Information - DNA, patterns, data and blueprints. Morality. Empathy. Humour. Emotions. However, all of these immaterial things have physical containers. What could exist that doesn't have a physical container? One possible entirely non material thing would be the quantum foam from which our universe inflated, according to some cosmologists and string theorists.Art Of Mentalism wrote:In what sense does something immaterial exist? And what it means for an immaterial thing to be or do something?I just can't wrap my mind around it.
(These are genuine questions)
So what is the soul?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13820
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: So what is the soul?
But, Greta, you might as well have written this substituting 'mental' for physical, and 'material' for 'non material' .Information - DNA, patterns, data and blueprints. Morality. Empathy. Humour. Emotions. However, all of these immaterial things have physical containers. What could exist that doesn't have a physical container? One possible entirely non material thing would be the quantum foam from which our universe inflated, according to some cosmologists and string theorists.
Like you, I trust and admire scientific knowledge. Matter is inextricably entwined with mind so that neither mind nor matter is primal in time or meaning.
Science for all its technological applications including quantum bits and pieces and space technology is ultimately as much a mental construct as a wondrous factual reality.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
-
- Posts: 2084
- Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
Greta wrote:Information - DNA, patterns, data and blueprints. Morality. Empathy. Humour. Emotions. However, all of these immaterial things have physical containers. What could exist that doesn't have a physical container? One possible entirely non material thing would be the quantum foam from which our universe inflated, according to some cosmologists and string theorists.Art Of Mentalism wrote:In what sense does something immaterial exist? And what it means for an immaterial thing to be or do something?I just can't wrap my mind around it.
(These are genuine questions)
All these are thought patterns, Morality. Empathy. Humour. Emotions. They occupy space. As occupiers of space they are not non material. Under particular experimental conditions they can be seen as lighting up areas of the brain. It is only a case of having developed, and continue developing, finer more sensitive tools for capturing the imagery of this material stuff. An atom's nucleus or a cell would have once been regarded as non material or non existent prior to the development of finer tools for locating them as also occupiers of space. All material that occupies space are actions of motion - are activity. The membrane of an atom is the activity of protons, electrons and neutrons which because of their speed of action gives the sense of a material skin. It is the same for all material objects large or small. Just because the trace of a thought or emotion is smaller than a rock does not make them non material. A rock is also atoms with their various components which move so fast we cannot see it with our slow visible senses (as visible senses are not finer tools than what has been invented to 'see' such motion) and we see a rock because we think it.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
I take your point. The thread ideally will eliminate what are technically immaterial aspects of physical reality in looking for true dualism in reality - where a soul might reside.Granth wrote:All these are thought patterns, Morality. Empathy. Humour. Emotions. They occupy space. As occupiers of space they are not non material. Under particular experimental conditions they can be seen as lighting up areas of the brain.
There are a few models, arguably not taken as seriously as they should be, which place consciousness (or some analogue of consciousness) as a fundamental aspect of reality, which would probably have implications regarding the existence of souls - David Chalmers's natural dualism, Roger Penrose's "trialism" (as opposed to dualism - energy, consciousness, math), John Hagelin's unified superstring field and Robert Lanza's biocentrism.
I admit to not giving the material/immaterial divide much thought to date because I'd considered it a matter of labelling and possibly a distraction when considering the actual nature of reality. Whatever we label the phenomena, or wherever we draw lines and categorise, the reality is unchanged. The materiality or immateriality of any given entity is relative anyway. From the perspective of a neutron star, we would be gaseous beings. From a gaseous perspective we are as solid as rocks.
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
For some reason, I always think of the soul as having no fixed abode.Greta wrote: where a soul might reside.
-
- Posts: 2084
- Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
My suggestion is that is that a soul does not reside in among the stuff I mentioned previously, the thoughts, emotions, humor, etc, etc (all thought/memory/feelings essentially, effectively everything summed up to be a personality), but that the 'soul' IS that very stuff. Consequently in order to 'see' some image of it, which is really shadows, is, under such particular experimental conditions which I outlined before, areas of as lit up brain processes. However, what is more obvious to us is that we experience our 'soul' as feelings and the sounds of thoughts and interplay with other 'souls' everyday through sensory perception. My 'soul' is everywhere merely more for the obvious reason that everywhere I go......there I am. I find, therefore, nothing mysterious in terms of whether we can experience 'souls'. The mystery is the whole caboodle of existence, of experience period.Greta wrote:I take your point. The thread ideally will eliminate what are technically immaterial aspects of physical reality in looking for true dualism in reality - where a soul might reside.Granth wrote:All these are thought patterns, Morality. Empathy. Humour. Emotions. They occupy space. As occupiers of space they are not non material. Under particular experimental conditions they can be seen as lighting up areas of the brain.
