How our experiences could have location when soul has no location?

[AgnosticBoy]

Post 2 of 2

How do you that?

How do you prove that a person is conscious? The same way psychologists and other social scientists do it, by having a person report their subjective experiences. To test mental imagery, you can show someone erotic images and watch how their body is stimulated. Take away the pictures and wait until the body returns to it’s non-stimulated state, and have the person imagine (via mental imagery) the picture and you’ll find the same bodily stimulation. These are just some simple experiments.

I don’t understand your question. Could you please rephrase it?

Your claim is that thoughts are physical states. There are two ways this claim can be taken. It could mean that the mind is just an effect stemming from the parts of the brain, and therefore it can be identified with the physical states (the materialist worldview). It could also mean it is inherent in the parts of the brain, and therefore not an effect of these parts (your view). I tried to cover both point of view in post 94. I believe the last few materialists on this forum, like inocente, have conceded the first view since I’ve led them to question whether the brain controls any behavior at all, including sexual orientation. Neurobiological behaviors being distinct and fixed is a major tenet of materialism.

In the second sense, my point speaks to it by showing that mental states can be contrary to brain states and even change brain states. Inherent properties are supposed to work in accordance with and not against the entities that they are part of. So if the mind was an inherent part of the brain, then it should be working with the brain and not against the brain states that were established by neurophysiology. I raised other objections against this point of yours, as well, like how your view doesn’t even address all of what the “Mind”/body problem is about. Do soda cans have subjective experience? Are they self-aware? Just simply attributing “awareness” to matter does nothing to explain the other senses that consciousness is used in. You don’t need ‘awareness’ to explain what chemistry and physics already explains.

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.”

Lot of different points here. I take the statement of “the brain rewiring itself” to mean that choice was not involved, and it was a purely biological/unconscious automatic process. However, there is no evidence for anyone waking up out of bed one day and realizing that their neurobiological based disease disappeared without any INTERVENTION in the form of psychotherapy (which involves choice, desire, mental effort, thoughts, etc) or drug therapy which involves drugs and choice, both of which are more than the brain.

You also bring up scientific evidence which is a bit odd since you also refuse to scientifically verify your view about soda cans having consciousness. There is PLENTY of scientific evidence that states of the brain impact states of the mind. In fact, we can invoke certain modes of experiences by stimulating certain brain regions.

I’ve already addressed your point about neural feedback loops. Feedback loops can not change neurobiological behavior by themselves. You also bring up “old experiences” which is not an objection to my view. Thoughts about old experiences or new experiences are still activities of the mind that run contrary to the physical state of the brain, and furthermore, these thoughts, feelings, and behavior are not supposed to be possible without a change in physical state.

 

[STT]

By virtue of being the Creator of matter.

That is not a good argument. He might lose His control as He lost his control on us. We have free will. Don’t we?

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”.

I think that my argument was clear enough. I think that is you who need to support his claim that a non-local entity can be causally related to something local. Think of two souls and two bodies. How you could causally related the right soul to the right body considering the fact that two bodies are same from point of view of a soul?

 

[STT]

Post 1 of 2

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 unfortunately didn’t provide any insight.

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.

Well, I think I was clear enough.

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.

Of course there is a high level organization in the body. I meant that you cannot find any high level organization under materialism unless you strive to dualism and claim that body is conscious in each level.

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

I think I was clear enough. No need to say that that is not a right way to engage into a discussion.

 

[STT]

Post 2 of 2

How do you prove that a person is conscious? The same way psychologists and other social scientists do it, by having a person report their subjective experiences.

You cannot do that with animal.

To test mental imagery, you can show someone erotic images and watch how their body is stimulated. Take away the pictures and wait until the body returns to it’s non-stimulated state, and have the person imagine (via mental imagery) the picture and you’ll find the same bodily stimulation. These are just some simple experiments.

That just means that the body responds to an stimuli.

Your claim is that thoughts are physical states. There are two ways this claim can be taken. It could mean that the mind is just an effect stemming from the parts of the brain, and therefore it can be identified with the physical states (the materialist worldview). It could also mean it is inherent in the parts of the brain, and therefore not an effect of these parts (your view). I tried to cover both point of view in post 94. I believe the last few materialists on this forum, like inocente, have conceded the first view since I’ve led them to question whether the brain controls any behavior at all, including sexual orientation. Neurobiological behaviors being distinct and fixed is a major tenet of materialism.

