What makes up souls

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Consul »

Fcacciola wrote:No. Hylomorphism is an entirely different view of how a "soul" is related to a body. Here the key is "form" or "shape", as in "a chair is made of wood, but is a chair due to is shape and form". That has nothing to do with a "soul" or "spirit" in the views I presented.
I still have difficulty understanding your view. Do you postulate a fieldlike world-soul/-spirit?

This view can be called cosmopsychism, and there is both a substantialist and a non-substantialist (actualist or processualist) version of it: according to the former, the world-soul is a mental substance, which is the substrate of mental attributes (or mental states/events/processes), and the world as a whole is a whole composed of a mental substance and a physical substance, the "world-body". And according to the latter, the world-soul is not a mental substance but a spatiotemporal field of mental activity, of mental events or processes, whose substrate is the physical substance, the world-body or world-organism.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Rr6 »

"spatio-temporal field"? That is the same as what Ive been posting here below and for months.

Spirit-2 as occupied space--- ergo spatio{?} --- temporal{?}, see my time/physical/energy/reality and frequency{ sine-wave }--- field{?} ---. \/\/\/\/v^v^v ergo our observed occupied space reality of all particles of Universe and the atom in some circumstances.
None have any rational, logical common sense to add or invalidate my below as stated and none ever will. Merely using words like spatio is just away of trying to say what Ive already been stating for months and years.

\/\/\/\/ sum-totals a biological/soul. But I repeat the truth once again.

The truth exists for those who seek it, those who do not and those who scoff at it. imnho

"world soul"? Biologicals are 75 - 85% water so water is soul is true to whatever degree. Again I repeat myself.

If want go to the essence of Universe then we go to gravity ( ) and dark energy )( to identify soul.

I know some around here have no use for truth or rational, logical common sense, however, all of those are key essence of philosophy. imho

Water is compose of 8 electrons and that is partly why associate biologicals with the number 8.

http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html

r6
Rr6 wrote:Spirit-2 as time/frequency/physical/energy/reality
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Spirit-2 as time/frequency/physical/energy/reality
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
Spirit-2 as primary threeness{ endo-meso-ecto } of time/frequency/physical/energy/reality and
0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21
A human, as single digestive tract torus, has a dynamic shape/pattern, and is composed of many spirits that sum-total as integral we call a biological/soul.
1} "U"niverse/"G"od: The Cosmic Hierarchy
...1a} Spirit-1{spirit-of-intent } = metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept i.e. concepts as cosmic laws/principles{ absolute truths } and relative truths{ unicorns },, concepts of Space, God, Universe, Dogs Cats, Spirit, Soul.
----------------line of demarcation------------------------------
...1b} Spirit-2{ occupied space } = physical/energy/time/frequency[/color] ergo fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof,
...1c} Spirit-3{ metaphysical-3 } = ( ) gravity { occupied space }

...1d} Spirit-4 ={ metaphysical } = )( dark energy { occupied space }

Soul = biological ergo biological/soul.
Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( essentially defines a torus.
(^v)(v^) = bisection of Space ( ) - Time^v - Space )( torus
The question becomes, why does the human animal egg invert and why does gravity invert at peak of positive curvature and why does dark energy invert at peak of negative curvature.
2 - 3 - 4 is triangulated inversion from inner surface at peak of curvature of dark energy
5 - 6 - 7 is triangulated inversion from outer surface at peak of curvature of gravity
3, 6, 9, 12, 15 is triangulated, sine-wave topology of observed time/reality/physical
Mouth hole{ O } digestive tract tube{ ===== } anus hole{ O } equals torus.

