Why the soul?

[flipdeadshot22]

Beyond faith and religion, why do some people still insist that there exists a soul? Why can't we be comprised of only matter, but matter so intricately woven that we are still too technologically infantile to understand the pattern in its weaving? I mean, if DNA, the human retina, the cerebral cortex, Dr. Penfield's experiments, the nervous system, a cell's physiology and an MRI's or ECGs outputs can be affected by thought alone, what room is there for some mystical non-material soul? Why do some people require it in their world view at all? Is it simply a concept spewed out by the ego to allow a human to personify himself as something more than matter, as something more than the mundane 9-to-5er that most of us are?

To me, the more I learn about the Universe, the more wonderous everyday life becomes... I think the words 'soul' and 'spirit' are tags that we stick onto physical systems of such grandiose complexity that we seek to cover them up with simple all encompassing words to either mask our own ignorance, or to brush aside the fact that we can erode our ignorance through study and determination in seeking the truth.

[ChrisV]

The number of atheists who believe in a soul is pretty small. It's basically limited to New-Age hippy types.

[DougShrapnel]

3 reasons that I can think of, off the top of my head. It's usefull. Meaning that the term describes your attitude toward living. Councoiusness has not been fully explained. And finaly the term is pervasive.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do some people require it in their world view at all? Is it simply a concept spewed out by the ego to allow a human to personify himself as something more than matter, as something more than the mundane 9-to-5er that most of us are?

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to think it's an irrational crutch to help the majority of people cope with their own mortality.

Ego, indeed. "I'm never gonna die, so I must have a soul. And the soul can't perish, so I'm gonna exist forever."

And people seem to fight this concept nearly their entire lives. I guess it's a matter of finding oblivion abhorrent. People would rather exist than not, and they cannot draw comfort from the logical concept that if you no longer exist, it wouldn't matter.

Continuity seems to be a valued human trait. I'm sure there's an inherent danger in the fact that if the majority of people didn't have this to hold onto, the species would go into a stall and downslide. "What's the point?"

Strange, isn't it. Evolution seems to fight this on its own by mandating that people reproduce and survive. This drive should be significant evidence for the fact that there is no such thing as a eternal Paradise yet.

Reproduce and spread like fungi, maybe our descendants will develop the technological sophistication to build a permanent Paradise and the ability to reach backwards across time and pluck the dead and bring 'em forward.

(Although that's my personal hope. That we would in later time, be able to do this ourselves without exterior help. It'd be more of an achievement than blindly wagering on an already-existent God.)

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
3 reasons that I can think of, off the top of my head. It's usefull. Meaning that the term describes your attitude toward living. Councoiusness has not been fully explained. And finaly the term is pervasive.

[/ QUOTE ]



"It's usefull. Meaning that the term describes your attitude toward living."

I don't fully understand what this is supposed to mean; how do you equate the idea of a disembodied, imortal entity associated with every sentient being to be a term that "describes your attitude toward living"?



"Councoiusness has not been fully explained."

So you're implying that everytime we can't fully explain some aspect of our environment, or ourselves, that we simply chalk it up to some supernatural phenomena? With this mindset we'd still believe that the sun moved across the sky because a god on a chariot moved it.


"And finaly the term is pervasive."

And this makes the concept of a soul more useful...how?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to think it's an irrational crutch to help the majority of people cope with their own mortality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed it is to be in denial. The strangest thing is that I find mortality a rather liberating fact and one that does give a semblance of meaning to an otherwise absurd and unsatisfactory phenomena. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Beyond faith and religion, why do some people still insist that there exists a soul?


[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that if you deny the soul you are a materialistic naturalist one of the best counters to this is the argument from reason. I think Kant first formulated it, then Balfour in England, then C.S. Lewis included a version in Miracles. The basic idea is that if our thoughts are nothing but the random motion of electrons then reason is an illusion and the laws of thought have no meaning. How can one bit of matter think about another bit of matter?

A more recent version is by Victor Reppert, C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason. A short article by him on this can be found here. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html)

Richard Carrier of Infidels has written a detailed rebuttal and Reppert has replied to that.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Beyond faith and religion, why do some people still insist that there exists a soul?


[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that if you deny the soul you are a materialistic naturalist one of the best counters to this is the argument from reason. I think Kant first formulated it, then Balfour in England, then C.S. Lewis included a version in Miracles. The basic idea is that if our thoughts are nothing but the random motion of electrons then reason is an illusion and the laws of thought have no meaning. How can one bit of matter think about another bit of matter?

A more recent version is by Victor Reppert, C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason. A short article by him on this can be found here. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html)

Richard Carrier of Infidels has written a detailed rebuttal and Reppert has replied to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

One might as easily ask how can a soul think about a bit of matter. Seems to me be more difficult to explain than how matter can think about matter.

[MidGe]

From the link: [ QUOTE ]
...I will present a model of the atheist universe which I will call mechanistic materialism...

[/ QUOTE ]

Straw man argument!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Straw man argument!


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's called defining your terms.

[MidGe]

Right! Proof that god could not possibly exist:

1) god by definition (defining my terms) would have to be benevolent and all-powerful.

2. Since I see a lot of unwonted suffering in the world, the world could not come about thru the agency of a god. In fact such would be intolerable to a benevolent god.