In the second sense, my point speaks to it by showing that mental states can be contrary to brain states and even change brain states. Inherent properties are supposed to work in accordance with and not against the entities that they are part of. So if the mind was an inherent part of the brain, then it should be working with the brain and not against the brain states that were established by neurophysiology. I raised other objections against this point of yours, as well, like how your view doesn’t even address all of what the “Mind”/body problem is about. Do soda cans have subjective experience? Are they self-aware? Just simply attributing “awareness” to matter does nothing to explain the other senses that consciousness is used in. You don’t need ‘awareness’ to explain what chemistry and physics already explains.

I am neither materialist nor dualist and fortunately there is no problem in my world view.

Lot of different points here. I take the statement of “the brain rewiring itself” to mean that choice was not involved, and it was a purely biological/unconscious automatic process. However, there is no evidence for anyone waking up out of bed one day and realizing that their neurobiological based disease disappeared without any INTERVENTION in the form of psychotherapy (which involves choice, desire, mental effort, thoughts, etc) or drug therapy which involves drugs and choice, both of which are more than the brain.

You also bring up scientific evidence which is a bit odd since you also refuse to scientifically verify your view about soda cans having consciousness. There is PLENTY of scientific evidence that states of the brain impact states of the mind. In fact, we can invoke certain modes of experiences by stimulating certain brain regions.

I’ve already addressed your point about neural feedback loops. Feedback loops can not change neurobiological behavior by themselves. You also bring up “old experiences” which is not an objection to my view. Thoughts about old experiences or new experiences are still activities of the mind that run contrary to the physical state of the brain, and furthermore, these thoughts, feelings, and behavior are not supposed to be possible without a change in physical state.

Unfortunately your position is worst than Cartesian dualist since you claim that mind itself is a product of brain activity too. I already argue against emergent phenomena and there is the old interaction problem which have been unresolved too.

 

[Gorgias]

That is not a good argument. He might lose His control

Stop changing the point under discussion, please. You didn’t ask about “control over matter”, you simply asked about “acting on matter.” By definition, the Creator acts on the matter He creates. QED.

He might lose His control as He lost his control on us. We have free will. Don’t we?

This is immaterial to this particular discussion, but nevertheless, you misunderstand “free will”, vis-a-vis God. Free will isn’t a “loss of control” by God; no one wrested control away from Him. Free will is God’s gift to us – He gives us the opportunity to exercise free will personally.

I think that my argument was clear enough. I think that is you who need to support his claim that a non-local entity can be causally related to something local.

Sorry. Doesn’t work that way.

If I assert “the moon isn’t made of rocks”, and you disagree, I don’t get to say “well, it’s proven until you demonstrate that ‘the moon is made of rocks’ is true.” The burden of proof of your claim rests solely on you. And you haven’t even attempted to make a proof. :nope:

 

[STT]

Stop changing the point under discussion, please. You didn’t ask about “control over matter”, you simply asked about “acting on matter.” By definition, the Creator acts on the matter He creates. QED.

That is not fair. I was talking about being causally related to everything.

Sorry. Doesn’t work that way.

If I assert “the moon isn’t made of rocks”, and you disagree, I don’t get to say “well, it’s proven until you demonstrate that ‘the moon is made of rocks’ is true.” The burden of proof of your claim rests solely on you. And you haven’t even attempted to make a proof. :nope:

Yes, it works that way. I provide you an example but you unfortunately ignored it. So I repeat the example again: Think of two souls and two bodies. How you could causally related the right soul to the right body considering the fact that two bodies are same from point of view of a soul?

 

[Gorgias]

That is not fair. I was talking about being causally related to everything.

Umm… how is the Creator of the entire universe not “causally related to everything”?

Yes, it works that way. I provide you an example but you unfortunately ignored it. So I repeat the example again: Think of two souls and two bodies. How you could causally related the right soul to the right body considering the fact that two bodies are same from point of view of a soul?

It really does. Your example is a nice one. Now, since you posit that there is no causal interaction, you must use your example to prove that this is, indeed, the case. You can’t just throw out the example and demand, “now you do the work!”

But, just to get you started: how can you claim that “two [physical] bodies are [the] same from [the] point of view of a soul”? Clearly, if a spiritual being has the ability to discern the presence of physical entities, it can discern spatial and temporal differences between the two, right? Again, if it can discern physical entities, it can discern differences in their appearance, can’t it? Finally, if the “physical bodies” are human, then certainly the spiritual being can discern the spiritual beings associated with these bodies (i.e., their souls), and distinguish between them based solely on that criterion, no?

And… if you think that the spiritual being cannot, then please explain why this must be the case (for spiritual beings in general, not any one specific one). (Mind you – I’m not asking you to merely assert “no, it cannot”; I’m asking you to prove your assertion by demonstrating why it cannot.)

 

[STT]

Umm… how is the Creator of the entire universe not “causally related to everything”?

God could leave the creation free. Moreover we know that human is free.

