Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thoughts on the soul

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the recent discussion on causation, I noted:

KF, 72: >>As I think about cause, I am led to ponder a current discussion that echoes Plato on the self-moved, ensouled agent with genuine freedom. Without endorsing wider context, John C Wright draws out a key point that we may ponder as a nugget drawn from a stream-bed:

Men have souls [–> that which gives us self-moved, responsible, rational freedom].

Once one accepts that premise, one must accept the conclusions that follow from it: creatures with souls are not evolved from slime, since spirit, being simple and eternal, cannot be brought into being by matter, which is compound, subject to change and decay, nor brought into being by any blind natural process; therefore, instead, spirit must be created in a divine image, with the faculties of reason and conscience and creativity. Living spirits like man hence are responsible each man for his own action, hence by right are worthy of the fruits each man of his own labor. Since this right comes not from the state, it should not in justice be abrogated by the state, for the right to property is sacrosanct, and, by the same logic, so too are all rights to life and liberty and to the freedom of the conscience. [–> I add, echoing the US DoI of 1776: the state enters, with the consent of the governed, as a common means to safeguard the civil peace of justice; that due balance of rights, freedoms and duties in community which cannot be reliably pursued otherwise — in which context, it has a legitimate power of moderate, prudent taxation as a cost-effective means to fund the defence and reasonable enhancement of the common good.]

Nor can a created being overstep the authority created into him by his creator, that is, Man cannot play God; which means he cannot slay innocent children in the womb nor murder the sick and elderly and useless gobblers of bread, nor breed men like dogsbreeders breeding dogs, nor commit suicide oneself, not even the slow suicide of addiction to self-destructive substances and ideas.

If man is created by divinity, it is not in his choice to demean and trample the image of God in himself nor his neighbor: modesty, honesty, humility, patience, prudence and temperance become sacrosanct.

Even such seemingly unrelated matters, such as the low dirt of modern speech, the crass ugliness of modern art, the vainglorious ignorance of modern schooling, become offenses against this divine image seen in man . . . .

If men have souls, what does skin hue matter?

It is that lost vision that is the context for the present endarkening of our civilisation, in which what we imagine is light is instead such darkness that we often imagine that light is darkness, accusing him who is Reason Himself and Goodness Himself of being an arbitrary would-be cosmological tyrant. That is why something as out of kilter as Euthyphro’s dilemma could even seem plausible. That seeming plausibility is a diagnostic sign of our soul-sickness.>>