3. QED


Nexr!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

3. QED


Nexr!


[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't agree with his definition of materialistic naturalism then the argument doesn't apply to you. If you do agree with it, where's the straw?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't agree with his definition of materialistic naturalism then the argument doesn't apply to you. If you do agree with it, where's the straw?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't agree with my definition of god (ie. he is not benevolent, or he is not all-powerful, or is neither), then my argument is not with you.

[NotReady]

Where's the straw?

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Beyond faith and religion, why do some people still insist that there exists a soul?


[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that if you deny the soul you are a materialistic naturalist one of the best counters to this is the argument from reason. I think Kant first formulated it, then Balfour in England, then C.S. Lewis included a version in Miracles. The basic idea is that if our thoughts are nothing but the random motion of electrons then reason is an illusion and the laws of thought have no meaning. How can one bit of matter think about another bit of matter?

A more recent version is by Victor Reppert, C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason. A short article by him on this can be found here. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html)

Richard Carrier of Infidels has written a detailed rebuttal and Reppert has replied to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that you are of the school of Cartesian Dualism. Philosophical arguments aside, I think it would be much more instructive to consider tangible, medical reasons against the existance of a soul (ala dualism). It has been shown that certain types of well-established phenomena, such as the creation of two separate streams of consciousness operating simultaneously in one body in split-brain patients (who have had the corpus callosum connecting the left and right hemispheres of the brain severed), cannot be accounted for on dualism. If the mind was an indivisible immaterial substance that could exist independently of the brain then we should not be able to create two minds simply by severing the corpus collosum. Nor should the mind be directly affected by any tampering with the brain. If Cartesian dualism were true the only effect that brain damage could have would be to incapacitate the ability of the mind (or soul) to control the body, but the mind itself would remain intact.

Your premise involving thought being generated by the "random motion of electrons" (I suggest you do some research into neurobiology if that's how you think a neural network operates), doesn't lead logically into the conclusion that "reason is an illusion and the laws of thought have no meaning." The electrons passing through the port of the modem on your computer are continually "moving around," and as a function of that, sets off a process that eventually leads to my text I type being sent to your screen which (I hope) DOES have some meaning. All notions of perception and meaning do not need to have a basis within the context of a soul to be understood.

[MidGe]

The straw is [ QUOTE ]
...In presenting this argument, it is necessary to contrast the atheist's view of the world with that of the theist. I will present a model of the atheist universe which I will call mechanistic materialism. Although worldviews other than mechanistic materialism are compatible with atheism, mechanistic materialism seems to be the worldview held by most atheists. So if I can show that the existence of reason makes sense in a theistic universe but not in a mechanistic materialist universe, I will have given some good reasons for preferring theism to atheism. If an atheist wishes to propose a form of atheism that differs from mechanistic materialism, I would be happy to discuss that worldview as well....

[/ QUOTE ]

There is the straw he assumes 1) most atheists... and then again 2)assumes everyone has a world view.


Wrong on both counts.

But I am glad you find no faults with my previous post. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1) most atheists..


[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

If an atheist wishes to propose a form of atheism that differs from mechanistic materialism, I would be happy to discuss that worldview as well....


[/ QUOTE ]


Where's the straw?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It has been shown that certain types of well-established phenomena, such as the creation of two separate streams of consciousness operating simultaneously in one body in split-brain patients


[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

[ QUOTE ]

The electrons passing through the port of the modem on your computer are continually "moving around,"


[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the Reppert article you will remember he discussed the computer analogy. The electrons in a computer are controlled by a mind - the guy at the keyboard.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it simply a concept spewed out by the ego to allow a human to personify himself as something more than matter,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, so whats wrong with that?

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It has been shown that certain types of well-established phenomena, such as the creation of two separate streams of consciousness operating simultaneously in one body in split-brain patients


[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

[ QUOTE ]

The electrons passing through the port of the modem on your computer are continually "moving around,"


[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the Reppert article you will remember he discussed the computer analogy. The electrons in a computer are controlled by a mind - the guy at the keyboard.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.tcnj.edu/~leonard2/CogPsych212Group/brainBg.html

I think this is a decent read about split brain patients, plus it gives you some background on the case of phinaes gage, a person who's personality was dramatically altered by brain injury (which shouldn't be the case if there was a conciousness that transcended the consituent matter of his mind.)

[ QUOTE ]

If you read the Reppert article you will remember he discussed the computer analogy. The electrons in a computer are controlled by a mind - the guy at the keyboard.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you need to affix some sort of immortal conciousness to the idea of sentience? Do you believe that the "spirit" of Windows XP lives on even after the destruction of all the computers on earth?

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it simply a concept spewed out by the ego to allow a human to personify himself as something more than matter,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, so whats wrong with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't a problem; unless you wish to lead delusion-free life.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you need to affix some sort of immortal conciousness to the idea of sentience? Do you believe that the "spirit" of Windows XP lives on even after the destruction of all the computers on earth?


[/ QUOTE ]

There's no issue of immortality. And again, Reppert has dealt with the computer analogy re reason.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a decent read about split brain patients, plus it gives you some background on the case of phinaes gage, a person who's personality was dramatically altered by brain injury (which shouldn't be the case if there was a conciousness that transcended the consituent matter of his mind.)