( )( )( )( )( )
= chain of outer surface gravity events tangental to each other
Human has 31 bilateral spinal nerves and the 5-fold icosahedron 31 left skew and 31 right skew great circles{ tori vectors }
( )31( )
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
()!()
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Consul »

@Rr6:
We've seen enough of your gibberish. This is a not a workshop on dadaism!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Belindi »

Consul wrote(reply to Fcacciola):
This view can be called cosmopsychism, and there is both a substantialist and a non-substantialist (actualist or processualist) version of it: according to the former, the world-soul is a mental substance, which is the substrate of mental attributes (or mental states/events/processes), and the world as a whole is a whole composed of a mental substance and a physical substance, the "world-body". And according to the latter, the world-soul is not a mental substance but a spatiotemporal field of mental activity, of mental events or processes, whose substrate is the physical substance, the world-body or world-organism.
The terminology interests me because ,less 'cosmopsychism', but more so substantialist ' ('actualist) and 'non-substantialist'('processist'). Also the metaphor from physics, 'field', as in "spatiotemporal field of mental activity".

I now ask Consul: can 'actualist' and 'processist' be applied to God and souls, as I believe is the case. And : how might this view be portrayed to literalists so that they can perceive it?

I am a fan of graphic art in such cases. Consul has accused Rr6 of "dadaism" and so I wonder if Consul has experience of pictures which can convey metaphysical ideas to the uninitiated.
Fcacciola
Posts: 89
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 4:32 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Fcacciola »

Consul wrote:I still have difficulty understanding your view. Do you postulate a fieldlike world-soul/-spirit?

This view can be called cosmopsychism, and there is both a substantialist and a non-substantialist (actualist or processualist) version of it: according to the former, the world-soul is a mental substance, which is the substrate of mental attributes (or mental states/events/processes), and the world as a whole is a whole composed of a mental substance and a physical substance, the "world-body". And according to the latter, the world-soul is not a mental substance but a spatiotemporal field of mental activity, of mental events or processes, whose substrate is the physical substance, the world-body or world-organism.
Not really.

The main difference is that, in cosmopsychism, the world-soul and "its" world-body are a sort of a single universal unit, whereas in the view I presented, there is finite number of distinct, autonomous and identifiable, individual sipirits. Each spirit itself, as an individual, might be seem to somewhat resemble the "processualist" view above, in that it can be seen as a "process" whose substrate is the *para*-physical substance I called "a region of the vibrational field or medium". That medium permeates everything, and exists within each spirit, where it constitutes the sustrate or substance, as well as in between separate spirits, where it serves as a communication medium.


The views I written in this thread are not properly presented--and that is a reason why you have difficulty understand it--because I might have made the mistake of referencing a different thread (and post) (http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 73#p284473) where I presented them the first time.
Now I'll paste right here what I wrote there (unedited). I hope it serves to clarify the views I've been presenting.

----
... this is my own personal belief system (personal in that I adopted and adapted it, not in that I invented it). So here I can elaborate as much as I need. But, as I mentioned in another thread, I always try to keep references to a belief system as little and short as possible, so I'll try to do that. Below is a summary as short and to the point as I can write it, and is only so I can answer your question:

(a) the physical universe is considered to be subset of a larger universe (which I call a Parauniverse).

(b) the Parauniverse is a set of of finite entities called Spirits (and I don't like that word due to its overloaded meaning, but I have to stick to it). Spirits are the fundamental units of consciousness. They are individual, autonomous, free-will agents possessing cognition, volition, affection and motivation.

(c) the Parauniverse also contains a sort of Primordial Source, named God. God did create something, but it was only the finite set of spirits. The physical universe is not his creation (even though it can and should be said that in anything that happens, from the creation and evolution of the universe to our everyday actions, God's guide is always reaching out as far and deep as "the free-will agents" (I don't like to say spirits) would listen)

(d) and, the Parauniverse contains a fundamental fluid [I would actually call it a Field, but I'm still sticking to the original term until I can figure out what this is supposed to be]. This fluid or field is a vibrating medium by which spirits can communicate (they emit and receive vibrations) (I have absolutely no idea what this vibrations are supposed to be, except that they are NOT EM but something more fundamental). Also, spirits "occupy" a certain volume of fluid (not sure what this is really supposed to mean, and might refer to the extent to which a "point" spirit can exert his will into the fluid, or some such)

(e) The Physical Universe came about after a (really large) period of time in which there was only the Parauniverse, populated with the finite number of spirits.

