Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

It is very silly to talk about the existence of a soul as a matter of fact, when facts are established through the use of naturalistic methods and the concept of a soul has been labeled as supernatural and therefore can't be tested. 

Oh, so if I decide that gravity is actually because of supernatural elves, called Eric, pulling things about - and not actually about space-time curvature at all, then it's silly to talk about my claim being a matter of fact about the objective world, is it?

[wigginhall]

I didn't say anatomy predicted behaviour or personal feelings. I was asking what substance gender was made from and what can be established objectively about someone's gender identity.

We behave as individuals and our personal feelings are our complex reality but if people want gender labels to try and group people together, each individual has their own reality in terms how they perceive gender or if they even perceive gender at all. Your concept of masculine might be my concept of what it means to be a woman. But if we want to differentiate between personal reality and objective reality - we use science to develop tools and criteria to try to objectively label things  - such as chromosomes, genes, anatomy - until we discover new information and change the labels.
A soul is referred to as supernatural because it is a concept that can't be tested by any natural means. It exists as a concept in the perception of the person who believes in it and therefore there is no single agreed upon definition. What's the difference between the concept of a soul that can't be agreed upon or tested and the concept of a gender that can't be agreed upon or tested?

Well, you asked what's wrong with sticking with biology, and I replied that it doesn't predict behaviour or feelings.  Objectivity is a loaded gun when talking about identity.  What substance is sadness made from?  You seem to be heading for a hyper-objectivity that would preclude a lot of psychology and psychiatry.

[Gordon]

A soul has connections with the objective person who believes they have a soul and that it influences their behaviour. How are you testing for the reality of a gender?

I'd have thought there was an obvious difference between 'soul', as advanced by Alan and his portrayal is what is being discussed, and gender: the latter seems like a descriptive label applied to a person whereas the former, according to Alan, has agency of some sort and is involved in making choices.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh, so if I decide that gravity is actually because of supernatural elves, called Eric, pulling things about - and not actually about space-time curvature at all, then it's silly to talk about my claim being a matter of fact about the objective world, is it?

If you're talking about claims of fact - sure you can talk about people's claims and beliefs about what they consider to be facts. That was my point - we discuss other mind-related claims such as gender or identity influencing behaviour so souls influencing our decision-making is a claim. 

As you can't test for supernatural or natural elves - by the way, what's a natural elf according to science - how does a supernatural elf become a matter of fact if it has not been tested for and established objectively? It may be that such elves exist but I'm not sure how anyone can establish that.

[SusanDoris]

A soul has connections with the objective person who believes they have a soul and that it influences their behaviour.

But in the total absence of any objective evidence, we know we are talking about an idea only, a supernatural one, which our imaginations are easily capable of doing

How are you testing for the reality of a gender?

I personally am not; however, there may well be tests, not only physical, but maybe chemical, etc. If there is zero actual objective evidence, then we are in the area of don't knows, but you still have a physical person involved there.]

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well, you asked what's wrong with sticking with biology, and I replied that it doesn't predict behaviour or feelings.

Ah ok I meant stick with biology and anatomy where you need to categorise things for some reason - so measure hormone levels and chromosomes and characteristics where you need to stick a label on something. But if gender or other identity labels, including religious identity, are not objective, then they don't seem all that important as they can be continuously changed from the perspective of any individual. I think my muscles make me feminine, someone else might think muscles are masculine. 

Objectivity is a loaded gun when talking about identity.  What substance is sadness made from?  You seem to be heading for a hyper-objectivity that would preclude a lot of psychology and psychiatry.

I agree about sadness - I might have feelings that someone else would consider sadness if they had those same feelings but I don't label those feelings as sadness. I might label it as constructive motivation. It's all relative.

I think having a soul is part of the package for some people's religious identities. That no one can establish what substance a soul is made from is no reason, I think, for a person who believes they have a soul to accept someone else's views on whether they have a soul or not, or to stop making claims about souls.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But in the total absence of ny objective evidence, we knokw we are talking about an idea only, a supernatural one, which our imaginations are easily capable of doingI personally am not; however, there may well be tests, not only physical, but maybe chemical, etc. If there is zero actual objective evidence, then we are in the area of don't knows, but you still have a physical person involved there.]

You have a physical person involved in making claims about the idea of a soul. If you don't know if there are tests for objectively establishing gender how did you decide you are comfortable with accepting the idea of gender and using gender terminology in conversation?

[wigginhall]

You have a physical person involved in making claims about the idea of a soul. If you don't know if there are tests for objectively establishing gender how did you decide you are comfortable with accepting the idea of gender and using gender terminology in conversation?

Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of gender.  But traditionally it has been divided into gender expression, gender roles, and gender identity, and it's the third one that is more subjective, but then your call for objectivity seems to preclude identity as a topic in psychiatry, which seems bizarre.   I don't see the point of comparing souls with gender, in any case.

[Stranger]

If you're talking about claims of fact - sure you can talk about people's claims and beliefs about what they consider to be facts. That was my point - we discuss other mind-related claims such as gender or identity influencing behaviour so souls influencing our decision-making is a claim. 

You seem very confused. Either you are making a claim about objective reality or not. In the case of the soul, either human cognition is entirely due to the physical brain or it isn't. That isn't a matter of opinion or a point of view, it's either a fact or it isn't. You can have a point of view about it but ultimately it's either true or not. It isn't a "mind-related claim" in the sense that gender identity is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You have a physical person involved in making claims about the idea of a soul. If you don't know if there are tests for objectively establishing gender how did you decide you are comfortable with accepting the idea of gender and using gender terminology in conversation?

You’re making a category error here. Gender concerns the state of being male or female (and the points between), particularly these days by reference to prevailing cultural and social values rather than to biology. “Soul” on the other hand is something religious people assert to be an objective fact about the world (as a device to remove contradictions in their faith beliefs).

What you’re trying is, “but gender and soul are both hard to define exactly, therefore there’s an equivalence”. That’s wrong - gender is a social concept so definitions are fluid and changeable, but the concept itself undeniably exists nonetheless. (The same is true for aesthetics incidentally – what’s considered “good” and “bad” art is also fluid, but “aesthetics” is still undeniably real). That's why no-one says, “there’s no such thing as the social idea of gender” (or of aesthetics).

“Soul” on the other hand is an assertion about an “out there”, objective fact. Regardless of prevailing views and opinions about what it entails, for those who believe in it it’s as real as the Eiffel tower is to you and me. That’s why – in the absence of any evidence at all for it - more thinking people at least can legitimately say, “there’s no reason to think there is a soul”, just as they could about the Eiffel tower if it had never been built.

Short version: you’re conflating an undeniable fact about the existence of a concept with a very deniable "fact" about the existence of an object.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not everyone is comfortable with the idea of gender.  But traditionally it has been divided into gender expression, gender roles, and gender identity, and it's the third one that is more subjective, but then your call for objectivity seems to preclude identity as a topic in psychiatry, which seems bizarre.   I don't see the point of comparing souls with gender, in any case.

I am not making a call for objectivity - I am making the point that we can be comfortable with subjectivity.

I used gender as an example because it's topical right now and gender cannot be established as an objective truth and it cannot be defined as a a concept - what you think is feminine and what I think is feminine could be polar opposites. Traditional definitions of "masculine" and "feminine" are no longer as relevant since it became clear that traditional meanings can change e.g. the traditional concept of marriage was re-defined and can be re-defined again in the future.

A trans person on LBC was trying to explain that from before puberty, from when they were about 3 years old they felt they were not in the right body and as they got older but still before puberty and before any hormone treatment they felt there was an innate gender that they just were, but they could not explain what it was that led them to that conclusion - it was an idea in their mind but they did not know what caused that idea to emerge. But as the idea was part of what they saw as their identity they saw no reason why this subjective idea that felt true for them should not be treated as if it were a fact by others - that they were the gender they said they were, even though there was no objective evidence for it. They then said when they transitioned and started having hormones, all it did was make it easier to express their particular concept of their gender outwardly to others but they were that gender before the hormones, before the breasts, before the higher voice etc. The trans person's inability to verbalise how they defined their concept of gender - that all they could say was they felt a certain gender but couldn't put what those feelings were into words made me think of Alan's inability to verbalise how he knew he had a soul that has an input into his decision-making but that's how it feels to him.

That's just me explaining my thought process but of course it doesn't matter if you don't see the point of comparing souls with gender - I don't expect you to adopt my thought process. I don't see the point of a lot of the arguments against souls made on here as no argument is going to change what someone feels to be true based on their thought processes - but we don't have to see the point of or agree with each other's arguments - that's not a requirement of this forum. It would be kind of boring if it was a requirement. Plus which poster would make the final decision on which argument is the one we all have to agree with or see the point of? We're individuals - we're free to see or not see the point of any argument made on here.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You’re making a category error here. Gender concerns the state of being male or female (and the points between), particularly these days by reference to prevailing cultural and social values rather than to biology. “Soul” on the other hand is something religious people assert to be an objective fact about the world (as a device to remove contradictions in their faith beliefs).

