Francois Tremblay

I've already refuted that argument before. Free will is axiomatic - you cannot deny it based on your belief in matter or supermatter. Metaphysical determinism does not contradict epistemic free will either, since both are different frames of reference of the same phenomenon. You'll need to find something more convincing.

Francois Tremblay

Of course not. I am not the one proposing that souls exist, you are. You are the one making the positive assertion, so you have to define what you are talking about. Why would a materialist have to define something
1. he has never observed
and
2. has no use for deductively ?

And no, negative definitions won't do either.

"immaterial essence" only says what it is not (i.e. material). As for being the animating principle of life, that is, I suppose, a good definition : however, this does not tell us what the soul is, only what it does. It is incomplete.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

svensky

If it is immaterial, then how can we know what it is. The soul can only be observed indirectly.

So the animating principle is just as good a description of what it is as what it does.

Although, this is still incomplete somewhat incomplete becasue a soul is more than just an animating principle.

A soul is the mind.

Jason

NialScorva

If you haven't already, go read Ender's thread: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000084" target="_blank">Name that Fallacy</a>

David Gould

If you define the soul as the mind then I as a materialist agree that the soul exists. Thus, this definition is not adequate at all.

Give me evidence for the existence of things which are not material. As far as I can tell, there no more evidence for the existence of that than there is for the Christian God.

John Page

Yes, and possibly also the functioning of the soul if its physical 'underlay' is damaged. Interesting to relate this to the recent case I read of the nun having visions because she had a brian tumor.
No surprise.

From the law of identity, a soul is its existence. You defined a soul for the purposes of this discussion earlier on, one might refine this in scope by adding "the non-material essence of a being".

Cheers.

svensky

So we agree souls exist then

The souls is more than the mind, much as the mind is more than the brain.

I do have a question that might help to define the argument a bit more clearly, but it will require a bit of out of box thinking from the materialists.

Assuming that the mind is not just the brain, how would it be possible to prove that in a way that would satisfy you ?

This is a serious question. Somebody (this thread? I dont remember) suggested cutting off the brain from the body, and then seeing if the body can exhibit any of the functions normally ascribed to the mind. If it cant, then obviously the mind is simply the brain. This is obviously a ridiculous demand, if the mind/soul drives the body via the interface of the brain, this test would fail, but not becasue of the non-existence of the soul/mind.

So, any suggestions from the otherside of the fence ?

Jason

Francois Tremblay

Why are you asking *us* for suggestions ? You're the one who needs to provide us evidence, not us.

For my part, the fact that brain damage entails mental damage is more than sufficient to confirm the non-existence of the soul.

John Page

Jason:

I know you're responding to David but I think we're drifting off again.

It seems to me that while we have a sense of what a person's soul is (or might be), and likewise for the mind, we don't have enough information to tie their definitions down. All we can do is hypothesize definitions and see if they fit the facts.

I can go along with the mind being the abstract dimension of the brain (as opposed to separate from it) although I beleive there is research to suggest there is considerable information processing outside the brain - e.g. in the spinal cord. Similarly, if the soul is a third party's abstract image of another person's 'totality', the soul could be equated to the abstract dimension of the body (as opposed to separate from it).

This is as far as my subscription to dualism goes. I don't think it contradicts materialism either. In short, the mind and soul are not 'separate' from the body. While as a freethinker I am curious as to supposed paranormal phenomenon, I await empirical evidence that might require modification to the above model.

Cheers.

David Gould

If you cannot give a difference between the operation of a mind without the soul and the operation of the mind plus the soul then positing the soul's existence is ridiculous.

I may as well postulate that purple elves in the dimension QV22 are the things that make our souls act the way they do, which in turn act on our minds through our brains. You cannot remove the purple elves from the equation to test it because we humans cannot sense the dimension QV22.

The soul has to be defined before an experiment can be set up to test for its existence.

Now, my contention is that if souls act on the material they there must be a point of contact between their realm and that of the material.

Thus, is should be possible to detect this point or these points of contact by examining the brain (if people contend that the soul acts through the brain).

In fact, it must be possible for the material realm to affect this other realm also (they must sense this realm in some way, even if it is just through our senses.)

As there is two way traffic of signals, and the signals we send are material in nature, I think the idea of a non material realm is meaningless.

&lt;end random rambling&gt;