(f) For reasons that go well beyond the scope of this thread, a large subset of the spirits begin to recursively tear apart and become spirit fractions. In ways that I do not yet understand, or can even picture, a spirit fraction is proportionally conscious. That is, its cognition, volition, affection and motivation (hence his degree of free-will) is proportional to the relative "volume" of the fraction. The vibrational state or rate also diminished in proportion (but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean and as I have no idea what spirits are supposed to vibrate)

(f.1) This continued until the fragmentation reached a certain lower-limit (related not so much to the relative volume but the diminished vibrational state), and at the edge of this limit, the Physical Universe emerged.

(g) The elements of the physical universe (today we would say the set of Fermions) directly are (or is directly generate by) the spirit fractions that dropped below the vibrational limit mentioned in (f.1)

(h) After the Big Bang, the whole of reality would be the Parauniverse, populated by both whole and fractional spirits (of many different proportions), and the enclosed (physical) Universe being the subset of fractional spirits at the edge of the vibrational fragmentation threshold.

(i) At least since the Big Bang (but probably even way before), Evolution started, and one the the main vehicles of evolution is the formation of complex systems. That is, the zillions of spirit particles (spirits fragmented down to the very limit) started to aggregate and try to form "proportionally larger pseudo-units", that is, trying to extend their diminished degree of consciousness (not in the same way a single unit whole spirit has a larger consciousness, but in the way the collective consciousness of the complex allows them to reach out farther and deeper, sort of like we humans do in a team)

(j) Since the Big Bang, spiritual particles (now being physical particles) aggregated, to form complex systems as the vehicle for evolution, not only with each other but also with non-physical spiritual fragments (non-physical for having a slightly higher vibrational state and volume by virtue of being a larger proportion), forming a hierarchical complex and not just a flat aggregate.

(k) Each complex system has a non-physical apex in the hierarchy which in turns allows a complex made of simpler complexes to have an even higher and larger spiritual fragment at its apex.

(l) All the way up to the single biological case of a complex system having a whole unit spirit (not a fragment anymore) at the apex: a human being.

....
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Rr6 »

"spatio-temporal" sounds like a term fro star-trek eposode.

"spatial-temporal" = space-time

"spatio-temporal" = occupied space as spirit-2, physical/energy time/frequency\/\/\/\/\//reality

Spacial, spatial, space is macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces our finite occupied space Universe

Biological/soul are synoyms is simple to grasp not complex.

Biological is 75 - 85% water so some could say that, biological/soul is directly associated with water-- see 8 electrons --- and tetrahedron.

We can go further into the essence of electrons and say biological/soul is associated with gravity ( ) and dark energy )(.

The truth exists for those who seek it, those who don't, and those who scoff at it. imho

No need to apologize for offering rational, logical common sense. imho

Is truth what makes a biological/soul? No, a biological/soul is composed of both absolute truths and relative truths ergo falsehoods compose a soul also.

[quote="Rr6"
Spirit-2 as occupied space--- ergo spatio{?} --- temporal{?}, see my time/physical/energy/reality and frequency{ sine-wave }--- field{?} ---. \/\/\/\/v^v^v ergo our observed occupied space reality of all particles of Universe and the atom in some circumstances.
None have any rational, logical common sense to add or invalidate my below as stated and none ever will. Merely using words like spatio is just away of trying to say what Ive already been stating for months and years.
\/\/\/\/ sum-totals a biological/soul. But I repeat the truth once again.
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/aboutwater.html
Rr6 wrote:Spirit-2 as time/frequency/physical/energy/reality
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Spirit-2 as time/frequency/physical/energy/reality
^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v
Spirit-2 as primary threeness{ endo-meso-ecto } of time/frequency/physical/energy/reality and
0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21
A human, as single digestive tract torus, has a dynamic shape/pattern, and is composed of many spirits that sum-total as integral we call a biological/soul.
1} "U"niverse/"G"od: The Cosmic Hierarchy
...1a} Spirit-1{spirit-of-intent } = metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept i.e. concepts as cosmic laws/principles{ absolute truths } and relative truths{ unicorns },, concepts of Space, God, Universe, Dogs Cats, Spirit, Soul.
----------------line of demarcation------------------------------
...1b} Spirit-2{ occupied space } = physical/energy/time/frequency[/color] ergo fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof,
...1c} Spirit-3{ metaphysical-3 } = ( ) gravity { occupied space }