[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know if that's quite the idea. The way I understand it, would be to say the brain is like a light-bulb and consciousness is like electricity. So if you altered the filament in the light bulb or the color/shape of the glass it would alter the way that transcendent principle (electricity or consciousness) manifested or displayed itself.

I'm not saying that's the only explanation, but I think we're pretty safe in saying that whatever it is, consciousness appears to be non-local, and at this time, can't be described materialistically.

Here's an interview that some of the non-reductionists might find interesting with Karl Pribram, Ph.D. and Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove link (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/pribram.htm)
<font color="brown"> Hello and welcome. Our topic today is the mind-brain relationship, and my guest is Dr. Karl Pribram, professor of neuropsychology at Stanford University, in the Department of Psychology and in the medical school. Dr. Pribram is the author of Languages of the Brain and hundreds of articles about the mind-brain relationship. In fact I would say fairly that Dr. Pribram is probably one of the most influential scholars alive today in probing the mysteries of the mind-brain relationship... </font>

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a decent read about split brain patients, plus it gives you some background on the case of phinaes gage, a person who's personality was dramatically altered by brain injury (which shouldn't be the case if there was a conciousness that transcended the consituent matter of his mind.)



[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know if that's quite the idea. The way I understand it, would be to say the brain is like a light-bulb and consciousness is like electricity. So if you altered the filament in the light bulb or the color/shape of the glass it would alter the way that transcendent principle (electricity or consciousness) manifested or displayed itself.

I'm not saying that's the only explanation, but I think we're pretty safe in saying that whatever it is, consciousness appears to be non-local, and at this time, can't be described materialistically.

Here's an interview that some of the non-reductionists might find interesting with Karl Pribram, Ph.D. and Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove link (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/pribram.htm)
<font color="brown"> Hello and welcome. Our topic today is the mind-brain relationship, and my guest is Dr. Karl Pribram, professor of neuropsychology at Stanford University, in the Department of Psychology and in the medical school. Dr. Pribram is the author of Languages of the Brain and hundreds of articles about the mind-brain relationship. In fact I would say fairly that Dr. Pribram is probably one of the most influential scholars alive today in probing the mysteries of the mind-brain relationship... </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

"Sure, and this is the critical thing -- that if indeed we're right that these quantum-like phenomena, or the rules of quantum mechanics, apply all the way through to our psychological processes, to what's going on in the nervous system -- then we have an explanation perhaps, certainly we have a parallel, to the kind of experiences that people have called spiritual experiences. Because the descriptions you get with spiritual experiences seem to parallel the descriptions of quantum physics. That's why Fritjof Capra wrote The Tao of Physics, why we have The Dancing Wu Li Masters, and all of this sort of thing that's come along. And in fact Bohr and Heisenberg already knew; Schroedinger talked about the Upanishads, and Bohr used the yin and yang as his symbol. Because the conceptions that grew out of watching the quantum level -- and therefore now the neurological and psychophysical level, now that it's a psychological level as well -- seem to have a great deal in common with our spiritual experience. Now what do I mean by spiritual experience? You talked about mental activity, calling it the mind. That aspect of mental activity, which is very human -- it may be true of other species as well, but we don't know -- but in human endeavor many of us at least seem to need to get in contact with larger issues, whether they're cosmology, or some kind of biological larger issue, or a social one, or it's formalized in some kind of religious activity. But we want to belong. And that is what I define as the spiritual aspects of man's nature."

Fortunately, a topic within quantum mechanics happens to be the subject of my graduate thesis (applying to the field of quantum computing,) so a few of these ideas he had spoken about in the interview had resonated a bit more with me than philosophical word games proving the existence of a soul. I have long had the viewpoint that the counter to the materialist argument against the existence of a soul (as posted by NotReady above) is outdated, due to its assumptions about the dynamics of the matter that forms the brain (these assumptions are based on classical reasoning, without taking into account many of the important theoretical and experimental findings of the 20th-21st centuries involving most notably, the measurement postulate of quantum mechanics.)

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I have long had the viewpoint...

[/ QUOTE ]

And I appreciate you stating it as a viewpoint.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic idea is that if our thoughts are nothing but the random motion of electrons then reason is an illusion and the laws of thought have no meaning. How can one bit of matter think about another bit of matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is too stupid an idea to even justify.

The combined lack of knowledge about biology and neurophysiology and, to some extent, swarm intelligence do a good job explaining how it could easily be possible even if we don't know the exact details yet.

[MaxWeiss]

Because everybody like to think that they're special.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic idea is that if our thoughts are nothing but the random motion of electrons then reason is an illusion and the laws of thought have no meaning. How can one bit of matter think about another bit of matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is too stupid an idea to even justify.

The combined lack of knowledge about biology and neurophysiology and, to some extent, swarm intelligence do a good job explaining how it could easily be possible even if we don't know the exact details yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, to divide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole of reality at once, we would be swamped. However when this mode of thought is applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and the whole world in which he lives, (i.e. in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultant divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience himself and this world as actually constituted of separately existing fragments. What is needed is a relativistic theory, to give up altogether the notion that the world is constituted of basic objects or building blocks. Rather one has to view the world in terms of universal flux of events and processes."