There are a few models, arguably not taken as seriously as they should be, which place consciousness (or some analogue of consciousness) as a fundamental aspect of reality, which would probably have implications regarding the existence of souls - David Chalmers's natural dualism, Roger Penrose's "trialism" (as opposed to dualism - energy, consciousness, math), John Hagelin's unified superstring field and Robert Lanza's biocentrism.
I admit to not giving the material/immaterial divide much thought to date because I'd considered it a matter of labelling and possibly a distraction when considering the actual nature of reality. Whatever we label the phenomena, or wherever we draw lines and categorise, the reality is unchanged. The materiality or immateriality of any given entity is relative anyway. From the perspective of a neutron star, we would be gaseous beings. From a gaseous perspective we are as solid as rocks.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
Fair point. We don't have the language to describe existence beyond space and time. I don't, anyway.Alec Smart wrote:For some reason, I always think of the soul as having no fixed abode.Greta wrote: where a soul might reside.
A related question, what are patterns? Where do they reside (if anywhere) when they aren't defining physical things?
-
- Posts: 2084
- Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
Sure. We as souls have no fixed abode. Particularly given that the universe is the obvious abode and that the experience of universe, therefore where it arises, is within these skulls. It is a paradox seemingly but quite well understood, in terms of function, by neuroscience experiments. Geography and astronomy, for locating an abode, is experienced in that very same skull.Alec Smart wrote:For some reason, I always think of the soul as having no fixed abode.Greta wrote: where a soul might reside.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
Granth, could you elaborate on "the 'soul' IS that very stuff", please?Granth wrote:My suggestion is that is that a soul does not reside in among the stuff I mentioned previously, the thoughts, emotions, humor, etc, etc (all thought/memory/feelings essentially, effectively everything summed up to be a personality), but that the 'soul' IS that very stuff.
A materialist would argue that there's no need to add the soul conception to the narrative because it seemingly plays no role.Granth wrote:However, what is more obvious to us is that we experience our 'soul' as feelings and the sounds of thoughts and interplay with other 'souls' everyday through sensory perception. My 'soul' is everywhere merely more for the obvious reason that everywhere I go......there I am. I find, therefore, nothing mysterious in terms of whether we can experience 'souls'. The mystery is the whole caboodle of existence, of experience period.
Which of the following would you most or least agree with? David Chalmers's natural dualism, Roger Penrose's "trialism" (as opposed to dualism - energy, consciousness and mathematics), John Hagelin's unified superstring field or Robert Lanza's biocentrism?
-
- Posts: 2084
- Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
Everything (stuff) you experience is the 'soul' because YOU experience it. 'You' (or 'soul') cannot exist outside of the experience you experience. You are that experience.Greta wrote:Granth, could you elaborate on "the 'soul' IS that very stuff", please?Granth wrote:My suggestion is that is that a soul does not reside in among the stuff I mentioned previously, the thoughts, emotions, humor, etc, etc (all thought/memory/feelings essentially, effectively everything summed up to be a personality), but that the 'soul' IS that very stuff.
Granth wrote:However, what is more obvious to us is that we experience our 'soul' as feelings and the sounds of thoughts and interplay with other 'souls' everyday through sensory perception. My 'soul' is everywhere merely more for the obvious reason that everywhere I go......there I am. I find, therefore, nothing mysterious in terms of whether we can experience 'souls'. The mystery is the whole caboodle of existence, of experience period.
Greta wrote:A materialist would argue that there's no need to add the soul conception to the narrative because it seemingly plays no role.
Hard to know without having read any of them. Can you give me some years? They might bore me however. I suppose I could google some synopsis of each which will probably not do them any justice and I doubt they need me to do them so.Greta wrote:Which of the following would you most or least agree with? David Chalmers's natural dualism, Roger Penrose's "trialism" (as opposed to dualism - energy, consciousness and mathematics), John Hagelin's unified superstring field or Robert Lanza's biocentrism?
-- Updated January 5th, 2016, 12:00 pm to add the following --
"A materialist would argue that there's no need to add the soul conception to the narrative because it seemingly plays no role." I am tending to agree with this though. I don't need the 'soul' definition while I have the personality definition. Can the 'personality' be regarded as material?