...1d} Spirit-4 ={ metaphysical } = )( dark energy { occupied space }

Soul = biological ergo biological/soul.
Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( essentially defines a torus.
(^v)(v^) = bisection of Space ( ) - Time^v - Space )( torus
The question becomes, why does the human animal egg invert and why does gravity invert at peak of positive curvature and why does dark energy invert at peak of negative curvature.
2 - 3 - 4 is triangulated inversion from inner surface at peak of curvature of dark energy
5 - 6 - 7 is triangulated inversion from outer surface at peak of curvature of gravity
3, 6, 9, 12, 15 is triangulated, sine-wave topology of observed time/reality/physical
Mouth hole{ O } digestive tract tube{ ===== } anus hole{ O } equals torus.

( )( )( )( )( )
= chain of outer surface gravity events tangental to each other
Human has 31 bilateral spinal nerves and the 5-fold icosahedron 31 left skew and 31 right skew great circles{ tori vectors }
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Lark_Truth
Posts: 212
Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Lark_Truth »

[quote="Rr6"]a biological/soul is composed of both absolute truths and relative truths ergo falsehoods compose a soul also.
I can very well see that. I had not thought that something like that could compose a living soul, but then again we are talking about souls here, and thus we cannot rely on the idea of merely physical material to make up a spirit body, something like emotion could very well be what we are looking for in this thread, or at least a part of the answer. Mentality would be very important for a soul to have, as they control living mortal beings. Truth and illusion would indeed be key critical factors in the formation of what we can't see or prove, but yet is real (like truth itself in some cases).
Rr6, you have mentioned dark energy in your cosmic hierarcy, and I am curious as to its implications in material souls. Could you maybe explain it so that the rest of us can understand it somewhat?
Truth is Power. Reason is Wisdom. Intelligence is Experience. Hope is Bright!
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Consul »

Belindi wrote:The terminology interests me because ,less 'cosmopsychism', but more so substantialist ' ('actualist) and 'non-substantialist'('processist'). Also the metaphor from physics, 'field', as in "spatiotemporal field of mental activity".
I now ask Consul: can 'actualist' and 'processist' be applied to God and souls, as I believe is the case. And : how might this view be portrayed to literalists so that they can perceive it?
As you may know already, there is a process ontology and a process theology (based on the former):

* Process Philosophy (IEP): http://www.iep.utm.edu/processp/

* Process Philosophy 1 (SEP): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

* Process Philosophy 2 (SEP): https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum ... hilosophy/

* Process Philosophy 2 > Process Theology: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum ... hy/#ProThe

* Process Theism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

Well, to make a very long story very short, I reject process ontology as a fundamental ontology, because I disbelieve in the possibility of substratumless processes ("pure processes", "absolute processes" [Broad], "subjectless/objectless processes" [Sellars], "unowned processes" [Rescher]), i.e. ones which don't include, aren't partly constituted by, and don't depend on (ontologically irreducible) things, i.e. objects or substances.

"The distinction between owned and unowned processes also plays an important role in process philosophy. Owned processes are those that represent the activity of agents: the chirping of birds, the flowering of a bush, the rotting of a fallen tree. Such processes are ownership-attributable with respect to 'substantial' items. Unowned processes, by contrast, are free-floating, as it were, and do not represent the activity of actual (i.e., more than nominal) agents: the cooling of the temperature, the change in climate, the flashing of lightning, the fluctuation of a magnetic field. From the process philosopher's point of view, the existence of unowned processes is particularly important because it shows that the realm of process as a whole is something additional to and separable from the realm of substantial things."

(Rescher, Nicholas. Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. New York: SUNY Press, 1996. p. 42)

I beg to differ, denying that his examples are really ones of unowned processes. Climate changes involve air and water, which consist of things (molecules, atoms, elementary particles), and in the case of physical fields (magnetical, electrical, or gravitational ones) space or regions thereof (conceived as substances) may be regarded as their substrate. I'm not aware of any convincing example of a process that is absolutely subject- or objectless.

