S
STT
Guest
We are not talking about body but soul. So lets start with this question: Does soul has any location in time and space considering the fact that it is not material?
- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
Because a soul is not made up of some sort of matter. Just because something exists does not mean it has to be made up of matter.
A soul is only Spiritual.
Like Love, Love exists, just because you cannot see it, and it has a location in this time and on this earth, and it exists inside of our heart. And like our soul it is not made up of matter, but is spiritual.
S
STT
Guest
Well, I think I need that you answer to this question: Is soul material? No. Then it has no location. Therefore soul is should be in causal relationship with everything which is not. This means that there is no soul.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Not sure why that presents a problem to you. Why should the assertion of a distinction between ‘God’ and all other spiritual beings be a stumbling block for you? Are all souls ‘God’? Of course not. Is God ‘all souls’? Of course not.
What’s the problem here? All that is being asserted is the distinction between (creator) God and (created) spiritual entities.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
Part 1 of 2
As for your objections, I can say that I have not come across any good responses to the interaction problem; however, this alone does not make dualism false. It could mean that the interaction occurs, but we just don’t know how it occurs. I believe though that self-directed neuroplasticity research is a promising area of research that will help explain the interaction problem, since the research provides empirical, testable, and predictable evidence for mental entities (thoughts, desires, mental imagery) causing changes in physical entities (the brain). A lot can be learned from observing this process.
As for your third objection, I don’t agree with your claim that nonphysicality implies omnipresence. Only matter can occupy space, and this is true for one location or all locations.
Irreducibility. The evidence is the trend in research. If you study the history of scientific research on consciousness, you’ll notice it started by positing that consciousness was generated by a particular brain region (local theories) and then research shifted towards more global theories. As a result of the evidence, few scientists today accept that a particular brain region generates consciousness. The notable theories these days involve ‘global’ theories where there are different areas of the brain involved in collaborative interactions that give rise to conscious experience. Eventually, this trend may lead to scientists considering factors outside of the brain, such as electromagnetic fields, nonlocality, etc. The more global you go with these theories, then the more you’re moving away from finding the cause rooted in neurons. This shows that consciousness, is an emergent property since it is not a feature that the lower level (ie neurons) functions of the brain can account for.
Downward causation. Downward causation in a system involves higher level entities or parts (e.g. the mind) being able to cause/change lower level parts (the physical parts of the brain). It’s like the whole determining the behavior of the parts. The materialist view is that the parts (of the brain) give rise to the consciousness, and they use that to claim that the mind is physical. This is why materialist rely on reductionism because it presumes an upward causation (the parts leading to functions of the whole), so that reducing consciousness to its physical constituents would shed light on its cause. However, there is also evidence that the mind can also determine (downward causation) the behavior of these parts. The best evidence for this can be found in self-directed neuroplasticity studies that show mental causation. Reductionism, as the materialists conceive of it, does not work here.
I’ll wrap it up with a good definition of ‘emergence’ (from here… ““emergent properties” or “emergence” refer to those properties that arise from the collaborative functioning of a system, but do not belong to any one part of that system. In other words, emergent properties are properties of a group that are not possible when any of the individual elements of that group act alone.””
The 2 lines of evidence that I brought up explains how the mind fits into the scientific concept of ‘emergent properties’. The mind can not be accounted for at the basic level of the brain but instead involves the “collaborating functioning of a system”. And if we factor in Dr. David Chalmers definition, the mind can be said to be an example of ‘strong emergence’ since it has causative powers.
Continued…
There are 3 relevant facts on this matter:
- The mind is nonphysical.
- The brain is physical.
- The mind and the brain interact with each other.
As for your objections, I can say that I have not come across any good responses to the interaction problem; however, this alone does not make dualism false. It could mean that the interaction occurs, but we just don’t know how it occurs. I believe though that self-directed neuroplasticity research is a promising area of research that will help explain the interaction problem, since the research provides empirical, testable, and predictable evidence for mental entities (thoughts, desires, mental imagery) causing changes in physical entities (the brain). A lot can be learned from observing this process.