I think, this is significant enough to headline. END

Comments
Why AI Approaches to Cognition Won't Work for ConsciousnessPaoloV
February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Am I more than my Brain? What relationship is there between our soul and mind?  If we are more than just our brain where does the soul fit in? If we are more than our brain, how do we handle those with mental disorders What does Christianity have to say about mental health struggles? Why do we struggle with depression?  Why did God let Job suffer so much? Do we have free will?   PaoloV
February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
S1:E5 | Consciousness | Sharon Dirckx | Genexis 2019 Am I Just My Brain?  RZIM Am I just my brain?  Interview AM I just my brain?  Book  PaoloV
February 9, 2020
February
02
Feb
9
09
2020
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
@ Ed George
Given that I have identical twin daughters
Do you consider your daughters "meat-robots"?Truthfreedom
January 27, 2020
January
01
Jan
27
27
2020
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
EG, absent a soul, you have no reality as a unified person, no credible rationality that transcends GIGO, no true duty under moral government [which would be delusional] and no basis for taking your mouth-noises seriously. In short, you are trying to defend self referential absurdity. KFkairosfocus
January 26, 2020
January
01
Jan
26
26
2020
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
@89 Ed George
Since the entire concept of a”soul” is little more than a thought experiment, I don’t see anything unusual about mine.
Well, according to materialism, "you" do not exist. You are an illusion. Lol.Truthfreedom
January 26, 2020
January
01
Jan
26
26
2020
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
F/N: an online book on the soul http://www.san.beck.org/Soul-Contents.html and a discussion at psychology today https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes not an endorsement, just to open up thought. KFkairosfocus
January 26, 2020
January
01
Jan
26
26
2020
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
The entire concept of "Ed George" is little more than a thought experiment.ET
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
KF
one may ponder a discussion here http://jimmyakin.com/2006/08/identical_twins.html with a forum type discussion here https://forums.catholic.com/t/when-do-identical-twins-get-their-souls/7586/2 .
Thanks for this research. Several ideas proposed there. Some better than others. This comment was interesting:
Dr. Jerome Lejeune cited evidence that the embryo prior to twinning was already programmed to split. In his view, therefore, the body was a two-embryo body even before the split when it was only one.
No reference was provided, and I don't know what Dr. Lejeune is referring to but it's possible that there is some, as yet undetected, marker for an embryo destined to split and that prior to that, the embryo is pre-planned with both souls which end up driving the embryonic spit itself.Silver Asiatic
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
F/N: Like unto this, Plato in The Laws Bk X:
Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
Notice, antecedent to Biblical theism as an aspect of Greek Culture and as part of a response to evolutionary materialism in that culture. KFkairosfocus
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
F/N: For those interested in the matter of twins one may do a web search to see places where such a discussion is germane and focal rather than largely distractive. I do note, a twin speaks here https://www.lisaleonard.com/blog/thoughts/finding-beauty/identical-twins-unique-souls and one may ponder a discussion here http://jimmyakin.com/2006/08/identical_twins.html with a forum type discussion here https://forums.catholic.com/t/when-do-identical-twins-get-their-souls/7586/2 . The focal issue here is different -- as is manifest in the OP; first, what stems from ensoulment, second, the significance of attempted reductionism. KF PS: As a reminder, J C Wright:
Men have souls [–> that which gives us self-moved, responsible, rational freedom]. Once one accepts that premise, one must accept the conclusions that follow from it: creatures with souls are not evolved from slime, since spirit, being simple and eternal, cannot be brought into being by matter, which is compound, subject to change and decay, nor brought into being by any blind natural process; therefore, instead, spirit must be created in a divine image, with the faculties of reason and conscience and creativity. Living spirits like man hence are responsible each man for his own action, hence by right are worthy of the fruits each man of his own labor. Since this right comes not from the state, it should not in justice be abrogated by the state, for the right to property is sacrosanct, and, by the same logic, so too are all rights to life and liberty and to the freedom of the conscience. [–> I add, echoing the US DoI of 1776: the state enters, with the consent of the governed, as a common means to safeguard the civil peace of justice; that due balance of rights, freedoms and duties in community which cannot be reliably pursued otherwise — in which context, it has a legitimate power of moderate, prudent taxation as a cost-effective means to fund the defence and reasonable enhancement of the common good.] Nor can a created being overstep the authority created into him by his creator, that is, Man cannot play God; which means he cannot slay innocent children in the womb nor murder the sick and elderly and useless gobblers of bread, nor breed men like dogsbreeders breeding dogs, nor commit suicide oneself, not even the slow suicide of addiction to self-destructive substances and ideas. If man is created by divinity, it is not in his choice to demean and trample the image of God in himself nor his neighbor: modesty, honesty, humility, patience, prudence and temperance become sacrosanct. Even such seemingly unrelated matters, such as the low dirt of modern speech, the crass ugliness of modern art, the vainglorious ignorance of modern schooling, become offenses against this divine image seen in man . . . . If men have souls, what does skin hue matter?
kairosfocus
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
EG
No, it is to deny a God.
Materialism denies more than just God. It denies all immaterial entities. So, it denies the soul, which is the defining component of a human person.
We would still have a human nature just as my cat has a cat nature and marble has a marble nature.