As for the ontology of minds/souls/spirits, John Foster distinguishes between (nonsubstantial) items of mentality (mental occurrences [conscious events, processes = experiences] and mental dispositions [nonconscious states]) and subjects of mentality (mental or physical substances or substrates). I think it's impossible for a complex of mental items to lack a subject, and it's also impossible for it to be its own subject. So there must be a subject or substrate of mentality which is different, distinct from the items of mentality whose subject or substrate it is.

Moreover, the pure-event or pure-process view of minds/souls/spirits identifies them with consciousness/experience, i.e. with mental occurrences. But what about mental dispositions, which are nonconscious/nonexperiential mental states? A pure-process mind is a pure consciousness lacking any transexperiential "storehouse" or memory that is required for the existence of (experientially unmanifested) mental dispositions (memories, knowledge, beliefs, desires, interests, preferences, personality traits, etc.).
To use the language of computer science, if the mind (= conscious mind = consciousness) is pure software without any underlying hardware that functions as a transexperiential substrate and memory, then it is exhausted by mental occurrences and cannot contain any mental dispositions. But these are essentially part of the concept of a (nonsubstantial) mind, which means that the pure-process ontology of the mind is inadequate, because it cannot coherently and successfully integrate mental dispositions into its model.

"The present line of argument can be summarized as follows: there is strong pressure on the pure process idealist to postulate dispositional mental properties. Dispositional properties require categorical properties to ground them. The only such properties available to the pure process idealist are experiential properties. These experiential properties cannot plausibly be supposed to ground dispositional mental properties. Hence there is pressure on the pure process idealist to admit the existence of nonexperiential and indeed nonmental categorical properties, and so to abandon pure process idealism."

(Strawson, Galen. Mental Reality. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. p. 138)

The "nonexperiential and indeed nonmental categorical properties" Strawson refers to must be properties of the mind's "hardware", i.e. of the subject or substrate of the mind.
Belindi wrote:I am a fan of graphic art in such cases. Consul has accused Rr6 of "dadaism" and so I wonder if Consul has experience of pictures which can convey metaphysical ideas to the uninitiated.
Graphic illustrations can certainly be helpful—provided they are made well and make sense (which Rr6's aren't and don't).
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Tom Butler
Posts: 107
Joined: February 23rd, 2017, 10:24 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Tom Butler »

Consul, in our study of possible trans-etheric phenomena, we are coming down to the idea that the etheric (mind?)-physical interface is the influence of conceptual intention on physical process. For instance, we see measurable changes in order in pseudo-random processes when intention is expressed. The random process can be thought of as a concept, and increased or decreased order can also be seen as concepts. If the expression of intention is on the concept, rather than the process, then it might be possible to model the interface.

This all supposes the physical process is ordered by physical principles which hold true to some fundamental influence of order.

Just a thought about process as a concept.

(I think you or someone speculated I was talking about the Global Consciousness project. My reference is to more local applications of the Psyleron REG, and also processes seen in transform EVP. The consistent factor appears to be increased order in response to expression of intention.)
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Rr6 »

Lark_Truth--Rr6, you have mentioned dark energy in your cosmic hierarcy, and I am curious as to its implications in material souls. Could you maybe explain it so that the rest of us can understand it somewhat?

Dark energy is the opposite of gravity. You can find plenty of info about it, at least as far as is known, which is not much. It composes 75% or so of our finite, occupied space Universe.

My interpretation of it is based on my explorations of prime numbers that led to my belief, that gravity is outer positive shaped surface of a torus and dark energy is the inner negative shaped surface of same torus. This is speculation on my part by all of my thought process follow a rational, logical common sense pathway.

Because of humans single digestive tract humans are also a torus. I think I laid this out clearly in previous posts in this thread. Maybe not.

Humans are compose of fermions and bosons and it is my belief that the essence of every fermion and boson of Universe--- except graviton and darkion ---involves an integrated set of three or more tori.

See this link and just turn each great circle into a 3D torus. There is more too it than that, but I'm just touching on what I believe to be what is going on at ultra-micro scales of occupied space existence.

