svensky

What a load of rot. You throw down the challenge show proof that souls exist ! Then when asked, what is a soul thne ? You complain that you dont need to define it.

This leaves you with all the aces. How foolish would it be to even bother to have a conversation with you. If any evidence could be produced for souls and the supernatural, because you have refused to define it, you can keep moving the defintion to prevent any evidence from being successfully presented.

If you want to lay down the challenge and expect anybody to seriously pick it up, then you at the very least, have to define what would qualify as proof of the existence of a soul, and put your money where your mouth is. If you are unwilling to provide at least a starting point for what would qualify as a soul how is somebody even to approach the question.

Unless this was your intention ?

Jason

John Page

Jason:

But isn't it the dualists who are claiming something ephemeral? If you support dualism, isn't the burden on you to define what it is and why you support it?

Without such an introductory dialog we very well may be chasing, well, ghosts.

NialScorva

Seems rather like you're shifting the burden of proof. Dualism requires two pieces, we'll grant the material one without argument, but Franc is simply asking for you to define the second part, and at least provide a means to negotiate whether it exists. So far as I can tell, words like "soul" and "spirit" having nothing more than a lexographical existence, they don't reflect anything that can be experienced. If you could even hint at a means of experiencing them, it would be a good start.

It's not that he's dodging criteria for acceptance, rather it's that he doesn't even know what is in question. I can't tell you whether a zifboyan exists if you don't tell me what one is.

Jon Curry

Webster's has a definition. I'll just use it:

Soul: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life

There may or may not be empirical evidence for the existence of the soul, but my evidence would simply be logical. If souls do not exist, then there is no immaterial aspect of a human. If that is true, then knowledge is impossible. This is based upon my argument from the other thread.

It makes sense of it because it doesn't have the obvious problem the naturalist has. The problem for the naturalist is if there is nothing immaterial, then even my thoughts can be reduced to nothing more than physical processes. If this is true, then my thoughts are determined. If my thoughts are determined in this sense, then I can't trust them.

If the soul exists, then obviously it is not isolated from reality. It is part of reality. So I don't see that you've given a reason not to trust the mind. It is not a merely physical thing. This doesn't mean it is unrelated to the physical world. I just is not limited to the physical.

I don't know what that problem is.

I'm not exactly sure how they are related. I don't know that it would really matter to your point. The real issue is, there must be something in us that is more than just physical. Otherwise we can have no knowledge.

svensky

I'm happy to discuss a possible set of criteria. But to claim I have to provide it is silly.

Clearly he must have some idea what a soul is. He can apparently use the word in the correct context, so must have some thoughts about what it is.

If you inist I will provide a definition of soul.

Soul - The immaterial you that makes your body work. How can you tell wether or a not a person has a soul. Simple without it they stop working. For want of analogy the software that drives the wetware.

Simple enough ? Acceptable ? I think it is reasonable, I will be stunned if the materialists here do.

Jason

Jason

John Page

Jason:

I don't find the definition unreasonable, (although I'm not a strict materialist). I think the definition is entirely consistent with the soul being an abstract entity. While you cannot physically touch an abstract entity, the information about a person's 'essence' can be said to represent their 'soul'.

I dislike direct computer analogies but supposing you were able to probe a computer and detect electron values that represent the word "thus". These values represent an abstract (word) but if you turn the computer off or remove the 'language' program they become meaningless. What I'm attempting to do is say that the electrons can be likened to the 'spirit of the word thus'.

Clearly, we have a limited ability to reboot humans once their 'programs' have stopped. Furthermore, the effect of a stroke can be seen to limit the unfortunate victim's abilities to sense, act, coordinate etc. This provides some confirmation that the abstract notions we are discussing here indeed reside on a physical substrate.

In summary, my interpretation of your definition is that someone's 'soul' is something we can detect and sometimes describe verbally through correlation of a person's looks, smell, attitude etc. against other people. This summary 'feeling' about another's identity is purely in the abstract, indeed I interpret it as an abstract representation within your mind.

Cheers

JerryM

Interesting discussion. I realize that I'm jumping in the middle of this, but I don't follow your reasoning as to why we must possess some non-material property in order to know something. Isn't what we call knowledge essentially information stored in the brain? And I think the operation of our brain can be explained perfectly well as a physiochemical process involving neuronal circuits, though admittedly these are of enormous complexity and our current understanding is rudimentary. Why would we need to postulate additional entities?

Jonsey3333

I couldn't find the word lexographical in the dictionary. I guess the word means having to do with words and language. Isn't that ironic.

Why must there be a non-physical entity for knowledge? What is this other thread, it sounds interesting.

I will accept the existence of a soul as a concept. What the concept is is up for debate.

-Mike

svensky

Not entirely. This is somewhat where the anology breaks down.

If the soul drives the body as such, then damge to the body will impair the souls ability to run the body. Does that make sense ?

The soul and the wetware work together, if the wetware is damaged is it a surprise it doesn;t work all that well ?

I would ask though, what would qualify as the existence of a soul ? Clearly something distinguishes me from a person who has just died. It doesn't seem to be anything physical. They just dont work anymore.

Jason

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

NialScorva

That is pretty funny.

According to Merriam-Webster Online:
Lexography:
1 : the editing or making of a dictionary
2 : the principles and practices of dictionary making


With lexographical being the adjective form. I meant it as compiling and defining words rather than strictly dictionaries, but you gathered that already.