- David Bohm

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is too stupid an idea to even justify.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder why Kant, Lewis and Reppert never thought of that. What idiots.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is too stupid an idea to even justify.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder why Kant, Lewis and Reppert never thought of that. What idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were at a pretty significant technological and paradigmatic disadvantage.

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is too stupid an idea to even justify.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder why Kant, Lewis and Reppert never thought of that. What idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe your conclusion that matter is incapable of comprehending matter is undermined by the premise:
"if thoughts are nothing but the random motion of electrons," which from what I understand after reading Reppert, is his premise as well.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

They were at a pretty significant technological and paradigmatic disadvantage.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reppert's book was published in 1996. I don't see what technology has to do with the argument anyway.

My guess is no one who's responded to this idea even understands the argument. Someone could prove me wrong.

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They were at a pretty significant technological and paradigmatic disadvantage.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reppert's book was published in 1996. I don't see what technology has to do with the argument anyway.

My guess is no one who's responded to this idea even understands the argument. Someone could prove me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technology and updated scientific models of reality have A LOT to do with this argument, since rational people tend to found their understanding of physical systems (in this case conciousness) on empirically based evidence.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The basic idea is that if our thoughts are nothing but the random motion of electrons then reason is an illusion and the laws of thought have no meaning. How can one bit of matter think about another bit of matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is too stupid an idea to even justify.

The combined lack of knowledge about biology and neurophysiology and, to some extent, swarm intelligence do a good job explaining how it could easily be possible even if we don't know the exact details yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, to divide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole of reality at once, we would be swamped. However when this mode of thought is applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and the whole world in which he lives, (i.e. in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultant divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience himself and this world as actually constituted of separately existing fragments. What is needed is a relativistic theory, to give up altogether the notion that the world is constituted of basic objects or building blocks. Rather one has to view the world in terms of universal flux of events and processes."

- David Bohm

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not EXACTLY what we are talking about? The whole being greater than the sum of the parts?? That phenomenon can be studied scientifically, in more ways than just breaking it down. This is a scientific question, is it not?

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is too stupid an idea to even justify.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder why Kant, Lewis and Reppert never thought of that. What idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how or what they thought or what knowledge was available. They might have been for all I know. Religion has proven very well how the human mind can compartmentalize reason and unreason. Respond to the rest of the post if you want and credit.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't we be comprised of only matter, but matter so intricately woven that we are still too technologically infantile to understand the pattern in its weaving?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "matter" here, and on what basis do you suppose that subjective consciousness can be explained exclusively in its terms?

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why can't we be comprised of only matter, but matter so intricately woven that we are still too technologically infantile to understand the pattern in its weaving?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "matter" here, and on what basis do you suppose that subjective consciousness can be explained in terms of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, being a physics grad student, matter to me is nothing more than bound state quarks and leptons (hey, you asked). As far as explaining how a sensation of conciousness arises from matter, that's a theory i'd love to be fully developed so I can learn it (much in the same way i'd love for someone to find a way to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, so I can learn that.)

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, being a physics grad student, matter to me is nothing more than bound state quarks and leptons (hey, you asked). As far as explaining how a sensation of conciousness arises from matter, that's a theory i'd love to be fully developed so I can learn it (much in the same way i'd love for someone to find a way to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, so I can learn that.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my question bears a rephrase, because your answer didn't quite address what I was trying to ask.

What observed properties of quarks, leptons and their various interactions lead you to suspect they could be exclusively responsible for the phenomena of subjective consciousness?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I have long had the viewpoint that the counter to the materialist argument against the existence of a soul (as posted by NotReady above) is outdated,


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the argument from reason has nothing to do with details of technology. The question is how can logic mean anything if it is simply the prodcut of physical laws? If our mental states are wholly determined by natural laws what possible validity can be contained in a syllogism? If I believe something false how is that different from believing something true, since both beliefs are the product of the same natural laws?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the argument from reason has nothing to do with details of technology. The question is how can logic mean anything if it is simply the prodcut of physical laws? If our mental states are wholly determined by natural laws what possible validity can be contained in a syllogism? If I believe something false how is that different from believing something true, since both beliefs are the product of the same natural laws?

[/ QUOTE ]
They arise from the same cause, but one is still true and one false. A true statement is one which corresponds with how the world actually is, a false statement lacks that property. I dont see the problem in labelling a syllogism valid, since true premises will yield true conclusions. The truth or falsity of a given statement doesnt seem to me to depend on anything spiritual or even mental.

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have long had the viewpoint that the counter to the materialist argument against the existence of a soul (as posted by NotReady above) is outdated,


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the argument from reason has nothing to do with details of technology. The question is how can logic mean anything if it is simply the prodcut of physical laws? If our mental states are wholly determined by natural laws what possible validity can be contained in a syllogism? If I believe something false how is that different from believing something true, since both beliefs are the product of the same natural laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument from reason should be obviously flawed to anyone who can see through the leap of faith made from the premises to the conclusion. From your very own source (which has an extensive multipage breakdown of the problems and fallacies intrinsic to Reppert's arguments)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/reppert.html

"Reppert's discussion of the AfR flirts with disaster at several points, where conceptual mistakes threaten to undermine his project, and we should get these issues out of the way first, before giving his arguments their best possible shake.

The first and most fundamental problem is what I shall call the Possibility Fallacy: assuming that having no explanation is equivalent to not being able to have one (e.g. 69-71). The Basic AfR Premise is a global assertion: no belief is rationally inferred if it is explained with nonrational causes. It is thus necessary to prove that it is not even possible for this to happen (a conceptual argument that is pretty hard to carry off), or at the very least that it probably does not actually happen in human brains (an argument that would require a survey of neurophysical data, which Reppert never conducts)."

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this not EXACTLY what we are talking about? The whole being greater than the sum of the parts??

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what side of the fence I'm on, but you'll have to elaborate - is the whole greater that the sum of it's parts? Y/N

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

They arise from the same cause, but one is still true and one false.


[/ QUOTE ]

But this is question begging because we determine truth and falsity through reason. If our determination of truth is wholly dependent on physical laws and those same laws determine our mental state when we believe something false, how can any distinction be made between true and false? It simply depends on a mental state produced by natural laws, not on reason.

[ QUOTE ]

A true statement is one which corresponds with how the world actually is, a false statement lacks that property.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about non-empirical statements such as math and logic?

[ QUOTE ]

I dont see the problem in labelling a syllogism valid, since true premises will yield true conclusions


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. How do you determine a true conclusion? Your belief that it's true is caused by natural laws, the non-rational movement of electrons, as is your belief that something is false. Reason has nothing to do with it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Reppert's discussion of the AfR flirts with disaster at several points,

The first and most fundamental problem is what I shall call the Possibility Fallacy:


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, this by Carrier is a critique of Reppert's book, not the article I linked. Second, you can find Reppert's response here


http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/03/updated-reply-to-carrier.html


Brief quote, see the link for the full article:

[ QUOTE ]

The first and most serious problem with my arguments is that I commit what he calls the Possibility Fallacy, that is, I assume that having no explanation is equivalent to not being able to have one. I mention this objection on p. 118, in the context of discussing Nicholas Tattersall’s critique of Lewis’s Miracles and Darek Barefoot’s response. I quote Barefoot’s reply in my book as follows:


[/ QUOTE ]

[MaxWeiss]

Yes. But just because I have an incomplete explanation for how does not give free reign to anyone else's explanation, unless they have good evidence or reasons backing it.

(That's why I brought up swarm intelligence, because it deals with the emergence of singular conscience in swarms.)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I have long had the viewpoint that the counter to the materialist argument against the existence of a soul (as posted by NotReady above) is outdated,


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the argument from reason has nothing to do with details of technology. The question is how can logic mean anything if it is simply the prodcut of physical laws? If our mental states are wholly determined by natural laws what possible validity can be contained in a syllogism? If I believe something false how is that different from believing something true, since both beliefs are the product of the same natural laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I agree. I think the fundamental flaw in the argument is that the conclusion is, in fact, self-evident. Logic does not, in fact, "mean anything". Nevertheless, for most subjects, it *works*. I can show you a set of facts and arguments, and thereby affect your future behaviour. I don't need to make any claim that this is dependent on rational inference on your part.

You are also correct that your belief in a god is fundamentally no different from my belief in no god, inasmuch as they are both just patterns of neural activity in our respective brains.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Logic does not, in fact, "mean anything".


[/ QUOTE ]

Does that statement mean anything?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the fundamental flaw in the argument is that the conclusion is, in fact, self-evident.

[/ QUOTE ]

That describes a subjective state, not an intrinsic quality of the argument.

[ QUOTE ]
I can show you a set of facts and arguments, and thereby affect your future behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another appeal to subjectivity.

[ QUOTE ]
You are also correct that your belief in a god is fundamentally no different from my belief in no god, inasmuch as they are both just patterns of neural activity in our respective brains.

[/ QUOTE ]

A statement of opinion without proof.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Logic does not, in fact, "mean anything".


[/ QUOTE ]

Does that statement mean anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of sounding Clintonian, it depends what 'mean' means /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Philo]

We need soul because without it there would have been no James Brown.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
But this is question begging because we determine truth and falsity through reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we are once again talking cross-purposes. I was describing a world-view (ie how I think things are) the question of how we know truth is separate from what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
If our determination of truth is wholly dependent on physical laws and those same laws determine our mental state when we believe something false, how can any distinction be made between true and false? It simply depends on a mental state produced by natural laws, not on reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just dont understand this point. If you believe there is an apple on my desk you are wrong. The reason you are wrong is because of the physical state of the world. It is true that I have one belief about the apple, you have another and we may not be able to persuade one another to change each other's stance - why does that imply neither of us is right or wrong in our belief?

How we know truth is a different question from whether truth exists.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A true statement is one which corresponds with how the world actually is, a false statement lacks that property.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about non-empirical statements such as math and logic?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was including non-physical within world. "6 is the smallest perfect number" is true because the mathematical world is such that all other perfect numbers are bigger than 6. (I happen to be a platonist, but I am pretty sure formalists, etc have a perfectly feasible semantics).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I dont see the problem in labelling a syllogism valid, since true premises will yield true conclusions


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. How do you determine a true conclusion? Your belief that it's true is caused by natural laws, the non-rational movement of electrons, as is your belief that something is false. Reason has nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think I am begging the question - I am saying what I mean by true, not how I determine what is a true conclusion. I agree that reason has nothing to do with what is true and what is false - I think that is a property of the world and that reason is how we know truth (circular I know - but I accept circularity as inevitable).

Again, it seems to me the argument begins with how we know truth, then seems to shift to saying therefore there can be no truth.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. But just because I have an incomplete explanation for how does not give free reign to anyone else's explanation, unless they have good evidence or reasons backing it.

(That's why I brought up swarm intelligence, because it deals with the emergence of singular conscience in swarms.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Swarm intelligence doesn't appear to be an explanation, simply an observation. If we put a bunch of ants together, they're going to work together to build an anthill - we know that. But I fail to see how this "explains" anything. We see the process occurring and then just give it a name, how does that explain it?

I don't see swarm intelligence existing in the ant's minds, it exists in our mind. We assign purpose to their behavior in our thought process, not theirs. I can't see how a materialist can presuppose purpose on the one hand, to quantify an emergent attribute, and then deny it on the other. Purpose either exists or it doesn't.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think we are once again talking cross-purposes. I was describing a world-view (ie how I think things are) the question of how we know truth is separate from what it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was addressing the question of how we know truth. The argument from reason basically says that logical inference can't be accounted for on materialistic assumptions. So I'm not sure what you mean by cross-purposes here.

[ QUOTE ]

why does that imply neither of us is right or wrong in our belief?


[/ QUOTE ]

I would rather use an example involving inference. Some don't think empirical knowledge requires any inference at all so we both know there's an apple on your desk through our senses, intuition, whatever.

[ QUOTE ]

reason is how we know truth


[/ QUOTE ]

And that's the crux of the argument. How can our mental states, being the result of physical laws, be a measurement of truth? The same laws produce false beliefs as well as true beliefs. But we claim we know something is true because it's logical, not because physical laws determine our mental state.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I was addressing the question of how we know truth. The argument from reason basically says that logical inference can't be accounted for on materialistic assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
reason is how we know truth


[/ QUOTE ]
And that's the crux of the argument. How can our mental states, being the result of physical laws, be a measurement of truth? The same laws produce false beliefs as well as true beliefs. But we claim we know something is true because it's logical, not because physical laws determine our mental state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here again you ask how they can be a measurement of truth - to me this means how can they be "the thing which makes a statement true". I dont think they are what makes it true. What makes a statement true is the way the real world actually is, properties the real world actually has, etc. If the statement corresponds to that, then it is true (irrespective of if anyone believes it or not).

Physical laws cause us to have certain beliefs - some of these correspond to how the world is, some of them fail to do that. The first lot are our true beliefs, the second are our false beliefs - even though they are indistinguishable to us. I believe (!) that through applying reason and logic our true beliefs become more and more numerous and our false beliefs become fewer.

I'm not convinced I'm a materialist but if I am, I have no problem accounting for inference - it's a method I use to refine my beliefs. I happen to also believe (along with everyone else, I think) that reason leads to more true beliefs than random guessing. Of course, I cant justify that but you and I at least agree that circularity is unavoidable and hence not really worth discussing.

[flipdeadshot22]

Before this debate turns into another epistemological pissing contest involving some sides deciding to abolish fundamental rules of thought such as logic because of circularity; let me get back to the topic here and ask NotReady this: Since the laws of physics and research into neurophysiology have yet to come up with a theory of conciousness, WHAT IS IT EXACTLY that IS giving rise to sentience if not "the random motion of electrons" in the brain (your words not mine), and what evidence do you have to support this. The argument from reason doesn't answer this, and if you read my OP, that's the question that's been asked all along.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Before this debate turns into another epistemological pissing contest involving some sides deciding to abolish fundamental rules of thought such as logic because of circularity; let me get back to the topic here and ask NotReady this: Since the laws of physics and research into neurophysiology have yet to come up with a theory of conciousness, WHAT IS IT EXACTLY that IS giving rise to sentience if not "the random motion of electrons" in the brain (your words not mine), and what evidence do you have to support this. The argument from reason doesn't answer this, and if you read my OP, that's the question that's been asked all along.

[/ QUOTE ]
The argument from reason is not an attempt to provide an answer. It is attempting to argue that, whatever the answer is - it isnt materialism.

[Skidoo]

The phenomena peculiar to subjective awareness have not been shown to be reducible to the observed properties of "matter" (whatever that is).

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The phenomena peculiar to subjective awareness have not been shown to be possible without/independently of the observed properties of "matter" (whatever that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The phenomena peculiar to subjective awareness have not been shown to be possible without/independently of the observed properties of "matter" (whatever that is).

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't dispute that. We disagree on a lot of things, but at least your errors contain zingers that appear to be the product of some reasoning, unlike a few of the flat tires that show up in this forum.

Neither side of this discussion has a sound empirical basis, so let the pretend scientists put an end to their pompous pronouncements and confine themselves to their sandboxes.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither side of this discussion has a sound empirical basis, so let the pretend scientists put an end to their pompous pronouncements and confine themselves to their sandboxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't pompous scientists allowed to speculate on philosophical issues as well? It seems to me that, just because you believe in science, there's no reason to be precluded from discussion of areas which are not yet scientifically discussable.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither side of this discussion has a sound empirical basis, so let the pretend scientists put an end to their pompous pronouncements and confine themselves to their sandboxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't pompous scientists allowed to speculate on philosophical issues as well? It seems to me that, just because you believe in science, there's no reason to be precluded from discussion of areas which are not yet scientifically discussable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, as if non-scientists were somehow better suited to discuss these issues. What type of expertise are we looking for here? Are theists, or better yet religious leaders, somehow better informed on the subject? More worthy of an opinion? Why?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither side of this discussion has a sound empirical basis, so let the pretend scientists put an end to their pompous pronouncements and confine themselves to their sandboxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't pompous scientists allowed to speculate on philosophical issues as well? It seems to me that, just because you believe in science, there's no reason to be precluded from discussion of areas which are not yet scientifically discussable.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you reconcile a pompous attitude with the selfless objectivity (formerly, perhaps) expected of a scientist?

[MidGe]

skidoo,

it usually is the other way around. It is religion that tend to get out of its sandbox (ie ID). Science doesn't afaik.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither side of this discussion has a sound empirical basis, so let the pretend scientists put an end to their pompous pronouncements and confine themselves to their sandboxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't pompous scientists allowed to speculate on philosophical issues as well? It seems to me that, just because you believe in science, there's no reason to be precluded from discussion of areas which are not yet scientifically discussable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, as if non-scientists were somehow better suited to discuss these issues. What type of expertise are we looking for here? Are theists, or better yet religious leaders, somehow better informed on the subject? More worthy of an opinion? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I quit following the related thread, but since these theists are still here, I assume that eventually it firmly established that certain facts are more likely to be known by the dumber people. I think we can safely assume that facts about 'souls' fall into this category. So I agree...scientists should not be running their mouths here. Or any intelligent non-scientists for that matter. Quit poisoning the well, guys!

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I quit following the related thread, but since these theists are still here, I assume that eventually it firmly established that certain facts are more likely to be known by the dumber people. I think we can safely assume that facts about 'souls' fall into this category. So I agree...scientists should not be running their mouths here. Or any intelligent non-scientists for that matter. Quit poisoning the well, guys!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already issued the call for pretend scientists to kindly get lost.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The argument from reason is not an attempt to provide an answer. It is attempting to argue that, whatever the answer is - it isnt materialism.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct.

Flip, as I read your OP your question is why does there have to be a soul, why can't we just be the product of physical processes? The whole OP reads like a good statement of materialism. The argument from reason is an attempt to answer that question - it asks, if materialism is true, how do you account for the reasoning process,i.e., logical inference, or, how can we believe that logical inference produces true beliefs if materialism is true. Obviously, if the answer to that is it can't then supernaturalism is a plausible position.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Here again you ask how they can be a measurement of truth - to me this means how can they be "the thing which makes a statement true". I dont think they are what makes it true.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not proposing that anyone (except perhaps Kant and the idealists, though it's more complex than that) takes the position that our mental states "make" something true. The question is more epistemological - how do we know something is true or false?

[ QUOTE ]

What makes a statement true is the way the real world actually is, properties the real world actually has, etc. If the statement corresponds to that, then it is true (irrespective of if anyone believes it or not).


[/ QUOTE ]

But here you are again using empirical knowledge to counter an argument that involves logical inference.

[ QUOTE ]

Physical laws cause us to have certain beliefs


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a flat statement of materialism, what the argument from reason tries to refute. But you then again cite empirical examples. Quite frankly the rest of that paragraph could involve an extended response but isn't directly relevant to the question.

Your final paragraph accepts inference as valid, but that isn't the question. The question is, given that inference is valid, how can that be explained if materialism is true. You raise circularity but that isn't the issue here either.

[Skidoo]

Yes, all hands out of their sandboxes, and pseudo-scientific non-measurable mumbo-jumbo like "physical processes" into the rubbish bin of history.

[arahant]

It seems to me that this whole AfR business comes down to people being misled by language and by the creation of strawmen. In this case, most notably by words like 'rational'. Isn't the argument grounded, first and foremost, on the assumption that 'rational thought' (or at least what we mean by the phrase) is somehow non-deterministic? He seems to reject the criticism against use of the 'ground and consequent' argument, claiming that he doesn't make use of it. But I don't see how you can escape it. Unless you want to assume that what we refer to as rational thought involves real choice, I simply don't see how AfR gets off the ground. I'll confess here to not having read all of the rebuttal, but I did read all of the original article and the rebuttal of the rebuttal.

From elsewhere, CS Lewis gives a description of his acceptance of the argument (roughly speaking).
[ QUOTE ]

(He) convinced me that the positions we had hitherto held left no room for any satisfactory theory of knowledge. We had been, in the technical sense of the term, “realists”; that is, we accepted as rock-bottom reality the universe revealed to the senses. But at the same time, we continued to make for certain phenomena claims that went with a theistic or idealistic view. We maintained that abstract thought (if obedient to logical rules) gave indisputable truth, that our moral judgment was “valid” and our aesthetic experience was not just pleasing but “valuable.” The view was, I think, common at the time; it runs though Bridges’ Testament of Beauty and Lord Russell’s “Worship of a Free Man.” Barfield convinced me that it was inconsistent. If thought were merely a subjective event, these claims for it would have to be abandoned. If we kept (as rock-bottom reality) the universe of the sense, aided by instruments co-ordinated to form “science” then one would have to go further and accept a Behaviorist view of logic, ethics and aesthetics. But such a view was, and is, unbelievable to me.