HJumans are occupy space, and have access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ergo abosolute truths and relatives truths.

However, I believe all biologicals should be considered to be souls and not just humans.

Other animals have some degree of access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept. imho

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Belindi »

Consul wrote:
Well, to make a very long story very short, I reject process ontology as a fundamental ontology, because I disbelieve in the possibility of substratumless processes ("pure processes", "absolute processes" [Broad], "subjectless/objectless processes" [Sellars], "unowned processes" [Rescher]), i.e. ones which don't include, aren't partly constituted by, and don't depend on (ontologically irreducible) things, i.e. objects or substances.

"The distinction between owned and unowned processes also plays an important role in process philosophy. Owned processes are those that represent the activity of agents: the chirping of birds, the flowering of a bush, the rotting of a fallen tree. Such processes are ownership-attributable with respect to 'substantial' items. Unowned processes, by contrast, are free-floating, as it were, and do not represent the activity of actual (i.e., more than nominal) agents: the cooling of the temperature, the change in climate, the flashing of lightning, the fluctuation of a magnetic field. From the process philosopher's point of view, the existence of unowned processes is particularly important because it shows that the realm of process as a whole is something additional to and separable from the realm of substantial things."

(Rescher, Nicholas. Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. New York: SUNY Press, 1996. p. 42)

I beg to differ, denying that his examples are really ones of unowned processes. Climate changes involve air and water, which consist of things (molecules, atoms, elementary particles), and in the case of physical fields (magnetical, electrical, or gravitational ones) space or regions thereof (conceived as substances) may be regarded as their substrate. I'm not aware of any convincing example of a process that is absolutely subject- or objectless.

As for the ontology of minds/souls/spirits, John Foster distinguishes between (nonsubstantial) items of mentality (mental occurrences [conscious events, processes = experiences] and mental dispositions [nonconscious states]) and subjects of mentality (mental or physical substances or substrates). I think it's impossible for a complex of mental items to lack a subject, and it's also impossible for it to be its own subject. So there must be a subject or substrate of mentality which is different, distinct from the items of mentality whose subject or substrate it is.
Consul , if you substitute "process" (singular) for "processes" (plural) (as per Broad) don't you find that process becomes a synonym for nature itself?In that case you would find yourself free to argue for brain-mind identity as aspects of the same process, i.e. nature. Nature, I submit is the only substratum ; ontological substratum being defined as cause of itself. Cause of itself i.e. nature has only god as possible contender for the status of cause of itself. What is the point of adding an extra self-sustaining cause? Could you reconsider process ontology by substituting process for processes ?

Brain-mind identity is what makes the hardware -software problem go away. It's probably a fairly simple physiology-psychology correlation that shows how the feeling of ownership of thoughts , that is the feeling of self, is caused by the living organism's evolved proclivity for preserving its own integrity in hostile environments. Don't epistemological puzzles always turn out to be due to our own existence in a relative world where we lack godlike omniscience?

Insofar as we have freedom that is due to how we exert energy in the form of brain-mind effort countering entropy and allowing us intelligent animals more choices than rocks and atoms can have: is my response to so-called 'ownership' of causal effects.

-- Updated March 9th, 2017, 5:42 am to add the following --

All of this conversation is difficult conversation and unintelligible to non-philosophers. At least Rr6 has tried albeit unsuccessfully to make some graphic form for metaphysical ideas.. I have not given up hope that some artist can make coloured pictures of the ideas, some sort of map perhaps. Maybe a Bayesian diagram.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Rr6 »

r6--See this link and just turn each great circle into a 3D torus. There is more too it than that, but I'm just touching on what I believe to be what is going on at ultra-micro scales of occupied space existence. Just think of each great circle as a 3D torus ( ( ) )
Here is link I forgot to post.
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... 3201b.html
Bel--At least Rr6 has tried albeit unsuccessfully to make some graphic form for metaphysical ideas..
1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of Universe, Space, Dogs Cat, absolute truths and relative truths etc... Simple not complex to grasp.

----line-of-demarcation---------------------------------------

2} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that,embraces our finite, occupied space Universe. Simple, not complex to grasp.