What you’re trying is, “but gender and soul are both hard to define exactly, therefore there’s an equivalence”. That’s wrong - gender is a social concept so definitions are fluid and changeable, but the concept itself undeniably exists nonetheless. (The same is true for aesthetics incidentally – what’s considered “good” and “bad” art is also fluid, but “aesthetics” is still undeniably real). That's why no-one says, “there’s no such thing as the social idea of gender” (or of aesthetics).

I disagree with what I think you are saying. How does a concept that can't be objectively defined undeniably exist? What exactly is it that you are claiming exists and what is your objective evidence as opposed to subjective testimony for demonstrating its existence?

“Soul” on the other hand is an assertion about an “out there”, objective fact.

Out where? If it has no substance, where is it? And whose concept of soul are you referring to, given there is no single defined concept?

Regardless of prevailing views and opinions about what it entails, for those who believe in it it’s as real as the Eiffel tower is to you and me. That’s why – in the absence of any evidence at all for it - more thinking people at least can legitimately say, “there’s no reason to think there is a soul”, just as they could about the Eiffel tower if it had never been built.

But I am not comparing a soul to the Eiffel Tower - the latter has substance and can be tested for as occupying space and time. You can compare a soul to the Eiffel Tower if you want, but I wouldn't make that comparison. I was making a comparison with gender, a concept which apparently has no substance, but whose existence appears to be true for many people and which they believe influences their behaviour and forms a part of their "authentic self".

Short version: you’re conflating an undeniable fact about the existence of a concept with a very deniable "fact" about the existence of an object.

Disagree for reasons given above.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You seem very confused. Either you are making a claim about objective reality or not.

What's confusing about my view that claims are different from facts. Are you arguing that claims and facts are the same? Presumably a claim needs to be tested and proved objectively true before other people adopt it as a  fact. Until then, it presumably remains a claim, especially if there is no means or method or tools to test the claim in order for it to become a generally accepted and agreed fact.

In the case of the soul, either human cognition is entirely due to the physical brain or it isn't.

Agreed.

That isn't a matter of opinion or a point of view, it's either a fact or it isn't.

Yes and if there is no way of testing it, it remains a claim and isn't generally accepted and agreed as being a fact.

You can have a point of view about it

Agreed

but ultimately it's either true or not.

Agreed - but without the means or method to test for it, claims that it is true remain claims, not facts.

It isn't a "mind-related claim" in the sense that gender identity is.

If the claim is that the soul is part of you and your mind is part of you and your gender is part of you, and neither mind nor soul nor gender have substance or agreed upon definitions, how is a soul not a mind-related claim? How are you defining mind-related? Is the mind a fact - is the mind the brain or does the brain detect the mind? I am also not sure what "you" is - does you mean your identity? Does you mean your mind? Does your identity or mind have substance - would you claim it is out there somewhere and can be tested using naturalistic methods to establish that it is out there somewhere? 

[SusanDoris]

Abut without the means or method to test for it, claims that it is true remain claims, not facts. If the claim is that the soul is part of you and your mind is part of you and your gender is part of you, and neither mind nor soul nor gender have substance or agreed upon definitions, how is a soul not a mind-related claim? How are you defining mind-related? Is the mind a fact - is the mind the brain or does the brain detect the mind? I am also not sure what "you" is - does you mean your identity? Does you mean your mind? Does your identity or mind have substance - would you claim it is out there somewhere and can be tested using naturalistic methods to establish that it is out there somewhere?

Synthetic Dave is programmed to read according to punctuation, so there is a slight pause at commas etc. When it is reading your posts, there are few pauses so I assume few commas. However, I do not listen character by character to check. It does, though, make some of your posts sound muddled and accentuates the impression that you are often missing the point and blurring the  issues and points raised. 

You put soul, mind and gender together. They are all words coined by humans to enable us to discuss different aspects of ourselves. That is confusing the issue. Zero evidence exists for the separate existence of soul and mind. Scientists cannot devise experiments to test for any separate existence of either, let alone form a hypothesis to start with. Gender, however, is a word to describe something which has most certainly got a physical body on which to work to find out if there are chemicals, parts of DNA, etc which can be shown to have some cause for the person’s gender, as opposed to being simply male or female. 
The 'soul' does not exist. Okay, there
is a trillions to one possibility that someone, someday, might find something which might lead to test, etc, but for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.
The 'mind' does not exist as anything separate. If anyone can find a mind without a physical brain, then they will take all Nobel prizes at once, I think! On this poin, most people take it for granted that there is no separation between the words brain and mind.

Now a more detailed  look at your post:

but without the means or method to test for it, claims that it is true remain claims, not facts. If the claim is that the soul is part of you and your mind is part of you and your gender is part of you,

I’m not sure that that claim has been made, i.e. that the soul is ‘part’ of you. As soon as it is expressed in that way, there is some assumption of individuality or separation.

and neither mind nor soul nor gender have substance or agreed upon definitions, how is a soul not a mind-related claim?

What is a ‘mind-related claim’? All claims, ideas, conjectures, totally imaginative ideas, etc are formed in the mind/brain.

Is the mind a fact - is the mind the brain or does the brain detect the mind?

What do you think? I would be interested to hear a clear definition of what you think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ten cheers for Gabriella for lifting this thread from its interminable  decline.

[Stranger]

What's confusing about my view that claims are different from facts. Are you arguing that claims and facts are the same?

No idea where you got that idea. The important distinction is between claims that are about things that exist (or not) in the objective world and those that are about the content of human minds. That's to say, claims that are, by their nature, matters of opinion (individually and/or collectively) and those that are objectively either true or false.

If the claim is that the soul is part of you and your mind is part of you and your gender is part of you, and neither mind nor soul nor gender have substance or agreed upon definitions, how is a soul not a mind-related claim?

You're confusing content with substrate. Gender is part of a person's identity - the content of their mind. Alan's concept of a soul is about the supporting 'hardware'. He is effectively saying that the brain cannot produce the mind (actually a scientific claim). His soul isn't part of his identity (although his belief in it definitely is) - he thinks it is necessary in order to have an identity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea where you got that idea. The important distinction is between claims that are about things that exist (or not) in the objective world and those that are about the content of human minds. That's to say, claims that are, by their nature, matters of opinion (individually and/or collectively) and those that are objectively either true or false.

You're confusing content with substrate. Gender is part of a person's identity - the content of their mind. Alan's concept of a soul is about the supporting 'hardware'. He is effectively saying that the brain cannot produce the mind (actually a scientific claim). His soul isn't part of his identity (although his belief in it definitely is) - he thinks it is necessary in order to have an identity.

But he could be talking about the insufficiency of brain-mind explanations...which has never imo been fully recognised.

[Gordon]

But he could be talking about the insufficiency of brain-mind explanations...which has never imo been fully recognised.

Nope - he is talking about something that has independent agency and that isn't biological and that has a source in a dimension other than ours (though he never did explain this despite my asking him several times). 

[jeremyp]

Well, you asked what's wrong with sticking with biology, and I replied that it doesn't predict behaviour or feelings.

This is a slight derail, but I think you are wrong about that, at least in respect of behaviour. I think being born with a penis is a good predictor of whether a baby will engage in masculine behaviour later in life.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Synthetic Dave is programmed to read according to punctuation, so there is a slight pause at commas etc. When it is reading your posts, there are few pauses so I assume few commas. However, I do not listen character by character to check. It does, though, make some of your posts sound muddled and accentuates the impression that you are often missing the point and blurring the  issues and points raised.

Must be a problem with Synthetic Dave or your hearing or your ability to understand what you hear as my post has punctuation - it has commas and hyphens and full stops.   

You put soul, mind and gender together. They are all words coined by humans to enable us to discuss different aspects of ourselves. That is confusing the issue. Zero evidence exists for the separate existence of soul and mind. Scientists cannot devise experiments to test for any separate existence of either, let alone form a hypothesis to start with. Gender, however, is a word to describe something which has most certainly got a physical body on which to work to find out if there are chemicals, parts of DNA, etc which can be shown to have some cause for the person’s gender, as opposed to being simply male or female.

When you say "cause for the person's gender" could you first define what you think you mean by gender? Given that we are now self-defining as individuals, there can be as many possibilities for gender classifications as there are individuals. There is now also no agreed upon definition of masculine or feminine or neutral or gender non-conforming or gender awesome, and we speak as if gender exists, so I would be interested to know how you think scientists will test for gender if it is a self-defined perception of what someone thinks is a part of who they are.

The 'soul' does not exist.

You can believe that but that depends on how you define "exist".

Okay, there is a trillions to one possibility that someone, someday, might find something which might lead to test, etc,

You seem confused. How do you test for a concept that has no agreed upon definition and what tools or method would you use to test for something that is someone's subjective experience and perception of influences on their thoughts, behaviours and choices? 

but for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

You can certainly adopt that position.

The 'mind' does not exist as anything separate. If anyone can find a mind without a physical brain, then they will take all Nobel prizes at once, I think!   On this poin, most people take it for granted that there is no separation between the words brain and mind.

Some evidence would be useful to support your assertions if you want them taken seriously. You are missing the point. It is not about whether a mind exists separately from a brain but about society differentiating between the biological basis for a person's behaviour and a person's thoughts, feelings, perceptions and motivations. If, as you claim,  thoughts, feelings, perceptions and motivations are considered by most people to be the result of brain biology, then any aberrant behaviour would be viewed as the result of a particular brain circuitry. But what actually happens is that society, for example in criminal cases in law, distinguishes between cases where a particular brain circuitry prompts the behaviour and cases where behaviour is prompted by a person's feelings and motivations.  It seems from how society functions that most people act as if something can influence brain chemistry and biology in producing choices and behaviour. Hence, why I said in many instances we seem comfortable with subjective realities and a soul is just another example of a subjective reality.

Now a more detailed  look at your post:I’m not sure that that claim has been made, i.e. that the soul is ‘part’ of you. As soon as it is expressed in that way, there is some assumption of individuality or separation.

I was under the impression that Alan's claims were that he perceives his choices are influenced by something apart from his brain biology and then he said in #33896 that "your soul is you".  If Alan has accepted that brain biology is part of what makes you, you, I interpreted that to mean that Alan  thinks brain biology and a soul both function to make you, you.

What is a ‘mind-related claim’? All claims, ideas, conjectures, totally imaginative ideas, etc are formed in the mind/brain.

By mind-related I meant based on perceptions of subjective reality.

What do you think? I would be interested to hear a clear definition of what you think.

Based on your definition, I think claims and ideas and perceptions, including the claim, idea or perception of a soul, are mind-related claims.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No idea where you got that idea. The important distinction is between claims that are about things that exist (or not) in the objective world and those that are about the content of human minds. That's to say, claims that are, by their nature, matters of opinion (individually and/or collectively) and those that are objectively either true or false.

No idea why you believe that is the important distinction. The more important distinction is between what is claimed and what can be agreed as being established objectively.

You're confusing content with substrate. Gender is part of a person's identity - the content of their mind. Alan's concept of a soul is about the supporting 'hardware'. He is effectively saying that the brain cannot produce the mind (actually a scientific claim). His soul isn't part of his identity (although his belief in it definitely is) - he thinks it is necessary in order to have an identity.

I agree that gender, despite there being no agreed upon definition of what gender is or how to define gender terms,  is a concept that forms part of some/many people's identity, apart from those whose subjective reality is that they do not have a gender identity.

Alan said "your soul is you" , which I interpreted as meaning that his subjective reality is that even if his brain biology altered significantly, he considers there is a part of him separate from the brain biology that makes up who he is. He has called it a soul as that is the religious terminology that he is familiar with and has acquired a belief in that particular line of thinking. But the claim is expressed by other people using different terminology as part of their subjective reality. It can't move from claim to fact if there is no way to define and test for it objectively.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

thank you for reply. One further point, why do you use the word 'mind-related'? The word 'related' confuses the issue. All thoughts, conjectures etc (as above) are completely  in the brain/mind, not somehow 'related' to it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella

thank you for reply. One further point, why do you use the word 'mind-related'? The word 'related' confuses the issue. All thoughts, conjectures etc (as above) are completely  in the brain/mind, not somehow 'related' to it.

Sorry - I edited my previous response. By mind-related I meant based on perceptions of subjective reality rather than what can be agreed as being established objectively.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You're still not getting it. We have many models for describing aspects of how we engage with the world - aesthetics, morality, language, and yes even gender if you like. There's no universal law about split infinitives though, or about the morality of equal marriage, or about whether the picture of the young woman scratching her backside on a tennis court is good art or lousy art. No-one however says that there are no such things as language or morality or aesthetics or any of these other models. The only disagreement is about how they should be populated, not about whether the models exist.

"Soul" on the other hand is in a different category of belief - along with unicorns and Jack Frost. It's a claim about an objectively true fact about the world - ie that it exists regardless of whether we know about it. And it's trivially easy to conclude that there's no such thing - or more accurately that there are no good reasons so far for thinking there to be such a thing.
 
Short version: if people didn't exist nor would our descriptive models about aesthetics and morality and language and gender; there would still though be mountains and Hailey's Comet and (according to AB) "souls", presumably just hanging around in some kind of celestial waiting room hoping for their future hosts to be pouffed into existence by a god.

These are different categories of belief.

[SusanDoris]

Hmmm, we do not perceive a subjective reality, we perceive reality (via our senses) but it is our interpretation of these perceptions, rightly or wrongly, as subjective or objective that defines or qualifies them.

rather than what can be agreed as being established objectively.

Agreement has very little to do with it really.  If something is to be established as objective, then it has to go through a step-by-step method until a theory can be formed. Even then, there is always that small possibility that the Theory will need amending or changing completely.