Neuroscience and the Soul

[Charlemagne_III]

Actually, probably not. A theory with no evidence to support it just seems like a bad theory to me.

There is matter. What the materialist does is claim that matter is sufficient for explaining everything that is observed. He argues that his theory is explanatorily sufficient and simpler than alternatives which posit more entities. There is evidence that matter exists, and A theory with no evidence to support it .

Claiming that materialism has an atheistic premise is not an effective way of arguing against it.

The principle of parsimony, ie. Occam’s razor, has almost nothing to do with Occam himself. It has been employed by virtually all philosophers because it is a sound epistemic principle.

“A theory with no evidence to support it” is not really a theory.

“What the materialist does is claim that matter is sufficient for explaining everything that is observed” is not the same as providing proof that matter is all there is.

Claiming that materialism has an atheistic premise is an effective way of arguing against it.

Obviously, there is no proof the materialist can offer that God does not exist, and so again he cannot prove that Spirit does not exist as opposed to matter.

Occam’s Razor is not always a sound epistemic principle, as Einstein was pleased to note. You can get very carried away with it, as Einstein himself did when he found no need to presume the universe was anything other than infinite and uncreated. He was proved wrong on both counts. The materialist makes the same presumption (without proof) that matter is all there is. If you want to call that Occam’s Razor, go ahead, but I insist that a presumption is not proof. Nor is it a theory.

And I hate to break it to you, but I think we are starting to repeat ourselves.

 

[polytropos]

“What the materialist does is claim that matter is sufficient for explaining everything that is observed” is not the same as providing proof that matter is all there is.

Of course not. But the materialist doesn’t need to prove that matter is all there is; he would probably be happy arguing that it is most rational that we believe that matter is all there is.

Obviously, there is no proof the materialist can offer that God does not exist, and so again he cannot prove that Spirit does not exist as opposed to matter.

Again–and this is another valid objection that ngill has raised–the materialist does not care to prove negatives, because barring a demonstration of contradiction it cannot be done.

Prove to me that you don’t have two souls.

Occam’s Razor is not always a sound epistemic principle, as Einstein was pleased to note. You can get very carried away with it, as Einstein himself did when he found no need to presume the universe was anything other than infinite and uncreated. He was proved wrong on both counts. The materialist makes the same presumption (without proof) that matter is all there is. If you want to call that Occam’s Razor, go ahead, but I insist that a presumption is not proof. Nor is it a theory.

I don’t think you understand what a “sound epistemic principle” is. It is a responsible way of acquiring knowledge. Being wrong about something doesn’t imply that one should not have believed it. (If someone lies and tells you your house is on fire, you would do well to call 911 and rush home.)

Another sound epistemic principle is “only believe what is true.” It isn’t a fault of the principle that sometimes we don’t properly recognize what is true.

One can misapply Occam’s razor. That doesn’t count against it as a principle. One can also apply Occam’s razor even when the entity being excised exists; it may nevertheless be more epistemologically prudent to disbelieve in the entity if believing in it is irrelevant. (If you tried to explain what electrons were to people a thousand years ago, their understanding of the world would not be improved. They would be more rational in not including such entities since their theory did not demand it.)

If we do not approach materialism charitably, then we will never convince a committed materialist that his theory is wrong. If you think that it is helpful to continue insisting that his theory is “not a theory,” is just a “presumption,” and has “no proof,” then go ahead; just know that it does not do justice to what intelligent materialists have written and argued. I hope such a materialist runs into a charitable theist who can represent theism well. Let’s pull Aquinas from your signature: “We must love those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. Both have labored in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course not. But the materialist doesn’t need to prove that matter is all there is; he would probably be happy arguing that it is most rational that we believe that matter is all there is.

But that is philosophy, not science. And bad philosophy at that.
I don’t think you understand what a “sound epistemic principle” is. It is a responsible way of acquiring knowledge.

**As I have said, applying Occam’s Razor to materialism is not valid. Materialism explains nothing. It merely asserts. **

One can misapply Occam’s razor. That doesn’t count against it as a principle. One can also apply Occam’s razor even when the entity being excised exists; it may nevertheless be more epistemologically prudent to disbelieve in the entity if believing in it is irrelevant. (If you tried to explain what electrons were to people a thousand years ago, their understanding of the world would not be improved. They would be more rational in not including such entities since their theory did not demand it.)

I’m sure you’ll agree I must be dumb. I have no idea what you are talking about.

If we do not approach materialism charitably, then we will never convince a committed materialist that his theory is wrong. If you think that it is helpful to continue insisting that his theory is “not a theory,” is just a “presumption,” and has “no proof,” then go ahead; just know that it does not do justice to what intelligent materialists have written and argued. I hope such a materialist runs into a charitable theist who can represent theism well. Let’s pull Aquinas from your signature:

I love you, but your lack of charity is showing. We’re done! :sad_bye:

 

[tonyrey]

Animals are held responsible for their behavior. Just not to all the same standards humans are.

Have you people ever actually interacted with animals?

Are they morally responsible?

 

[yppop]

The claim was that no other animal has language. Other animals do have at least some of the basic elements of language in their communication.

And if the seat of human language is in the cerebral cortex then you’re ceding my point to me because that is exactly the claim I’m trying to make.

ng
In my post #122 I address the OP and make a connection between neuroscience and the soul. My argument was simply: the mind is the interaction of the language and a spiritual component called nous. The form of the nous is the soul. Only humans have language, therefore only humans have souls.

Your response (#123) was “I know a gorilla named Koko who might disagree with you. And some whales probably would too” I interpreted this to mean that you believe there are animals other than humans that have language capability.

