Soul vs. Innermost Self

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Polerius]
No, it wouldn’t
[/QUOTE]
Okay, I suppose I should have said "I would think that any mood-altering or cognition-altering drug would be singlehandedly enough to prove that the “I” is espoused in the brain to any person who was intellectually honest enough to consider the argument the real implications of what it would mean to have your thinking processes shielded from chemical interference via some separation between the physical brain and the so-called ‘soul’. After all, it is surely true that you can lead a horse to an argument, but you can’t make them think.

Unless you had some semblance of a reason bouncing around in your ‘soul’ or whatever for why mind-altering chemicals are not a compelling argument for the mind being somewhere it might be altered by chemicals? Unless it’s some kind of secret.

82

Though, I want to consider it a given… I asked for a non-head-in-the-clouds discussion. That doesn’t mean the burden of proof has been lifted. If you want to make an assertion, you need to be able to back it up. With empirical data, or you need to be honest enough to admit you are hypothesizing.

A soul of the gaps (not unlike a god of the gaps) is not proof of soul any more than it is proof of a God. All that thinking does is keep science underfunded so that the gaps persist. And… if that doesn’t show a lack of faith, what does?

Please, deal honestly in this thread, or don’t deal. Proof matters. Empiricism matters. Belief can be suspended, but… let’s be reasonable in what we ask. If you want to put forth brain-as-antennae (plural since apparently different circuits are different antennae - according to the assertion) then be honest enough to provide some evidence of that other than a it-could-work-that-way. Occam’s Razor exists for a reason… it works.

83

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Unless you had some semblance of a reason bouncing around in your ‘soul’ or whatever for why mind-altering chemicals are not a compelling argument for the mind being somewhere it might be altered by chemicals? Unless it’s some kind of secret.
[/QUOTE]

Of course I have a secret resaon. But, unfortunately, I can’t tell you, since it’s a secret :wink:

Seriously, though, here is where I stand on these issues: There is no human experience that needs the “soul” as an explanation. From mind-altering drugs, to near-death experiences, to mystical experiences, all this can be explained assuming a physical model of the self, with no need for a soul.

As a result, scientifically speaking, since everything can be explained assuming a physical model of the self (i.e. “you” reside inside your skull), it makes sense not to have to invent new entities (like the “soul”) to explain what people go through.

But, going from “it makes sense” to “proof” is a big step, and if we throw the word “proof” around too easily, we are not being scientifically rigorous. Occam’s Razor is just a guiding principle, not a law of the universe.

In the earlier post, you stated “I would think that any mood-altering or cognition-altering drug would be singlehandedly enough to *prove *that the “I” is espoused in the brain.”

Then, in your post above, you mention “compelling argument”.

I am much more comfortable with the latter terminology, than with the former one, since I believe that what we have is not proof but a compelling argument that the “I” resides in the brain.

84

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
You watched the video, yes?

Ever get goosebumps in church as the personal boundaries of self peeled away? The “I” might be nearly always available, but that doesn’t mean we are always using it. Same could be said of other devices like logic, emotion, love, whatever - it’s available, but not always used.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting, show me when and how we are not “I.” Under what circumstances can we step out of ourselves and be something or someone else.

The only thing that gets peeled away is the facade.

85

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Interesting, show me when and how we are not “I.” Under what circumstances can we step out of ourselves and be something or someone else.

The only thing that gets peeled away is the facade.
[/QUOTE]

You said…

[QUOTE=lekatt]
The “I” you experience is always there, there is never a time when you do not experience it.
[/QUOTE]

In the video she ceased experiencing the “I” you allude to. It is not too difficult to NOT experience the self. I can do it within a few seconds warning… I suspect others can as well.

It’s anecdotal, but when I’ve had this discussion in the past people have freely admitted that they can lose their sense of self easily enough - imagining themselves part of the universe, in love making, at church, doesn’t matter… the sense of self is not as concrete as you would like it to be.