3} metaphysical-3, gravity ( )

4} metaphysical-4 dark energy )(.

None have ever offered any rational, logical, common sense that would add to my given hierarchy, or invalidate my givens, as stated. Simple to grasp not complex. None ever will. In my humble opinion.

Ive laid out clearly, my belief in four kinds of metaphysical and all four are not only based on dictionary definitions are developed from process of rational, logical common sense pathways. I've always been available to assist any difficulty grasping any of my relatively simple concepts, as stated.
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Present awareness
Posts: 1389
Joined: February 3rd, 2014, 7:02 pm

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Present awareness »

The prayer of the philosopher: Dear God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul.
Even though you can see me, I might not be here.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Rr6 »

Lark_Truth--What are souls made out of? We can't see them, we can't study them, a person's soul is practically invisible to whatever science can throw at it. Yet, somehow, we know that we do have souls.
Space and time.

Atoms and molecules.
Yes, we have very complex and neatly arranged bodies that support us, but something has to make our minds and bodies tick beyond neural electricity, hormones, and blood flow.
There is no rational, logical common sense to believe that. Chemistry is resultants of Space, Time, Fermions, Bosons, Atoms and Molecules. Relatively simple.
A soul is yet another part of us, like our brain or our heart, it's just that we can't study it.
The exists no ratioonal, logical common sense for this belief.
One theory I'd like to put forward is that our souls are made out of what science has termed: "Dark Matter."
https://phys.org/news/2012-02-dark-inte ... space.html

.."The new research concludes that galaxies have no definite “edges.” Instead galaxies have long outskirts of dark matter that extend to nearby galaxies and the intergalactic space is not empty but filled with dark matter.".....

Space )(--- negative shaped geodesic arc of space---as dark energy is closer to what makes a soul/biological than dark matter. imho.

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: What makes up souls

Post by Consul »

Belindi wrote:Consul , if you substitute "process" (singular) for "processes" (plural) (as per Broad) don't you find that process becomes a synonym for nature itself?In that case you would find yourself free to argue for brain-mind identity as aspects of the same process, i.e. nature. Nature, I submit is the only substratum ; ontological substratum being defined as cause of itself. Cause of itself i.e. nature has only god as possible contender for the status of cause of itself. What is the point of adding an extra self-sustaining cause? Could you reconsider process ontology by substituting process for processes?
I'm not sure what you mean. One process can be many processes, in the sense that one macroprocess can be composed of or constituted by many microprocesses.

Self-causation is impossible: nothing can be causa sui. But maybe you mean self-existence. One traditional characteristic of substances is existential independence. Nature, the natural world as a whole may be one big substance, with all apparent other substances (and substrata) being ontologically reducible to complexes of attributes or modes of the One. (This is Spinoza's worldview.) Of course, for process ontologists, nature is not one big substance but one big process, with all apparent substances being ontologically reducible to complexes of processes.

The processualist worldview (with its emphasis on development and evolution) is perfectly compatible with and even congenial to emergentism in general and emergentism about mind/consciousness in particular, which is ontologically naturalistic but antireductionistic, as opposed to the materialistic mind/brain identity theory. Of course, process metaphysics is compatible with the latter as well, according to which mental processes are (nothing but) physical processes in the brain.

"The basic idea of a process philosophy of nature is to view the world as a unified macroprocess consisting of a myriad of duly coordinated subordinate microprocesses."
(p. 83)

"Process metaphysics accordingly inclines to the view that cosmic evolution itself exhibits the emergence of more and more complex and elaborate forms of order: in the sequential development of materials for an ongoing series of sciences: plasma physics, particle physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, and so on. Cosmic development is the unfolding of ever more complex concatenations of process. And the crux of a process philosophy of nature is the conception that physical reality is itself one vast, all-encompassing megaprocess consisting of a virtually endless concentration of subordinate subprocesses—a Chinese nesting of box within box, as it were."
(pp. 93-4)

"Process metaphysicians regard the natural world as one vast interconnected manifold of process."
(p. 94)

(Rescher, Nicholas. Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. New York: SUNY Press, 1996.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021