As for your third objection, I don’t agree with your claim that nonphysicality implies omnipresence. Only matter can occupy space, and this is true for one location or all locations.
There are 2 lines of evidence: irreducibility and downward causation (in the form of mental causation)
Irreducibility. The evidence is the trend in research. If you study the history of scientific research on consciousness, you’ll notice it started by positing that consciousness was generated by a particular brain region (local theories) and then research shifted towards more global theories. As a result of the evidence, few scientists today accept that a particular brain region generates consciousness. The notable theories these days involve ‘global’ theories where there are different areas of the brain involved in collaborative interactions that give rise to conscious experience. Eventually, this trend may lead to scientists considering factors outside of the brain, such as electromagnetic fields, nonlocality, etc. The more global you go with these theories, then the more you’re moving away from finding the cause rooted in neurons. This shows that consciousness, is an emergent property since it is not a feature that the lower level (ie neurons) functions of the brain can account for.
Downward causation. Downward causation in a system involves higher level entities or parts (e.g. the mind) being able to cause/change lower level parts (the physical parts of the brain). It’s like the whole determining the behavior of the parts. The materialist view is that the parts (of the brain) give rise to the consciousness, and they use that to claim that the mind is physical. This is why materialist rely on reductionism because it presumes an upward causation (the parts leading to functions of the whole), so that reducing consciousness to its physical constituents would shed light on its cause. However, there is also evidence that the mind can also determine (downward causation) the behavior of these parts. The best evidence for this can be found in self-directed neuroplasticity studies that show mental causation. Reductionism, as the materialists conceive of it, does not work here.
I’ll wrap it up with a good definition of ‘emergence’ (from here… ““emergent properties” or “emergence” refer to those properties that arise from the collaborative functioning of a system, but do not belong to any one part of that system. In other words, emergent properties are properties of a group that are not possible when any of the individual elements of that group act alone.””
The 2 lines of evidence that I brought up explains how the mind fits into the scientific concept of ‘emergent properties’. The mind can not be accounted for at the basic level of the brain but instead involves the “collaborating functioning of a system”. And if we factor in Dr. David Chalmers definition, the mind can be said to be an example of ‘strong emergence’ since it has causative powers.
In post #37, you said that “thought” was a physical state. If experience just involves interaction or reaction (by your standards), then thoughts are an example in that thoughts can be a reaction to other thoughts, feelings, and experiences. If this would not suffice then you will have to give me an example of what I’d have to show. Lets also not lose track of the bigger picture here. Your argument about “physical states” does not apply to my argument that’s about “properties”. My view is simply that mental phenomena are properties (features, abilities, etc) of the brain.
Continued…
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
Part 2 - cont’d from the last post…
Either way, the scientific peer-reviewed studies that I posted involve phenomena that is testable and predictable! We know that the change in mind led to the change in brain because fMRI was taken before cognitive-behavioral therapy (involving thinking, imagery, etc) started. And surprisingly, the changes always pop up in a short time period after the choice was made to change thoughts/behavior. This rules out a self-changing brain that decided on its own to change itself, since the change clearly occurred as a result of the therapy. Or perhaps we can say that there are two ways that the brain could change, but I’ll accept yours after the evidence is in.
As for approach #2, assuming that you’re correct, there is no evidence that this applies to brain cells or to all matter. You also left out other interpretations, like the complementarity, which was Bohr’s view. Some experiments confirm Bohr’s view (read here.
The reason is simple. You have no empirical evidence. I applaud you for at least utilizing reason, however, reason alone doesn’t cut it because oftentimes the truth or strength of the premises can be disproven or weakened with NEW empirical evidence. Perhaps this is why few philosophers and scientists endorse your view.