-- Updated January 5th, 2016, 12:11 pm to add the following --
By the way, if they did bore me it would be due to my own inadequacy.....not theirs. This brain puts particular pictures together based on it's own limitations thereby requiring different, perhaps, or merely just other ways of describing.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
That's roughly like my intuition, but I don't fully trust my intuition because I've mislead myself before.Everything (stuff) you experience is the 'soul' because YOU experience it. 'You' (or 'soul') cannot exist outside of the experience you experience. You are that experience.
Consider a fly. It has its own simple flavour of experience. Is it in essence a small fly soul?
If so, it would seem an unfortunate hand to be dealt in life for the poor little soul. No wonder the easterners thought of a reincarnation, where good performance in this life carries over to the next, resulting in what's basically a promotion. If nothing else it would give hope. I suppose a fly's performance in life would be moot so they'd have a system more akin to kindergarten - pick up the attendance cetrificate at the end of the year and, having paid their dues, move up a grade. Maybe be reborn as something a little smarter and in control like a bee, ant or snail :)
Re: the philosophers, I think these videos provides a fair summary of the kinds of views going around about consciousness.
Roger Penrose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9Q6SWcTA9w
A debate including David Chalmers and other experts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXHgeq9Qg4Q. David C solo: ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you ... anguage=en
Jaron Lanier, virtual reality expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgfFFRFPvyw
A surprisingly brilliant interview with physicist, Michio Kaku: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_VqoEov0Vc
Robert Lanza's biocentrism model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_F4nOKDSM and John Hagelin's unified superstring field: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM tend to be disregarded outright by mainstream scientists, but I think they are at least interesting angles. Maybe they're on to something intuitively but don't have the experimental evidence? Or maybe they've fallen into dead ends? Time may tell.
Likewise, Dan Dennett's denial of qualia is not widely accepted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo. He's smart and he is rigorous in some respects, but blinkered IMO in denying the existence of the hard problem.
-
- Posts: 2084
- Joined: July 20th, 2012, 11:56 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
A fly's existence is only unfortunate, I feel, from an anthropomorphic point of view which is unnecessary. Such a view will not give rise to understanding a fly's lot. As for a 'fly soul', it merely muddies the water to introduce soul concepts for either our experience or another creature and will only invite more anthropomorphic reasoning. A fly is a fly, Greta is a Greta.Greta wrote:That's roughly like my intuition, but I don't fully trust my intuition because I've mislead myself before.Everything (stuff) you experience is the 'soul' because YOU experience it. 'You' (or 'soul') cannot exist outside of the experience you experience. You are that experience.
Consider a fly. It has its own simple flavour of experience. Is it in essence a small fly soul?
If so, it would seem an unfortunate hand to be dealt in life for the poor little soul. No wonder the easterners thought of a reincarnation, where good performance in this life carries over to the next, resulting in what's basically a promotion. If nothing else it would give hope. I suppose a fly's performance in life would be moot so they'd have a system more akin to kindergarten - pick up the attendance cetrificate at the end of the year and, having paid their dues, move up a grade. Maybe be reborn as something a little smarter and in control like a bee, ant or snail
Re: the philosophers, I think these videos provides a fair summary of the kinds of views going around about consciousness.
Roger Penrose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9Q6SWcTA9w
A debate including David Chalmers and other experts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXHgeq9Qg4Q. David C solo: ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you ... anguage=en
Jaron Lanier, virtual reality expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgfFFRFPvyw
A surprisingly brilliant interview with physicist, Michio Kaku: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_VqoEov0Vc
Robert Lanza's biocentrism model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_F4nOKDSM and John Hagelin's unified superstring field: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM tend to be disregarded outright by mainstream scientists, but I think they are at least interesting angles. Maybe they're on to something intuitively but don't have the experimental evidence? Or maybe they've fallen into dead ends? Time may tell.
Likewise, Dan Dennett's denial of qualia is not widely accepted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo. He's smart and he is rigorous in some respects, but blinkered IMO in denying the existence of the hard problem.
Thank you for bringing the links to here. I do like a good witty and/or intelligent show on a screen by such performers. Initially I thought I would have to read large treatises.
-- Updated January 5th, 2016, 4:12 pm to add the following --
The community organisation and collectivism of bees and ants are astounding. They seem to leave us dead in that activity.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: So what is the soul?
We are stardust, we are golden.The Beast wrote:As such we are quantum; we are consciousness; we are the soul; we are in Heaven.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023