C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (San Diego, Harcourt Brace, 1955), 208.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is that AfR is a great argument if I also want to maintain a 19th century view on the nature of mind. I don't ascribe to the 'mind', or to 'reason', all the powers that Lewis or Reppert seem to feel it must have. I have no problem tossing their definition of 'reason' out the window, and I think most of the people here agree. It's a very narrow, philosophical definition.

Like many other theological arguments, this is basically a trick. You find someone who strongly holds a common, though incorrect, belief, and then you leverage it to force them to an incorrect conclusion. If you keep this up, one of three things will happen:
-the person will drill down and confront the fact that their original belief was based on ignorance
-the person will find it less stressful to accept the argument than to reject other entrenched beliefs (apparently the case for Lewis)
-the person will get tired of arguing with you and tell you to go away

It's kind of the flip side of some of the arguments against god like theodicy. Start with a silly premise (god is good) and end with a silly conclusion (there is no god).

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Since the laws of physics and research into neurophysiology have yet to come up with a theory of conciousness

[/ QUOTE ]

I give it somewhere between 50-150 years before neurology will isolate the exact process in the brain that cause the sensation of consciousness. I think the mechanics of consciousness is a scientific question not a philosophical one.

[ QUOTE ]
WHAT IS IT EXACTLY that IS giving rise to sentience if not "the random motion of electrons" in the

[/ QUOTE ]

Random motions of electrons is the wrong level to be think about this on. We should be looking at the software design level of the brain.

[m_the0ry]

Even on the cellular level - as in, the simple neurotransmitter pathways between neurons - a simulation of a human brain would require computational power orders of magnitude more powerful than the fastest supercomputers in the world.

That means that if sentience can be explained as deterministic in a system of neuron networks with predefined stimulus, there is no practical way to model this. Even if we stick to moores law (big if) it would be centuries before we could come close to simulating a human brain.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither side of this discussion has a sound empirical basis, so let the pretend scientists put an end to their pompous pronouncements and confine themselves to their sandboxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't pompous scientists allowed to speculate on philosophical issues as well? It seems to me that, just because you believe in science, there's no reason to be precluded from discussion of areas which are not yet scientifically discussable.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you reconcile a pompous attitude with the selfless objectivity (formerly, perhaps) expected of a scientist?

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that, ideally as you say, a scientist has to be selflessly objective when doing science. Philosophy (especially when done by amateurs) is full of pompous pronouncements and this board is no exception. Both scientists and non-scientists often get carried away with their own views and speak as if they are fact rather than debatable opinion. Your post seemed to imply that "pretend scientists" shouldnt do this - I would say you've set a high bar that most of us are going to be unable to clear. Why not accept that as a bunch of amateurs we're going to get it wrong from time to time? If someone posts something you disagree with or feel is unjustified then rebut it or ignore it. Telling them to go home or play in their sandbox or whatever doesnt have many advantages that I can see. It's certainly not going to persuade an unconvinced reader that you're right.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What makes a statement true is the way the real world actually is, properties the real world actually has, etc. If the statement corresponds to that, then it is true (irrespective of if anyone believes it or not).


[/ QUOTE ]

But here you are again using empirical knowledge to counter an argument that involves logical inference.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm claiming that logical inference leads to a conclusion and that, if the premises mirror the real world, so will the conclusion. I'm not suggesting that we know this through empirical means. I believe it without evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Your final paragraph accepts inference as valid, but that isn't the question. The question is, given that inference is valid, how can that be explained if materialism is true. You raise circularity but that isn't the issue here either.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have clearly failed to see the issue then. To me the argument seemed to reduce to "If all our beliefs, both true and false, arise from material laws and there is nothing else. How can we claim to know truth through logical inference?" I've been trying to answer that question and I think the answer involves clearly delineating between semantics and epistemology rather than blurring them together.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither side of this discussion has a sound empirical basis, so let the pretend scientists put an end to their pompous pronouncements and confine themselves to their sandboxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't pompous scientists allowed to speculate on philosophical issues as well? It seems to me that, just because you believe in science, there's no reason to be precluded from discussion of areas which are not yet scientifically discussable.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you reconcile a pompous attitude with the selfless objectivity (formerly, perhaps) expected of a scientist?

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that, ideally as you say, a scientist has to be selflessly objective when doing science. Philosophy (especially when done by amateurs) is full of pompous pronouncements and this board is no exception. Both scientists and non-scientists often get carried away with their own views and speak as if they are fact rather than debatable opinion. Your post seemed to imply that "pretend scientists" shouldnt do this - I would say you've set a high bar that most of us are going to be unable to clear. Why not accept that as a bunch of amateurs we're going to get it wrong from time to time? If someone posts something you disagree with or feel is unjustified then rebut it or ignore it. Telling them to go home or play in their sandbox or whatever doesnt have many advantages that I can see. It's certainly not going to persuade an unconvinced reader that you're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair point. I got carried away. Apologies to the forum.