As its nature, a cat is an animal. So, it has an "animal nature" -- in that aspect, it shares the same nature as all other animals. But humans have a distinctly different nature. "Man is a rational animal" is the classic definition. That's why humans are regarded differently than animals. We have a rational soul that gives us different responsibilities. By theology we know that we have the responsibility to care for others. The rational soul is immaterial. We can see this from our moral decision-making. We can freely make choices, and we can be held accountable for what evil we do, and we can act with courage and wisdom and virtue also. That freedom to choose actions comes from our immaterial soul. Otherwise, if everything we did was determined by physical processes, we would have no responsibility for our actions. Squirrels just act the way squirrels do. They can't choose evil or good. We are different because we have the rational power to choose, and that freedom comes from an immaterial source that goes beyond physical processes.
I don’t show respect to other humans because of an immortal “soul”. I show respect because I would like to have respect shown to me. That’s not going to happen if I am always acting like ET.
If we took that strictly, then the only humans you would show respect to are those that you think you will get a response of respect back from them. I would think you'd communicate your respect for many people who can't pay you back. In other words, is somewhat of a spiritual approach to the question. I'm guessing, but some people think of it like karma. "If I do random good deeds, then someone will do one for me". But even that makes human exchange entirely a transaction - quid pro quo. But we do good things for people when they don't even know we're doing it. They can't pay us back. That kind of respect we show is because we honor the person, as a human being. Because the person can freely respond with appreciation is an indication of their soul. But in the end it's a much greater respect if we know the person was created by God and the person is loved and respected by God Himself. Then we know we have a greater responsibility.Silver Asiatic
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
EG, you keep dodging the central issue. Duly noted. KF PS: Reppert, again, shows the problem of reducing rationality [ground-consequent inference on insight into logic of being] to a computational substrate [cause-effect chains driven by signals, systems organisation and programming]:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A [--> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [--> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
The effect of such a reduction is to break down credibility of warrant, you are only making signs intended to manipulate us, and there is no governing duty to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness or justice. The door to utterly cynical deceit and nihilistic will to power lies open. In short, the attempt to reduce rational, responsible freedom to dynamic-stochastic causal process on a computational substrate reduces even that argument to utterly discredited absurdity AND opens the door to utter, deceitful nihilism. Actually, it is worse. It implies there is just an accident of molecular organisation and linked wiring, there is no actual agent there, personhood becomes grand delusion. Evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers are utterly, irretrievably self referentially absurd and self-falsifying.kairosfocus
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
TF
Do you want to assign a soul to a thougth experiment?
Since the entire concept of a”soul” is little more than a thought experiment, I don’t see anything unusual about mine.Ed George
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Ed George
But seriously, if I were to clone myself...
But it is not possible to clone "yourself". It can not happen, so it does not matter. Real humans are real. Do you want to assign a soul to a thougth experiment?Truthfreedom
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
At 36 Ed George claimed:
"You can claim that the “soul” is independent of this (the brain), but you have yet to provide any compelling evidence for it. The best you have is NDE, which can be reproduced chemically."
As usual for Ed, that claim is false. Moreover, as usual, a reference is missing from Ed's claim. Perhaps he heard it from another atheist and is just mindlessly repeating what he heard (like he does so many other things). But anyways, the claim is false. Besides there being many lines of evidence supporting the reality of the soul rather than just NDE's, NDEs, specifically the most salient features of NDEs, cannot be reproduced chemically. Again, Ed's claim is false. PERIOD!
Near-Death Experiences and DMT - Steve Taylor Ph.D. - Oct 12, 2018 A neurological explanation of NDEs remains elusive. Excerpt: Another theory is that NDEs are related to psychedelic chemicals that are naturally produced by the brain. This theory was apparently boosted recently with the release of a paper called "DMT Models the Near-Death Experience" by a team of UK researchers associated with the Psychedelic Research Group at Imperial College London. (In case you don't know, DMT - short for dimethyltryptamine - is a hallucinogenic, similar to LSD and magic mushrooms.) Aiming to study the apparent similarities between the psychedelic substance and NDEs, the researchers gave both DMT and a placebo to 13 participants, then asked them to complete a scale of the characteristics of NDEs. The results were reported as showing significant overlap between the two types of experience. As the researchers concluded, "Results revealed significant increases in phenomenological features associated with the NDE, following DMT administration compared to placebo." This appears to be true, but on closer inspection, the findings of the paper still fall far short of establishing any strong connection between DMT and NDEs. Of the 16 items in the NDE scale used in the study, nine items showed a high degree of crossover. These included an ‘unearthly environment,’ a sense of peace, heightened senses, harmony/unity, altered time perception, feelings of joy, bright light, and so on. However, all nine of these characteristics are generally associated with spiritual or mystical experiences, rather than just NDEs. It is well known that NDEs have a strong spiritual or mystical element to them, which is partly why they have such a powerful life-changing effect. But NDEs are not just spiritual experiences. And significantly, the seven items in this study