To which I responded with an argument that cited a quotation from Steven Pinker, the highly regarded expert on the language instinct, along with the observation that the neuronal location of the human form of communication (primarily language) is in the cerebral cortex and the only form of primate communication (signs) is in the brain stem and the limbic system.

Your response in post # 134 implies because primates have a cerebral cortex they must have a language instinct. No so, all of the communication that primates possess is with signs not symbols.

I purposely alluded to elephants in post 131 rather than whales that you alluded to in post 123 in order to determine if you were capable of an intelligent discussion or if you were a nit picker.

Even though you missed the transposition of elephants and whales, I found out what I wanted to to know, namely you are not interested in an intelligent discussion.

Yppop

 

[ngill09]

Are they morally responsible?

Yes, in certain animals, particularly social animals and especially primates.

At least, if I’m interpreting you correctly. They have a sense of justice and hold eachother accountable to that sense of justice.

This isn’t precisely on point but you can see in this video a sense of fairness in Capuchin monkeys: youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo. They react with some pretty strong outrage when one is given a better reward for the same task.

 

[tonyrey]

Are they morally

Outrage when they are the victims! They are not motivated by moral principles but expediency. Animals are neither innocent nor guilty because they do not have free will.

 

[ngill09]

Outrage when they are the victims! They are not motivated by moral principles but expediency. Animals are neither innocent nor guilty because they do not have free will.

In this case it was when they are the victims but there are many, many cases of animals displaying altruism. For example, animals will often act out of love, even for members of another species.

Beyond the simple cases of animals saving, for instance, humans, there’s another Capuchin monkey experiment where two monkeys in separate cages had to coordinate to get a reward, which was only given to one of the monkeys, who then shared the reward with the other monkey, even though he had no reason to, outside of a sense of fairness.

How do you know animals don’t have free will?

 

[tonyrey]

Outrage when they

“love” is one of the most misused words in the English language. Are you equating animal love with Christian love? If not why not?

Beyond the simple cases of animals saving, for instance, humans, there’s another Capuchin monkey experiment where two monkeys in separate cages had to coordinate to get a reward, which was only given to one of the monkeys, who then shared the reward with the other monkey, even though he had no reason to, outside of a sense of fairness.

For social animals sharing is a **natural **instinct. Do you believe all human love is scientifically explicable?

How do you know animals don’t have free will? In this case it was when they are the victims but there are many, many cases of animals displaying altruism. For example, animals will often act out of love, even for members of another species.

There is no evidence that animals can act according to moral principles or force themselves to act unnaturally.

 

[ngill09]

“love” is one of the most misused words in the English language. Are you equating animal love with Christian love? If not why not?

Maybe not “Christian” love, but they do have motherly love absolutely, a certain amount of romantic love, and adoration.

For social animals sharing is a **natural **instinct. Do you believe all human love is scientifically explicable?

I think all human love is natural, yes.

There is no evidence that animals can act according to moral principles or force themselves to act unnaturally.

Loyalty, charity, self-sacrifice - all are principles that some animals act by.
I’m just going to note this admission that homosexuality is natural.

 

[tonyrey]

“love” is one of the most misused words in the English language. Are you equating animal love with Christian love? If not why not?

How did Christian love originate?

For social animals sharing is a **natural **

instinct. Do you believe all human love is scientifically explicable?
I think all human love is natural, yes.

Is it natural to love our enemies?

There is no evidence that animals can act according to moral principles or force themselves to act unnaturally.

Loyalty, charity, self-sacrifice - all are principles that some animals act by.

Are they aware they are acting according to moral principles? Do they understand the difference between right and wrong?

 

[ngill09]

How did Christian love originate?

You’re going to have to define “Christian Love” precisely.

Is it natural to love our enemies?

It can be, yes.

Are they aware they are acting according to moral principles? Do they understand the difference between right and wrong?

Yes, but like anything else they don’t understand it in the abstract terms we use.

 

[tonyrey]

How did Christian love originate?

What is the origin of the belief that we should love everyone including our enemies and be willing to suffer and die for them if necessary?

Is it natural to love our enemies?

It can be, yes.

Please justify your statement. Do animals love their enemies?

Are they aware they are acting according to moral principles? Do they understand the difference between right and wrong?

Yes, but like anything else they don’t understand it in the abstract terms we use

Do you mean they have no concept of right and wrong? How else can they understand it?

 

[simpleas]

This is really interesting.

I think animals have it easy, they don’t have to think everything out, they just do whats natural to them.

 

[ngill09]

What is the origin of the belief that we should love everyone including our enemies and be willing to suffer and die for them if necessary?
Please justify your statement. Do animals love their enemies?
Do you mean they have no concept of right and wrong? How else can they understand it?

Look, if you’re asking me if non-human animals have universities with philosophy departments that study ethics, then the answer is no. But some of them do have a sense of right and wrong, justice and fairness, love and altruism, and behave accordingly.

 

[tonyrey]

			*

What is the origin of the belief that we should love everyone

Please answer my questions:

1. What is the origin of the belief that we should love everyone including our enemies and be willing to suffer and die for them if necessary?
2. Do animals love their enemies?
3. Do animals have any concept of right and wrong?
4. If not how do they understand these terms?

 

[tonyrey]

This is really interesting.

I think animals have it easy, they don’t have to think everything out, they just do whats natural to them.

“natural” is the keyword. Neuroscience doesn’t take into account any other type of behaviour.

 

[tonyrey]

This is really interesting.

I think animals have it easy, they don’t have to think everything out, they just do whats natural to them.

Indeed! And they are not morally responsible for what they do.