And stop moving the goal posts. It makes you look disingenuous.

86

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
You said…
In the video she ceased experiencing the “I” you allude to. It is not too difficult to NOT experience the self. I can do it within a few seconds warning… I suspect others can as well.

It’s anecdotal, but when I’ve had this discussion in the past people have freely admitted that they can lose their sense of self easily enough - imagining themselves part of the universe, in love making, at church, doesn’t matter… the sense of self is not as concrete as you would like it to be.

And stop moving the goal posts. It makes you look disingenuous.
[/QUOTE]

I watched the video twice so far, and saw no time she didn’t know she was she. There were times when she couldn’t tell the limits of her body, and other times she felt the Oneness of the Universe, but if she had stopped experiencing who she was, she would not have remembered what happened during those periods.

Now I have experienced what she experienced and know how it feels, so have many others. If you wish to believe you can “not be” for periods of time and still remember what happened when you were “not being” it is ok with me. But I speak from first hand experience as she did.

87

lekatt, I’ll just assume you’ve realized that you’ve placed the “I” on both sides of the transmission.

88

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Okay, I suppose I should have said "I would think that any mood-altering or cognition-altering drug would be singlehandedly enough to prove that the “I” is espoused in the brain to any person who was intellectually honest enough to consider the argument the real implications of what it would mean to have your thinking processes shielded from chemical interference via some separation between the physical brain and the so-called ‘soul’. After all, it is surely true that you can lead a horse to an argument, but you can’t make them think.

Unless you had some semblance of a reason bouncing around in your ‘soul’ or whatever for why mind-altering chemicals are not a compelling argument for the mind being somewhere it might be altered by chemicals? Unless it’s some kind of secret.
[/QUOTE]

Now there’s nothing in the premises of this thread which gives you the authority to decide that certain things must be true about a soul hypothetical without backing them up. Your argument is akin to saying that either nothing which happens in St. Paul can have any effect in Minneapolis or else the difference between the two cities in imaginary; there’s no middle ground between the two positions. Your’re presenting a false dichotomy, and no number of insults will change that fact.

So let’s take this argument about drugs that your claim hinges on. You’d agree, I assume, that no drug has the same effect on all people. Some depressed people take Prozac and feel better. Other take it and have no change in mood. Others take it and feel worse. Why should this be, since in all three classes of people the drug is chemically the same and it acts on the same neurotransmitters. It might perhaps have to do with varying physical structures in the brains of different people. But we can hardly assume it’s so until we have some clue as to what that structure might be. Thus the hypothesis that the explanation lies in certain facets of the mind which are beyond the reach of Prozac is a perfectly reasonable one.

89

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
So let’s take this argument about drugs that your claim hinges on. You’d agree, I assume, that no drug has the same effect on all people. Some depressed people take Prozac and feel better. Other take it and have no change in mood. Others take it and feel worse. Why should this be, since in all three classes of people the drug is chemically the same and it acts on the same neurotransmitters. It might perhaps have to do with varying physical structures in the brains of different people. But we can hardly assume it’s so until we have some clue as to what that structure might be. Thus the hypothesis that the explanation lies in certain facets of the mind which are beyond the reach of Prozac is a perfectly reasonable one.
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry, but this is a terrible argument. Even non-psychotropic drugs, like cholesterol drugs and blood pressure meds, don’t all have the same effects on everyone. Obviously, dualism offers no explanation for this phenomenon. So you ought to admit that the same drug can affect different *bodies * differently, and that this has nothing to do with the existence of a soul. Humans are genetically and physically diverse; how their bodies react to drugs, illness, etc., display a large range of variety.

90

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
How about you support your participation here with a taste of the data you’re talking about here. It occurs to me that you’re using data instead of evidence. Is that an important distinction?
[/QUOTE]

The book in question provides much evidence, too much to present here. Part of it discusses the theories of Wilder Penfield, the neuroscientist and surgeon who participated in a great deal of ground-breaking research on the structure and function of the brain. After a long life of research, Penfield firmly concluded that the mind could not possibly be explained as a physical system, and that it did, indeed have a non-corporeal component. He discusses the evidence for this conclusion in his book The Mystery of the Mind.

Also mentioned is Professor W. T. Stace of Princeton, who intensely studied the issues relating to the mind from all angles, both scientific and mystical. His conclusion based on studies done from societies all over the world, is that intense self-study by individuals from countless different cultures produce corroborating evidence of the existence of a non-corporeal mind.

91

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
The book in question provides much evidence, too much to present here. Part of it discusses the theories of Wilder Penfield, the neuroscientist and surgeon who participated in a great deal of ground-breaking research on the structure and function of the brain. After a long life of research, Penfield firmly concluded that the mind could not possibly be explained as a physical system, and that it did, indeed have a non-corporeal component. He discusses the evidence for this conclusion in his book The Mystery of the Mind.

Also mentioned is Professor W. T. Stace of Princeton, who intensely studied the issues relating to the mind from all angles, both scientific and mystical. His conclusion based on studies done from societies all over the world, is that intense self-study by individuals from countless different cultures produce corroborating evidence of the existence of a non-corporeal mind.
[/QUOTE]

I can’t speak about Penfield, but Stace died in 1967, long before modern brain-imaging techniques were created. He was an old-school philosopher of mind like Roderick Chisholm, and his results are decades out of date and superceded by contemporary neuroscience and cognitive science. Contemporary philosophers who have ‘intensely studied’ the issue have, not surprisingly, overwhelmingly rejected Stace’s conclusions.

92

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
The book in question provides much evidence, too much to present here. Part of it discusses the theories of Wilder Penfield, the neuroscientist and surgeon who participated in a great deal of ground-breaking research on the structure and function of the brain. After a long life of research, Penfield firmly concluded that the mind could not possibly be explained as a physical system, and that it did, indeed have a non-corporeal component. He discusses the evidence for this conclusion in his book The Mystery of the Mind.

Also mentioned is Professor W. T. Stace of Princeton, who intensely studied the issues relating to the mind from all angles, both scientific and mystical. His conclusion based on studies done from societies all over the world, is that intense self-study by individuals from countless different cultures produce corroborating evidence of the existence of a non-corporeal mind.
[/QUOTE]
Fine. I’ll see your data and raise it considerably. Nearly, if not all of those contributors believe consciousness is a physical process of the brain. Do you really think I’ll have any trouble finding significantly more neuroscientists, surgeons, scientists, and researchers to rebut the conclusions you point to? I am glad you approve of scientific data but it does confuse me. Science is clearly not on your side.

93

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Now there’s nothing in the premises of this thread which gives you the authority to decide that certain things must be true about a soul hypothetical without backing them up. Your argument is akin to saying that either nothing which happens in St. Paul can have any effect in Minneapolis or else the difference between the two cities in imaginary; there’s no middle ground between the two positions. Your’re presenting a false dichotomy, and no number of insults will change that fact.

So let’s take this argument about drugs that your claim hinges on. You’d agree, I assume, that no drug has the same effect on all people. Some depressed people take Prozac and feel better. Other take it and have no change in mood. Others take it and feel worse. Why should this be, since in all three classes of people the drug is chemically the same and it acts on the same neurotransmitters. It might perhaps have to do with varying physical structures in the brains of different people. But we can hardly assume it’s so until we have some clue as to what that structure might be. Thus the hypothesis that the explanation lies in certain facets of the mind which are beyond the reach of Prozac is a perfectly reasonable one.
[/QUOTE]
If Polaris doesn’t want to see insults, he shouldn’t respond to a complex arguement in Great Debates with “No, it wouldn’t”, like he’s The One True Mouthpiece of God and need not explain or support his autonomous pronouncements in any way.

Heck, if he’d just explained that his only problem was that I used the word “prove” in its extremely-common “not really prove logically speaking, but instead merely make an extremely compelling, nigh irrefutable arguement for” sense, I almost certainly wouldn’t have given you the post you attempted to rebut to respond to.
As for that rebuttal, I don’t see that it matters in the slightest that the mind altering drugs alter the minds in different ways in different people. That they effect the mind at all is sufficient to indicate that the mind is located somewhere that is within their reach to effect.

94

[QUOTE=Polerius]
Occam’s Razor is just a guiding principle, not a law of the universe.

In the earlier post, you stated “I would think that any mood-altering or cognition-altering drug would be singlehandedly enough to *prove *that the “I” is espoused in the brain.”

Then, in your post above, you mention “compelling argument”.

I am much more comfortable with the latter terminology, than with the former one, since I believe that what we have is not proof but a compelling argument that the “I” resides in the brain.
[/QUOTE]
I respect the honest and humility you are inserting into the thread. I do have a question… Occam’s Razor… where does one draw the line? I mean, Russell’s Teapot is patently silly. Yet it’s unproveable. The question becomes just how open minded is the right degree of open-minded?

95

[QUOTE=Anomalous Reading]
I respect the honest and humility you are inserting into the thread. I do have a question… Occam’s Razor… where does one draw the line? I mean, Russell’s Teapot is patently silly. Yet it’s unproveable. The question becomes just how open minded is the right degree of open-minded?
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t being open-minded the willingness to consider new evidence and opinions fairly, not the tendency to simply accept whatever nonsense comes down the pipe? If so, then I’m entirely open-minded. The poor quality of evidence for the silly theories isn’t my fault.

96

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Isn’t being open-minded the willingness to consider new evidence and opinions fairly, not the tendency to simply accept whatever nonsense comes down the pipe? If so, then I’m entirely open-minded. The poor quality of evidence for the silly theories isn’t my fault.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. As I’ve said, evidence is required if you want to make an assertion.

I do like it when a discussion stays… open. But too open is, just that too open.

97

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
lekatt, I’ll just assume you’ve realized that you’ve placed the “I” on both sides of the transmission.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, the I is always there or you are not.

98

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Yes, the I is always there or you are not.
[/QUOTE]
So is the “I” split in half (following the analogy: one half transmitting, the other receiving the transmission) or are we dealing with two aware “I” entities here (one transmitting, one receiving).

99

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
So is the “I” split in half (following the analogy: one half transmitting, the other receiving the transmission) or are we dealing with two aware “I” entities here (one transmitting, one receiving).
[/QUOTE]

You, the “I” is spiritual and always whole. We agree to come into the physical dimension for learning about ourselves. How to control our thoughts and therefor our actions. We accept a body of choice and begin to learn how to operate it. It takes years because the body is complicated. Most of us forget we are spiritual and begin to believe we are the body we control. That is part of the learning process. We think we are separate from others, our believed lonely state makes us fearful, etc. It is a long road back to peace and freedom, we are the only ones standing in our way.

100

[QUOTE=lekatt]
You, the “I” is spiritual and always whole. We agree to come into the physical dimension for learning about ourselves. How to control our thoughts and therefor our actions. We accept a body of choice and begin to learn how to operate it. It takes years because the body is complicated. Most of us forget we are spiritual and begin to believe we are the body we control. That is part of the learning process. We think we are separate from others, our believed lonely state makes us fearful, etc. It is a long road back to peace and freedom, we are the only ones standing in our way.
[/QUOTE]
I’m almost reluctant to ask, but what was your answer to the fact that chemicals can effect our emotions and the functioning of our mental processes (aka our “I”) again? I seem to vaguely remember something about the spirit consciously yet unconsciously imitating the effect the chemicals had on the body’s emotions, thoughts, and “I”, while simultaneously claiming that the body doesn’t have emotions, thoughts, or an “I” -but I could easily be misremembering your position.

Also, if you are knocked unconscious via a blow to the head, what is your “I” doing?