with the least crossover between NDEs and DMT were those which differentiate NDEs from standard spiritual experiences. For example, three of the most salient characteristics of NDEs are a feeling of reaching a ‘border/point of no return,’ ‘encountering deceased/religious spirits,’ and a life review. In this study, these were amongst the least reported in DMT experiences. In other words, what this study seems to indicate is a relationship between DMT experiences and spiritual or mystical experiences. Since we already know that NDEs contain some of the same elements of spiritual experiences, it is not surprising that there is some relationship between NDEs and DMT experiences. In view of this, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that NDEs are associated with DMT. Other researchers—such as Rick Strassman—have suggested that NDEs may be caused by the release of DMT when a person is close to death or in the process of dying. However, there is no evidence that large amounts of DMT are released close to death. It is not even certain that DMT is produced in the human body (although it has been found in the pineal gland of rats). The After-Effects of NDEs But perhaps one of the strongest arguments against any connection between NDEs and DMT is their after-effects. As I describe in my new book, Spiritual Science, in the great majority of cases, NDEs are powerfully transformative experiences. After them, a person's values and attitude toward life are completely transformed. People often become less materialistic and more altruistic, less self-oriented and more compassionate. They often feel a new sense of purpose, and their relationships become more authentic and intimate. They report becoming more sensitive to beauty and more appreciative of everyday things. They also typically report a loss of the fear of death. It’s remarkable that one single experience can have such a profound, long-lasting, transformational effect. This is illustrated by research showing that people who have near-death experiences following suicide attempts very rarely attempt suicide again. This is in stark contrast to the normal pattern—in fact, a previous suicide attempt is usually the strongest predictor of actual suicide. This is one of the strongest arguments against the idea that NDEs are a brain-generated hallucination. Dreams and hallucinations do not generally have transformational after-effects. They are usually quickly forgotten, with a clear sense that they were delusional experiences, less authentic and reliable than ordinary consciousness. (In contrast, with NDEs there is a clear sense that the experience is more real and authentic than normal consciousness.) And this applies to DMT experiences, too. There is no doubt that psychedelic experiences such as DMT can sometimes be transformative to some degree. For some, they provide a glimpse of a more expansive and intense reality which makes them realize that their normal view of the world is limited. They may lead to a new interest in spirituality. However, DMT experiences are certainly not transformational to anything like the same degree as NDEs. In a 2012 paper in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, Dr. Michael Potts examined the similarities between NDEs and DMT and also concluded that salient features of NDEs are absent (such as traveling through a tunnel into a transcendent realm or the subsequent reporting of events witnessed during the experience). But most notably, in Potts’ view, DMT lacked the powerful transformative after-effects of NDEs. He concluded that in NDEs permanent change is the rule rather than the exception, whereas it is the exception rather than the rule with DMT. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201810/near-death-experiences-and-dmt Steve Taylor, Ph.D. is a senior lecturer in psychology at Leeds Beckett University, UK.
Of related interest, over at Mind Matters, they recently had a series of podcasts where they discussed the evidence for NDEs:
WALTER BRADLEY: DON’T GO TOWARDS THE LIGHT? https://mindmatters.ai/podcast/ep56/ WALTER BRADLEY: EXPERIENCES OF HEAVEN? https://mindmatters.ai/podcast/ep57/ WALTER BRADLEY: BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCES https://mindmatters.ai/podcast/ep59/
bornagain77
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Science says that life begins @ conception. And all life conceived by humans will be a HUMAN life. You have to be a desperate douche to say otherwise. Enter "Ed George"ET
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Acartia Eddie:
It seems to me that the most parsimonious explanation is that the “soul”, as most people think of it, doesn’t exist and that our consciousness (the closest we come to a “soul”) is the outcome of brain development and is gone when we die.
Then it shouldn't be any problem to demonstrate that the brain can come about via purely materialistic processes. Yet you cannot. YOU don't have anything beyond your denials and nay-saying.ET
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
We wouldn't have human nature without a soul. There cannot be a human without a soul.
A “soul”, which if imparted at conception means that each of my daughters only has half a “soul”.
Only in your very limited mind, anyway.
I show respect because I would like to have respect shown to me.
All evidence to the contrary, of courseET
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
TF
What should those “scientists” copy then? Looks
That would be much better than cloning ET’s looks. :) But seriously, if I were to clone myself, not beyond the realm of possibility, do you think the clone would have a consciousness, a personality, a self, a “soul”? After all, this clone is being created from the nucleus of one of my somatic cells (one of millions) and a denucleated oocyte.Ed George
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
@80 Ed George Ed, it was you who suggested that you "could" clone "yourself".
And what about the not impossible possibility that I decide to clone myself?
But: - If you do not know what this "yourself" is (and it is not DNA). - How are you going to clone it? What should those "scientists" copy then? Looks impossible to me.Truthfreedom
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
SA
The denial of the soul is a denial of human nature, and that’s the materialist explanation.
No, it is to deny a God. We would still have a human nature just as my cat has a cat nature and marble has a marble nature.
It’s because humans have an immortal soul that we want to show respect for human life, even for infants before they are born.