It really does. Your example is a nice one. Now, since you posit that there is no causal interaction, you must use your example to prove that this is, indeed, the case. You can’t just throw out the example and demand, “now you do the work!”

It is obvious that hylomorphic dualism fails. There is no preference in a body to related it to a soul therefore hylomorphic dualism doesn’t work.

But, just to get you started: how can you claim that “two [physical] bodies are [the] same from [the] point of view of a soul”? Clearly, if a spiritual being has the ability to discern the presence of physical entities, it can discern spatial and temporal differences between the two, right?

No, soul cannot differentiate between different points in space and time since it is spiritual, not physical. Only physical entities can discern between two points of space and time. Why? Because they exist in time and space.

Again, if it can discern physical entities, it can discern differences in their appearance, can’t it? Finally, if the “physical bodies” are human, then certainly the spiritual being can discern the spiritual beings associated with these bodies (i.e., their souls), and distinguish between them based solely on that criterion, no?

Soul cannot discern two similar bodies.

And… if you think that the spiritual being cannot, then please explain why this must be the case (for spiritual beings in general, not any one specific one). (Mind you – I’m not asking you to merely assert “no, it cannot”; I’m asking you to prove your assertion by demonstrating why it cannot.)

Because they are spiritual. They don’t exist in physical universe therefore they do not have location in time and space. This means that there is no preference in time and space from their point of view therefore a soul cannot be causally related to a body.

 

[Gorgias]

God could leave the creation free. Moreover we know that human is free.

God does give us free will. You’re talking about something different, though: you’re talking about the creator-creation relationship. By its very nature, it explicitly means that there’s a causal relationship between creator and his creation! If we posit a creator, there’s no way around the fact that the causal relationship exists!

Now… your assertion is that a spiritual entity can not have a causal relationship with a physical entity. This example I’ve given you – of the relationship between creator God and his creation – is the undeniable counter-example to your assertion.

It is obvious that hylomorphic dualism fails.

In your opinion. Others hold that it is a reasonable framework.

You can sit there all day and say (without attribution), “it fails”, but that doesn’t make it so, nor does it absolve you of the responsibility of addressing it. That’s why (IIRC), at the beginning of the thread, I asked “are you sure that you want this thread to debate dualism?” Without that discussion, your assertion of this thread cannot proceed.

You might be interested in reading Feser’s discussion on the topic.

There is no preference in a body to related it to a soul therefore hylomorphic dualism doesn’t work.

You’re using one of your conclusions to prove one of your premises, STT. You can see that this cannot work… right?

No, soul cannot differentiate between different points in space and time since it is spiritual, not physical.

I don’t think that this argument holds up at all. Your soul can differentiate that it belongs to you, not to me, can’t it? If so, then it’s literally “differentiating between physical entities that exist in different points in space and time.” Your only way out of this dilemma is to suggest that souls – and by extension, spiritual entities – do not exist. Is that the argument you wish to make?

Only physical entities can discern between two points of space and time. Why? Because they exist in time and space.

I exist in time and space. I can discern the difference between “God” and “angels”. I’m not seeing why you’re suggesting that spiritual entities cannot do the same with us.

(Please note: I’m not making an assertion about sensory perception (of physical beings by spiritual beings) or something analogous in the spiritual plane. Rather, we’re only talking about discernment and distinction, which I claim is possible. After all, if there were no discernment, then we couldn’t distinguish between “God” and “angels”, and we’d conflate the two notions. Similarly, if God could not distinguish between us, then created entities wouldn’t have individual existence – very literally, you would be me, and we would be Jupiter, and the universe would be one big undifferentiated blob. Clearly, that’s not the case.

Soul cannot discern two similar bodies.

I’ve demonstrated that God can do so, and that (at the very least), our souls can discern between “me” and “not-me”. So, your assertion doesn’t hold.

Because they are spiritual. They don’t exist in physical universe therefore they do not have location in time and space.

I agree with both of these premises: spiritual entities are spiritual. In themselves, they do not have the properties of “location in time” and “location in space.”

This means that there is no preference in time and space from their point of view therefore a soul cannot be causally related to a body.

However, your conclusions do not follow from your premises, as you can see by the discussion in this post. Moreover, your conclusions are themselves invalid:

Although I wouldn’t assert that spiritual beings necessarily are able to sense time and place as physical beings do (after all, they don’t have sense organs), your assertion that they have “no preference in time and space from their point of view” doesn’t hold up. I’ve already demonstrated that to you, above.

In addition, there *are *spiritual beings which have relationships to (physical) bodies. “God” is one example; “the soul of a person” is another.

So, as we can see from the counter-examples I’ve provided, your assertions fail to hold up to logical scrutiny.