and with my soul." Now what could that mean? I believe what the psalmist is saying is that he will praise God with his words but also from his "heart" (another vague word). We all know what it's like to express something verbally that doesn't truly reflect our inward disposition. The psalmist wants to feel and truly mean what he says when he praises the Lord with his lips.

I was actually unaware that a literal hellfire isn't taken seriously. Why is that?

It just seems obvious to me that the fire language is imagery. The Bible does not communicate in absolutely precise language. Because it seeks to engage the imagination and to make concepts sensible it uses sensible imagery like fire. Fire is an image of God's judgment. It consumes the wicked like fire consumes brambles. But it purifies the righteous like fire purifies gold. The fire language is imagery though. What "fire" is precisely we do not really know. The Bible does this with many of its concepts.

 

[Resha Caner]

Whether someone's socially awkward is not relevant to empiricism. Nor are they mutually exclusive.

Actually, you're kinda making my point about why it is relevant. Quantifying love - giving an explanation of the associated chemical responses of the body - through empiricism or whatever means does not meet the request of the question, "Do you love me?" The question requires a qualitative response based on shared experience.

Minds are naturally occurring. We don't "capture" them or "test them like a lab rat." These are silly non-sequiturs.

Exactly my point (except maybe the part about "naturally-occurring" that you haven't explained yet). Anyway, thanks. So what exactly is it you're asking to falsify?

That's not what he's pointing out as the illusion. The illusion he's referring to is an autonomous individual with a coherent identity and sense of free will. That’s not to say that the illusion is pointless. Experiencing a self illusion may have tangible functional benefits in the way we think and act, but that does not mean that it exists as an entity.

So neurology has proven that autonomy and free-will are illusions? Hmm. That could settle a lot of debates on this forum. Please share.

 

[Resha Caner]

... you have a habit of trimming my posts down to alter their intent ...

Your post is there for all to read. I'm not required to quote anything at all. I could just respond with a wall of text. I quote to bring focus to how I am interpreting you and what I am specifically responding to. If I have misunderstood you, then clarify it.

Why would I try to do that?

Because you seem to think neurology is the way to study "self". I proposed it as part of "self", so I would expect your method to address that.

So, it was improper to refer to it as an 'invalid method', it was just your opinion.

I'm sure you think my opinion is invalid. As it happens, I'm not undergoing any cognitive dissonance at the moment, so I think it is valid.

So why do you think neuroscience is an invalid method for exploring and describing the 'self'? Are your reasons scientific or theological?

Scientific. Just as geology is not the science to explore "self", neither is neuroscience. To use the analogy I've used all through this thread, using neuroscience to explore "self" is like someone checking the CPU in their computer to figure out where the bug is in a program.

If any science is suited to the study of "self", it's psychology ... not that that thrills me either.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why wouldn't it? Nothing magical about it.

So, John B thinks he is the John. After all, he is exactly like John. In what sense is it proper to say John B isn't John?

Yea, precedence in time would determine the copy for this hypothetical. The copy is a copy of you, not the other way around. Arms have nothing to do with it.

In all other instances of copying, there is some way to distinguish the copy from the original that has nothing to do with precedence. Why does it matter in this case?

So, I imagine John A went to the hospital when he lost his arm. I would also imagine the trauma was quite significant such that someone might say, "He's not himself right now."

Then John's wife walks in, and there is John B exactly as she remembers John to be. John A in the hospital bed is not the John she knows. If some kind of court hearing results, who is the wife going to testify to as the real John?

 

[brightlights]

Another thought to add:

We use the language of "soul" and "spirit" because the language describing the physical dimension of life is inadequate. To describe a human being in purely physical and biological terms doesn't adequately describe the human. We have to drift into this language to meaningfully articulate and express ourselves.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So, John B thinks he is the John. After all, he is exactly like John. In what sense is it proper to say John B isn't John?



In all other instances of copying, there is some way to distinguish the copy from the original that has nothing to do with precedence. Why does it matter in this case?

So, I imagine John A went to the hospital when he lost his arm. I would also imagine the trauma was quite significant such that someone might say, "He's not himself right now."

Then John's wife walks in, and there is John B exactly as she remembers John to be. John A in the hospital bed is not the John she knows. If some kind of court hearing results, who is the wife going to testify to as the real John?

It matters because they have two different selves, even if one was a copy of the other. So clearly, they aren't the same. Also, no matter how often you point out their similarities, you won't get around that fact nor the fact that it effectively negates the point of an afterlife.

If it's just a copy of me going to heaven/hell, why should I care?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Another thought to add:

We use the language of "soul" and "spirit" because the language describing the physical dimension of life is inadequate. To describe a human being in purely physical and biological terms doesn't adequately describe the human. We have to drift into this language to meaningfully articulate and express ourselves.

"To describe a human being in purely physical and biological terms doesn't adequately describe the human. "

I'm gonna just hold you up right there...ever try? I stopped using words like "soul" and "spirit" over a decade ago and haven't had any issues "describing life".

In fact, without empty ambiguous terms I actually think it's clearer what I mean when I say it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Also, no matter how often you point out their similarities, you won't get around that fact nor the fact that it effectively negates the point of an afterlife.

Don't worry. I know you brought it up, but I'm not interested in making a point about the afterlife. That's not what intrigues me here.

It matters because they have two different selves, even if one was a copy of the other. So clearly, they aren't the same.

OK. You shifted slightly. At first you were saying the first in precedence is you and any copies aren't. Now all you're saying that they are two different selves. But saying it's clear is not an explanation.

Why are they two different selves and not two instances of the same thing? I'm sure you don't want to say it, but it almost sounds as if you're saying there is some immaterial essence that makes you who you are.