I don’t show respect to other humans because of an immortal “soul”. I show respect because I would like to have respect shown to me. That’s not going to happen if I am always acting like ET. :)Ed George
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
TF
Ed, what is “yourself”? Certainly not “your” DNA, since: homocigotic twins = same DNA but different “selves”.
I Agree. But what do you mean by ”selves”? Different consciousness and different personalities? Given that I have identical twin daughters I can attest to the different personalities. But I think it is more likely that these differences are the result of differences in brain development and personal experiences than some ill defined “soul”. A “soul”, which if imparted at conception means that each of my daughters only has half a “soul”.Ed George
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
EG
This would mean that God knows in advance that conception will result in identical twins. Obviously not impossible. But we also know that IVF results in a higher percentage of monozygotic twins. Did God know that this would happen.
Yes, God knows this and would design in advance the souls that will be actualized by matter (bodies). The creation of souls is done in the divine realm - the creation of immaterial essences that will ultimately live on after physical death of the body. So, God has a plan for them.
Or what about the not impossible possibility that I decide to clone myself? Does that mean that I currently have two “souls”. And what if I decide to make 1000 clones of myself (again, not impossible)? Does that mean that I currently have 1001 “souls”?
As we said before, with an unnatural act like cloning, God would have to create some sort of moment of ensoulment. You would not have two souls - the soul is your identity. But a close of you would have a separate identity.
It seems to me that the most parsimonious explanation is that the “soul”, as most people think of it, doesn’t exist and that our consciousness (the closest we come to a “soul”) is the outcome of brain development and is gone when we die.
The denial of the soul is a denial of human nature, and that's the materialist explanation. Since we're talking about the creation of an immaterial essence by God, a lot of the problem would be solved by theology, as it was in the past upon decisions about the humanity of people from cultures previously unknown. It's how decisions on care for animals are reached, and why we can treat animals differently from humans. But we also have evidence that we are able to grasp universals. These cannot be the product of the human mind because they would exist even if humans went out of existence. The forms of logic or geometric formulations - we can grasp and communicate these. This indicates that we share an immaterial essence. The rational power itself can hold, compare and calculate immaterial entities. This tells us that we do possess a soul. A materialist, emergent idea doesn't work for this idea. In a godless view, humanity does not have a sacred quality and we would have no reason to reverence it at all. It's because humans have an immortal soul that we want to show respect for human life, even for infants before they are born.Silver Asiatic
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
@ 77 Ed George
Or what about the not impossible possibility that I decide to clone myself?
Ed, what is "yourself"? Certainly not "your" DNA, since: homocigotic twins = same DNA but different "selves".Truthfreedom
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
SA
Two souls can share the same physical space.
With respect, this sounds more like special pleading than a reasonable explanation. Much like BA77’s use of quantum mechanics to explain everything. This would mean that God knows in advance that conception will result in identical twins. Obviously not impossible. But we also know that IVF results in a higher percentage of monozygotic twins. Did God know that this would happen. Or what about the not impossible possibility that I decide to clone myself? Does that mean that I currently have two “souls”. And what if I decide to make 1000 clones of myself (again, not impossible)? Does that mean that I currently have 1001 “souls”? It seems to me that the most parsimonious explanation is that the “soul”, as most people think of it, doesn’t exist and that our consciousness (the closest we come to a “soul”) is the outcome of brain development and is gone when we die.Ed George
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
PS: Again, predictably, you studiously avoid the force of what Haldane put on the table:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
Likewise, Reppert, building on C S Lewis:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A [--> notice, state of a wetware, electrochemically operated computational substrate], which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief [--> concious, perceptual state or disposition] that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
kairosfocus
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
EG, I have pointed to some of those assumptions, e.g. by asking you to demonstrate a case. Follow up the issues, starting with why legal issues and moral ones arise that did not with say Dolly the sheep. Going beyond, this serves as a distractor from a more relevant case: we know that human life begins at conception, and there is utterly no GOOD reason to infer that the whole human being is not present from the outset; as long as that is reasonable, then we have full duties to the unborn child, in all justice; i.e. he or she manifestly has rights, starting with life. Further to this, even that is somewhat distractive as the focal issue is that we are living souls; such ensoulment is what allows us to be truly rational, responsible and free. Undermine that and self-referential absurdity applies; you have just undercut the credibility of reason by reduction to computation, thus, your own argument. Indeed, if evolutionary materialism were true, there is no rationality and no morally governed responsibility, as there is no significant freedom, we would reduce to being collections of atoms driven by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. KFkairosfocus
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Sev, you would be well advised to re-study the accurate history. Try here for a start. KFkairosfocus
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Two souls can share the same physical space.Silver Asiatic
January 25, 2020
January
01
Jan
25
25
2020
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply