Occam is a useful tool when selecting among alternate working explanations. But metaphysical truth is not constrained by Occam, given that I mentioned that if there is a dual essence, it doesn’t seem to be empirically testable hence always out of Occam’s reach.
Yes, agreed, Ockham’s Razor is a general principle rather than inviolate law. As I have said in many other threads, there is only so far science and logic can take you - we cannot even “prove” that we are not in the Matrix, let alone whether dead brains have qualia!
Ultimately, each of our brains outputs a decision based on its memories and inputs as to whether everything, or some things, or no thing is physical. Mine denies the metaphysical, holding that “truth” is merely an encoding of the universe the way it is rather than the way it isn’t. I cannot “prove” this.
So nobody knows then?
Just in case anybody wants to rehash the old cases for dualism (which I think is a load of… uhh… well… rather needlessly multiplicated entities), here is the link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/
Soul is a highly charged term, and means different things to different groups.
Old Testament: God formed Adam out of the dust of the Earth and breathed the spirit of life into him and he became a living soul.
So, body + spirit = soul.
Modern Xtianity: Soul is thought of as spirit alone, which carries the mark of your sins.
New Agers (some, anyway): Soul is the pattern for the physical body, and persists after physical death and can leave the body to travel to other realms or places. Pretty much corresponds to spirit.
I can accept Aeschines’ definition for the purposes of the discussion. Keeping on the same track.
So, Aeschines and SnakeSpirit are right?
Halleluhjah!
About what? This “pattern” hypothesis?
If atoms exist in spacetime then they necessarily conform to some arrangement.
Therefore, whither “pattern”?
Oh yeah, and Meat, too.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. I fundamentally disagree with the “pattern” hypothesis, holding that since “pattern” is a necessary component of physicalism it is fallacious to present the physical as a subset of “pattern”: clearly, if the statement “If atoms exist in spacetime then they necessarily conform to some arrangement” is true, then it is the other way around.
I’m not sure how all three of us can be “right” (and, pray, do not conflate choosing not to post with an admission of wrong) if we disagree.