What are souls?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Arry the Bottle said that soul is the form of the body.   I can see something in that, but for AB soul is like the Fat Controller

So the soul is the form of MY body

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree, the casual use of soul seems an indulgent avoidance of methodological  naturalism by those scared of the implications.

Straw men Sane?

[wigginhall]

So the soul is the form of MY body

Yeah, but Arry baggsed it first.

[Nearly Sane]

Straw men Sane?

No. You seem to both dismiss scientific findings, and hypocitically people's experience that you don't share.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You seem to both dismiss scientific findings, and hypocitically people's experience that you don't share.

Which findings and what experiences?

[SusanDoris]

Agree, the casual use of soul seems an indulgent avoidance of methodological  naturalism by those scared of the implications.

I hesitate to ask, but what 'implications'?

[torridon]

Are you equating the emergent with the illusiory? On what warrant?

The  self/soul feels fundamental, but it isn't, it is emergent; something that is emergent and derivative cannot be fundamental, but we experience our self as something fundamental and irreducible and constant. We feel like persons, but in fact, persons are derivative. A person derives from a body, so when the body goes away, so does the person.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The  self/soul feels fundamental, but it isn't, it is emergent; something that is emergent and derivative cannot be fundamental, but we experience our self as something fundamental and irreducible and constant. We feel like persons, but in fact, persons are derivative. A person derives from a body, so when the body goes away, so does the person.

Let's suppose you are right.The question remains what is it which is illuded and what is it that refuses to feel unreal.
But suppose you are wrong and still have to not only equate emergent with illusionary but now that list includes the non fundamental, the reducible, and the non constant. In what way are they illusionary. Do you see the issue with your reductionist approach and it's actual disrespect of concepts such as emergence.

[Sriram]

The  self/soul feels fundamental, but it isn't, it is emergent; something that is emergent and derivative cannot be fundamental, but we experience our self as something fundamental and irreducible and constant. We feel like persons, but in fact, persons are derivative. A person derives from a body, so when the body goes away, so does the person.

torridon,

You keep stating that as though it is a fact. It is not.

It is just your opinion (maybe a hypothesis) that the self is an emergent property of the  body.  There are other opinions and hypothesis, as I have pointed out above, which have alternative views on the matter.

[Bubbles]

What are souls?

IMO it's the essence of everything that makes us, us.
Whether it exists after death is debatable.

Sometimes when people suffer from dementia they have moments when " they come back" sometimes before death.  IMO it's something that is an essence of a person and sometimes even with brain damage you can get a glimpse of it, even though most of the time it might not be seen.

It's the essence of a person, personality, experiences things that make them who they are.

Their essence, is the best way I can think of, for describing it.


Looking on the internet, looking for what I was trying to describe I saw this

http://www.movinginwithdementia.com/2011/11/alzheimers-and-soul.html

[torridon]

torridon,

You keep stating that as though it is a fact. It is not.

It is just your opinion (maybe a hypothesis) that the self is an emergent property of the  body.  There are other opinions and hypothesis, as I have pointed out above, which have alternative views on the matter.

It is what the evidence suggests, shall we say, then. And it chimes with my own personal experience of life.

[john]

As Torridon says. It is what the evidence points to.

There is NO EVIDENCE for anything else. Just daydreams.

[torridon]

Let's suppose you are right.The question remains what is it which is illuded and what is it that refuses to feel unreal.
But suppose you are wrong and still have to not only equate emergent with illusionary but now that list includes the non fundamental, the reducible, and the non constant. In what way are they illusionary. Do you see the issue with your reductionist approach and it's actual disrespect of concepts such as emergence.

Not quite sure where disrespect of emergence comes from, sometimes I think I need lessons in Vladish to get what you are saying.  But moving on, consider the emergence of intelligence in a bee swarm. A one million neuron bee is not so smart; granted it may be somewhat smarter than your average creationist, but that aside, a million bee swarm can make much smarter decisions on finding a nest site than a single bee.  Where exactly is that intelligence ? It is hard, if not impossible, to put a spatial location on the focus of that intelligence. Similarly, I find it difficult to identify a spatial location for my self.  Do I know always know the exact location and circumstances of every decision made ?

I was just reading about the eye fluke Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, which for part of its life cycle lives as a parasite inside the eyeball of freshwater fish, from where, somehow, it controls the behaviour of the fish, altering it such that the fish is more easily predated which enables the fluke to get into its next host.  From what we have come to understand from cognitive research, I would bet that the fish does not know it is being controlled, it is probably unaware it is hosting a parasite, yet its choices are altered to suit the parasite. Human persons too are not just vastly complex organisms, we are walking ecosystems of bacteria, viruses and parasites and all these symbiotic flora feed into our thoughts and influence our moods, so when 'we' make a decision, it is not just a question of competing neuronal assemblies, rather it is a composite decision of billions of intimately interacting organisms, a wisdom of crowds in a sense. So when I make a decision, what exactly is its provenance and its location ? What the research suggests, is that rather like the poor river trout, unaware of the provenance of its decisions, we too are somewhat in the grip of a bigger population, unaware of the incalculable goings on below the level of our consciousness, but our conscious self is a cerebral mechanism for claiming ownership and responsibility for those decisions, and this is a profoundly important plank of personhood; it is not just about a continuity of identity that transcends the constant turnover of bodily cells, it is also about the feeling of ownership and control over decisions that arise out of this great big working biological system. This is why I think we have a conscious self, it is about empowerment at the level of the entire system.

[SusanDoris]

torridon #62

Super post - as usual. wouldn't it be lovely if Vlad actually read and agreed!

[floo]

torridon #62

Super post - as usual. wouldn't it be lovely if Vlad actually read and agreed!

That will be the day!

[Sriram]

Not quite sure where disrespect of emergence comes from, sometimes I think I need lessons in Vladish to get what you are saying.  But moving on, consider the emergence of intelligence in a bee swarm. A one million neuron bee is not so smart; granted it may be somewhat smarter than your average creationist, but that aside, a million bee swarm can make much smarter decisions on finding a nest site than a single bee.  Where exactly is that intelligence ? It is hard, if not impossible, to put a spatial location on the focus of that intelligence. Similarly, I find it difficult to identify a spatial location for my self.  Do I know always know the exact location and circumstances of every decision made ?

I was just reading about the eye fluke Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, which for part of its life cycle lives as a parasite inside the eyeball of freshwater fish, from where, somehow, it controls the behaviour of the fish, altering it such that the fish is more easily predated which enables the fluke to get into its next host.  From what we have come to understand from cognitive research, I would bet that the fish does not know it is being controlled, it is probably unaware it is hosting a parasite, yet its choices are altered to suit the parasite. Human persons too are not just vastly complex organisms, we are walking ecosystems of bacteria, viruses and parasites and all these symbiotic flora feed into our thoughts and influence our moods, so when 'we' make a decision, it is not just a question of competing neuronal assemblies, rather it is a composite decision of billions of intimately interacting organisms, a wisdom of crowds in a sense. So when I make a decision, what exactly is its provenance and its location ? What the research suggests, is that rather like the poor river trout, unaware of the provenance of its decisions, we too are somewhat in the grip of a bigger population, unaware of the incalculable goings on below the level of our consciousness, but our conscious self is a cerebral mechanism for claiming ownership and responsibility for those decisions, and this is a profoundly important plank of personhood; it is not just about a continuity of identity that transcends the constant turnover of bodily cells, it is also about the feeling of ownership and control over decisions that arise out of this great big working biological system. This is why I think we have a conscious self, it is about empowerment at the level of the entire system.

torridon,

We humans are influenced by various factors including microbes, other parasites, magnetic impulses, solar storms, phases of the moon etc etc. That is true.

But it is also true that life has a pattern in spite of all these multifarious influences. We and our lives do not get  randomly jostled hither and thither  because of all these factors. Life is organised, fairly predictable and we manage to have clear objectives not only in our personal lives but also as a species.

In fact, globally we are more and more united and integrated than ever before. Our goals are clear, our morality is clear, our understanding of the world is fairly uniform.

Does it really seem as though we humans are indirectly and unconsciously at the mercy of bacteria and parasites in our gut?!!  I don't think so!  Whatever the hidden influences of these parasites and microbes,  it certainly does not seem to be conflicting with human moral and ethical norms or our life objectives.

I think I have discussed the Unconscious mind many times here. Whatever happenings, decisions, insights  and influences that we are being subjected to in our lives through unconscious means...they are clearly because of some  knowledgeable and more informed source than our conscious mind. It certainly cannot be done by microbes!!

[Alan Burns]

Not quite sure where disrespect of emergence comes from, sometimes I think I need lessons in Vladish to get what you are saying.  But moving on, consider the emergence of intelligence in a bee swarm. A one million neuron bee is not so smart; granted it may be somewhat smarter than your average creationist, but that aside, a million bee swarm can make much smarter decisions on finding a nest site than a single bee.  Where exactly is that intelligence ? It is hard, if not impossible, to put a spatial location on the focus of that intelligence. Similarly, I find it difficult to identify a spatial location for my self.  Do I know always know the exact location and circumstances of every decision made ?

I was just reading about the eye fluke Diplostomum pseudospathaceum, which for part of its life cycle lives as a parasite inside the eyeball of freshwater fish, from where, somehow, it controls the behaviour of the fish, altering it such that the fish is more easily predated which enables the fluke to get into its next host.  From what we have come to understand from cognitive research, I would bet that the fish does not know it is being controlled, it is probably unaware it is hosting a parasite, yet its choices are altered to suit the parasite. Human persons too are not just vastly complex organisms, we are walking ecosystems of bacteria, viruses and parasites and all these symbiotic flora feed into our thoughts and influence our moods, so when 'we' make a decision, it is not just a question of competing neuronal assemblies, rather it is a composite decision of billions of intimately interacting organisms, a wisdom of crowds in a sense. So when I make a decision, what exactly is its provenance and its location ? What the research suggests, is that rather like the poor river trout, unaware of the provenance of its decisions, we too are somewhat in the grip of a bigger population, unaware of the incalculable goings on below the level of our consciousness, but our conscious self is a cerebral mechanism for claiming ownership and responsibility for those decisions, and this is a profoundly important plank of personhood; it is not just about a continuity of identity that transcends the constant turnover of bodily cells, it is also about the feeling of ownership and control over decisions that arise out of this great big working biological system. This is why I think we have a conscious self, it is about empowerment at the level of the entire system.

The observed "intelligence" in a bee swarm, or the control exerted by the parasite do not go any way to explain conscious awareness, because there is no conscious awareness of what is going on in the bee swarm or the parasite behaviour other than what is observed through human eyes.  What you describe is merely intuitive behaviour developed through evolutionary means.  No conscious awareness involved.

[floo]

The observed "intelligence" in a bee swarm, or the control exerted by the parasite do not go any way to explain conscious awareness, because there is no conscious awareness of what is going on in the bee swarm or the parasite behaviour other than what is observed through human eyes.  What you describe is merely intuitive behaviour developed through evolutionary means.  No conscious awareness involved.

So you say, but you don't know that for a fact.

[Nearly Sane]

So you say, but you don't know that for a fact.

and a big hello to the Negative Proof Fallacy

[torridon]

torridon,

We humans are influenced by various factors including microbes, other parasites, magnetic impulses, solar storms, phases of the moon etc etc. That is true.

But it is also true that life has a pattern in spite of all these multifarious influences. We and our lives do not get  randomly jostled hither and thither  because of all these factors. Life is organised, fairly predictable and we manage to have clear objectives not only in our personal lives but also as a species.

In fact, globally we are more and more united and integrated than ever before. Our goals are clear, our morality is clear, our understanding of the world is fairly uniform.

Does it really seem as though we humans are indirectly and unconsciously at the mercy of bacteria and parasites in our gut?!!  I don't think so!  Whatever the hidden influences of these parasites and microbes,  it certainly does not seem to be conflicting with human moral and ethical norms or our life objectives.

I think I have discussed the Unconscious mind many times here. Whatever happenings, decisions, insights  and influences that we are being subjected to in our lives through unconscious means...they are clearly because of some  knowledgeable and more informed source than our conscious mind. It certainly cannot be done by microbes!!

The case of parasitic control is clearly an extreme example.  But it illustrates a more general and profound truth, that what we are, is far more complex than we commonly think; our symbiotic flora have intimate relationship with us that goes far beyond helping us digest our food; parasites have influenced human evolution; there is evidence that our intelligence derives in part from ancient viruses - genes from ancient viral insertions in our DNA are thought to be involved in the construction of cortex.  All this speaks to the underlying connectedness of all life, and what we think of our self is derived from the entire population of cohabiting organisms and is only truly valid at a moment in time.  Incessant change and the interconnectedness of all things, here endeth the lesson for today 

[torridon]

The observed "intelligence" in a bee swarm, or the control exerted by the parasite do not go any way to explain conscious awareness, because there is no conscious awareness of what is going on in the bee swarm or the parasite behaviour other than what is observed through human eyes.  What you describe is merely intuitive behaviour developed through evolutionary means.  No conscious awareness involved.

if you read the post, you would understand I was making the point that the river trout is (most likely) unaware of the fact that its choices are being determined by another creature without its knowledge.  And so presumably it can also be to some extent with humans - we are all unaware of the subliminal preconscious machinations that result in human choice; the implication being that the point of having a conscious self is not so much to make choices, but to serve as a focal point in terms of overall continuing identity for an incessantly changing complex biological system and which focal point it seems is also ascribed apparent ownership of significant decisions made within the system.

[ekim]

The case of parasitic control is clearly an extreme example.  But it illustrates a more general and profound truth, that what we are, is far more complex than we commonly think; our symbiotic flora have intimate relationship with us that goes far beyond helping us digest our food; parasites have influenced human evolution; there is evidence that our intelligence derives in part from ancient viruses - genes from ancient viral insertions in our DNA are thought to be involved in the construction of cortex.  All this speaks to the underlying connectedness of all life, and what we think of our self is derived from the entire population of cohabiting organisms and is only truly valid at a moment in time.  Incessant change and the interconnectedness of all things, here endeth the lesson for today 

From, let's say, the mystic's point of view, it is a question of identity.  If you identify with a physical body or mind then the observation will be that of complexity.  The way of the mystic is often an inner path to simplicity where identity ceases and a changeless centre is discovered in the midst of change, and union (or one-ness) replaces interconnectedness of things.  Here endeth the second lesson. 

[Rhiannon]

The Jungians have the interesting idea of deintegration/reintegration.   Or sort of, going to pieces, and then reassembling them, well, I've  done that a few times in my life.  They sometimes use the image of islands, which form an archipelago.

Yes, the reassembling is something I relate to hugely. I think I'm largely unrecognisable from who I was five or six years ago but I had to break for that to happen. I was reading something by Mark Epstein recently about trauma being the conduit for growth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torridon #62

Super post - as usual. wouldn't it be lovely if Vlad actually read and agreed!

Entirely non sequitur to what I have requested and since that renders me unable to either agree or disagree with him, that makes your observations off the mark, too.

[Sriram]

The case of parasitic control is clearly an extreme example.  But it illustrates a more general and profound truth, that what we are, is far more complex than we commonly think; our symbiotic flora have intimate relationship with us that goes far beyond helping us digest our food; parasites have influenced human evolution; there is evidence that our intelligence derives in part from ancient viruses - genes from ancient viral insertions in our DNA are thought to be involved in the construction of cortex.  All this speaks to the underlying connectedness of all life, and what we think of our self is derived from the entire population of cohabiting organisms and is only truly valid at a moment in time.  Incessant change and the interconnectedness of all things, here endeth the lesson for today 

Yes...our body is extremely complex  with genes, epigenes, microbiome, parasites and many other things.  Everything in Nature is interconnected is also obvious. The ecological system shows that.

But none of this prevents the existence of a soul or a spirit or the many complexities of spiritual existence.  That is a separate phenomenon and there is enough evidence in terms of NDE's and other paranormal phenomena.

We cannot simply say... it is all very complex and therefore there is no soul!