It can be compatible with reductionism to a certain level by finding what collaborative function gives rise to a novel properties or phenomena. For instance, if I wanted to explain consciousness, I would not go down to the level of neurons, but rather to the level of brain networks that collaborate with each other. This would not be as good as going down to the level of neurons, since it leaves us without explanations that connects the neurons to the networks and to consciousness, but nonetheless we at least some understanding on the conditions that consciousness depends on. However, this only speaks for weak emergentism. Consciousness is a strong emergent property, and I made my case for that earlier.
There’s more than one way to deal with these issues. It seems to me that you’ve relied mostly on concepts and reason, and that’s fine, but you should be aware that others do the same can have come up with different conclusions. I prefer to tackle the issue from an empirical standpoint.
Approach #1 sounds interesting. Can you provide a scientific source to support your claim that neural feedback loops cause changes in the brain? I’ve read of several mechanisms, but they’re usually tied to interactions with the environment or behavior, like diet, exercise, learning, etc. I’ve not yet read where the brain decides on its own, especially to the point of changing neurobiological behaviors, such as OCD, schizophrenia, without there being an intervention or some environmental stimulus.
Either way, the scientific peer-reviewed studies that I posted involve phenomena that is testable and predictable! We know that the change in mind led to the change in brain because fMRI was taken before cognitive-behavioral therapy (involving thinking, imagery, etc) started. And surprisingly, the changes always pop up in a short time period after the choice was made to change thoughts/behavior. This rules out a self-changing brain that decided on its own to change itself, since the change clearly occurred as a result of the therapy. Or perhaps we can say that there are two ways that the brain could change, but I’ll accept yours after the evidence is in.
As for approach #2, assuming that you’re correct, there is no evidence that this applies to brain cells or to all matter. You also left out other interpretations, like the complementarity, which was Bohr’s view. Some experiments confirm Bohr’s view (read here.
Except that none of what you’re saying has been shown to change OCD, schizophrenia, etc. Barring any medical intervention or brain injury, there are behaviors that scientists consider fixed, in other words. The brain doesn’t just decide on its own to change itself like your explanation suggests. When you can provide evidence to the contrary, and I mean evidence that also shows that the change corresponded to changes in behavior, and not just for simple behavior like going to be earlier, but behavior rooted in neurobiology, then I’ll take your claim seriously.
R
rinnie
Guest
What in the world are you even talking about? Do you even know? If you are asking me if a soul can be seen with the human eye the answer is no. But what you seem to be saying if you cannot see it, it does no exist. Which is completely false.
We know the human soul exists not because we can see it, but because it is how God created us. He breathed into a human and gave it a soul.
So lets put it this way does the human soul exist? Yes or No? My answer is yes, my source is because it is the word of God.
Now you say the human soul must be material to exist. WHere is your source to prove this?
R
rinnie
Guest
I like you cannot understand where he is going with this. Its like if you can’t see it, and it is not made up of matter it is non existent.Not sure why that presents a problem to you. Why should the assertion of a distinction between ‘God’ and all other spiritual beings be a stumbling block for you? Are all souls ‘God’? Of course not. Is God ‘all souls’? Of course not.
What’s the problem here? All that is being asserted is the distinction between (creator) God and (created) spiritual entities.
We as humans are united to God with our souls. Its what we are told cannot die, but death of the soul is sin. But death of the soul and death of the body are two different things.
Death of the soul is when a person is in mortal sin, they can have a human body and be physically alive, but the soul inside is dark, dead.
The same token the physically body can be dead, but the mortal soul can be alive and well, joyful and happy in heaven eternally with God.
If the eternal soul does not exist, then our whole being is worthless and this world is all we have. Which is in direct conflict with the word of God.
The Holy Spirit is how God communicates with the Church and us in this world. And it is through our Spirit and our souls where we carry truth, We can choose to deny it, and live in darkness. or embrace it and live in the light.
R
rinnie
Guest
And also the soul is indeed in a relationship, with the human body, And it is not casual by not means. It is a part of human being. You cannot separate the soul from the human body when it is alive.
If I go to the beach, the soul goes with me. If I eat a hamburg the soul is quite aware of it. THere is nothing the human body does that the soul is not aware of.
But the Physical body needs the soul to exist, the soul on the other hand is your whole being, the soul does not need the physical body to move on. It can live outside of the physical body, but the physical body can not live outside of the soul. It cannot be explained any more simple then that.
S
STT
Guest
To be honest I am having difficulty to accept a non-local entity and then even accept that it can causally related to something. To elaborate one needs to try to imagine that how a non-local entity can causally be related to something local considering the fact that a local entity just respond to some sort of local force, electromagnetic force (all forces all local) for example. This force cannot just pups up from nowhere. You can of course say that it can happen since God can do it. Regardless, my other problem is how any entity which is non-local could have different attributes and could be different entities depending on the attributes.Not sure why that presents a problem to you. Why should the assertion of a distinction between ‘God’ and all other spiritual beings be a stumbling block for you? Are all souls ‘God’? Of course not. Is God ‘all souls’? Of course not.
What’s the problem here? All that is being asserted is the distinction between (creator) God and (created) spiritual entities.
Moreover you don’t want to accept the fact that a non-local entity is causally related to everything. I already argue in favor of it but you are asking for proof without proving a counter-argument.
S
STT
Guest
Well, you then need to explain how a non-physical thing can be causally related to a physical thing. If there is a mind and if there is really a interaction between mind and body then why bother and call mind non-physical. They belong to same category. Moreover you need to show how a physical thing, brain, can produce something non-physical, mind.
What you are claiming is not really facts. You cannot prove that mind is something non-physical since all you can depend on is mere experience. The existence of experience is the only certainty that we have. That is kind of difficult to me to accept that mind, something non-physical, which is the product of brain can experience something physical or non-physical.
Well, that to me is not acceptable. You are making a model which consistent of two entities and then claim that we don’t know how they interact with each other.
I simply cannot accept the so called emergent phenomena. Something physical which is constitute of interacting entities cannot provide something more than sum of entities unless one accept the fact that entities are conscious. We cannot simply accept magic.
Well, you then need to provide a counter-argument. You cannot simply say that you don’t accept.
A system made of entities is irreducible to sum of its part only if each the entities are conscious. You cannot get irreducibility from a simple interacting system since you in principle can solve equation of motion for the system and understand the behavior of system in term of its constitutes.
I have problem with irreducibility as I mentioned above.
The behavior of any system which its constitutes simply interact with each other can be reduced to a set of equations of motion for each entity and it can be solved in principle. We cannot have something more unless you believe on magic. In fact there is a magic here, entities are conscious, problem solved.
No entity can act alone in a system which constitutes of interacting entities. The entities are dependent on each other.
I have problem with consciousness as a strong emergent phenomena as it is illustrated above. I think you need to contemplate on the fact that you in principle can solve the equation of motion for the system of particles in terms of the equation of motion for its constitutes in order to understand the behavior of the system. This means that the behavior of the system is reducible in term of behavior of its constitutes. You cannot have more unless you accept the fact that each entity is conscious and the behavior of the system cannot be reduced to behavior of parts because we could have a collective phenomena.
Yes, thought is physical state. There is an interaction between thoughts and feeling because we experience them.
S
STT
Guest
I have empirical evidence supported by reason. We are conscious. Consciousness cannot be an emergent phenomena as it is discussed in former post therefore matter has to be conscious.
No, emergentism is not compatible with reductionism. I discuss this in detail in the previous post. Again, you can understand the behavior of a system by solving the equation of motion for its constitutes if you accept the reductionism. All interaction systems are reductionist unless their constitutes are conscious.
The only reality that you are sure about is the experience. You don’t have any emperical evidence to prove that mind exists.
I don’t have any scientific source for that. It comes natural to me that a system could have feedback because of existence of loops. This means that any thought which is a physical state can rewire the system.
That I am aware of it.
All our past experiences are stored in our brains. The response of brain can be simply explained in term of (name removed by moderator)ut output if there is no loop. No need to say that system rewire itself when it exposed to an external stimuli, when we learn something for example. What we call decision is based on stimuli at current situation and what we experience in the past. You cannot simply expect any rewiring due to mere decision in absence of stimuli if there is no loop. We can discuss it more if you wish.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
Part 1 of 2
cont’d
My explanation works even if the mind is considered physical. The mind would just simply be an emergent physical property of the brain. I can agree with the emergence part since the mind depends on the brain which has been shown with neural correlates of consciousness. However, I don’t believe that it;s physical because of the inability of scientists to directly observe consciousness (e.g. content of our thoughts) and common experience.
I don’t have the answer but I believe there are points of reference that can lead us to the answer, and that’s by observing examples of mind and brain interactions occurring. To show that, you must be able to show the two functioning differently, which requires that you show distinctions between the two. I explained how self-directed neuroplasticity studies show that, since it shows distinct mental states/activity (desires and thoughts) changing distinct brain states/activity (neurobiological behavior). You may also have to accept that the answer can be known (via experience) but not understood, especially if the supernatural is involved.
I don’t accept that the mind is an entity because there is just too much evidence that it depends on the brain to function. In my view, there is one entity and it is physical (i.e. brain), but that one substance or entity has two properties, a physical and nonphysical property. I believe the physical properties gave rise to the nonphysical properties (“traits” might be a better word to use instead of “properties”). In fact, the difference between my view and substance or Cartesian dualism is that Descartes’s view does not involve the mind depending on the brain, whereas my view does. The only possibility of my view being compatible with his is if the mind can evolve or emerge to become its own entity.
Emergent phenomena is simply an adaptation that arises out of collaboration amongst different or complex systems. There is no magic involved since the process involves cause-and-effect, but it’s a cause and effect amongst higher levels of organization/functions of a system. Of course, the entire system ultimately depends on the lower level parts/functions to exist in the first place, but once higher levels of organization and function exist, it can have its own cause and effects. I think life is an analogy of just this.
I disagree. An aspect or feature of a system is irreducible to the sum of its parts when the feature is caused at a higher level of organization (higher than just its parts). Applying this to the consciousness issue would mean that consciousness arises only at the level of brain networks, rather than at the level of individual neurons.
Emergence has been simulated in well known simulation programs, such as Cellular Automata and Agent Based Models. These simulations run off of well defined algorithms and all you do is watch them play out over time.
I’m not sure how you have empirical evidence when you have not provided any scientific sources like I have.
cont’d
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
Cont’d from my last post…
I disagree. If you define the mind, then you can prove or test it, in principle.
Thoughts and desires of non-OCD behavior are not the same as an OCD state (OCD is a physical state) brain. OCD comes with its own thoughts and behaviors, just as any other neurobiologically based behavior (homosexuality?) is supposed to. If all there was to the mind was just the brain, or if the mind was just states of the brain, then not only would non-OCD thoughts be impossible but they’d also not have any power to change the brain. You’re still wanting to maintain that the mind is a physical part of the brain, while ignoring the simple fact there are a group of thoughts in the background that run contrary to the OCD state. What else would you call those thoughts, feelings, and experiences that run counter to the OCD state, if not the mind?! These thoughts, feelings, and behaviors running in the background, that seem to function together like its own system (the mind? or call it something else if it makes you more comfortable) since it is acting contrary or more than the brain states, is all that I’m saying is causing the change.
So the brain does not rewire itself?! You also seem to be arguing more against free-will than with the point about the mind being more than the physical properties of the brain. You can have one without the other.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm…
So, what you’re saying is that you don’t accept the notion of spiritual beings, and yet, you’re telling us how they must act?
To re-phrase, then, what you’re saying is that you’re asserting that spiritual beings cannot interact with physical beings, since physical beings only respond to physical forces.
In other words, what you’re doing – as an outgrowth of your skepticism of spiritual beings, I suspect – is asserting (again without evidence) that the only way a spiritual being interacts with physical beings is through physical means.
(Given that Catholics assert that humans are mind/body composites, that doesn’t hold up. We are more than just ‘physical beings’, and therefore, we believe that we aren’t limited to strictly physical interaction.)
Not sure what you mean by this. If it’s important to your point, perhaps you could elaborate?
It’s not a fact. It’s your personal assertion, which you haven’t proven.
It’s your assertion. It doesn’t require a “counter-argument” to be dismissed; without a proper attribution and proof, we can dismiss it as simply an “unproven assertion.”
S
STT
Guest
I have difficulty to understand how mind as an emergent phenomena can experience something else like thought. Can you explain this within your model?
I already mentioned that that could be the result of loops in the brain or the fact that matter is conscious.
What you call physical and non-physical are properties of matter. I have a thread on this topic in here.
I already discuss the emergent phenomena in another thread.
There is no higher level organization. All you have is interacting particles, neurons in the case of brain.
The behavior of the system is defined by the behavior of its constitutes when you use simulation. There is no higher level organization in here.
S
STT
Guest
How do you that?
I don’t understand your question. Could you please rephrase it?
Yes, brain rewires itself. I already discuss this in post #53: “You don’t have any evidence to show that brain control thoughts and behaviors. All could be a simple feedback caused by loops. In fact you always have a reason for trying to control a behavior or thought. Where the reason comes from? Most of the time from our old experiences. That confirms that the control in most of the time is the result of a feedback caused by loops in the brain.”
S
STT
Guest
I didn’t say so.Hmm…
So, what you’re saying is that you don’t accept the notion of spiritual beings, and yet, you’re telling us how they must act?
How God can act on a piece of matter?
It is a fact.
It’s your assertion. It doesn’t require a “counter-argument” to be dismissed; without a proper attribution and proof, we can dismiss it as simply an “unproven assertion.”
Well, I cannot help you if you want to see an argument as an assertion.
G
Gorgias
Guest
By virtue of being the Creator of matter.
No, it’s something you personally have asserted.
You haven’t presented an ‘argument’; you’ve just stated it as if it were manifestly true. Since it isn’t manifest, it’s just an assertion you’re making. (And, when I’ve asked you to prove it, you simply repeated the assertion.)
So, it’s just something that you think is true. That’s cool… but unless you have some sort of logical support for it, then it’s just “one guy’s opinion”.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
Post 1 of 2
cont’d
My view only speaks to how the mind emerges and its relation to the brain. Beyond that, thoughts would work the same as in any other view in that we experience them as mental representations of our experience. If your question is about the interaction problem then I’ve already responded to that. The problem is not an objection but rather it’s something that can be explained when we can gather more evidence on mind to brain interactions.
Well you’re not a scientific expert nor source so just mentioning something doesn’t help. I don’t dispute neural loops, but rather I dispute the degree to which you are using them to argue your point. I want scientifically verifiable evidence that these loops can change neurobiological behavior as opposed to just reinforcing or weakening certain aspects of the behavior, which would still leave the behavior in place. Researchers are not sure about the physical mechanism for a lot of neuroplasticity cases, but nonetheless neuroplastic changes occur. Either way, your view does not prove who or what activates these loops. Under my view, it could just be the physical process of neuroplasticity that’s caused by mental activity.
Your claim is clearly false. The body has a cellular level, tissue level, organ level, organ system level, etc. All of these levels come with their own organization and function. The brain also has this level of organization, since it has neurons which give rise to neural networks, which give rise to the nervous system, etc. Again, all levels having organization, function, and even interaction with different systems of the body and the environment.
I’d rather go by the simulations that experts use rather than relying on a non-expert forum member whose views have no impact beyond online forums, if even that. You are also unwilling to present scientific evidence to back up your claims while ignoring the scientific evidence to the contrary.
cont’d
- Status