Thomas Ash

Keith, well that's what I think. It's one of surprisingly many concepts which are more or less vacuous (another one is the some sort of "Higher Being" some people say they believe in - it's not exactly clear how it's higher, and it's even unclear what is meant by calling it a being! ) But I was just wondering if any believers in a soul had a more meaty definition. Given the next example, however, this isn't encouraging...

Thomas Ash

Sorry, yguy, I don't really see any definition of a soul here, beyond "what's left." To try and prompt an answer: to what is the cosciousness an appendage? The soul? If so, how?

crocodile deathroll

I merely define the soul not only as conciousness but also as "subjective reality". A reality that is orientated around the observer. Through SR the universe presents itself with the property of being aware of its own existance. How else can the universe be are of its own existance without the property of consciousness?

Thomas Ash

Wll surely if you know you have one, you must be able to give at least a partial definition - ie. what it is that you are concious of having.
That's interesting, I always assumed it would be the other way round, at least with respect to intelligence and conciousness. I thought most people assumed that, if one was more basic than the other, it would be the neural foundation (the computer in your metaphor) upon which the "OS" of the mental was built.
Still, this is at least something of a definition, though a very vague one which shifts the question to how the conciosuness is defined: the soul is the arena in which the conciousness operates. One problem I see with this is that unless anything other than the conciousness operates in this arena, and I'd have thought nothing else does, couldn't this be tantamount to defining the soul as the conciousness, which is a much more secular concept.

Thomas Ash

Actually, this last part isn't true: we can think thoughts about conciousness (hell, all of us on this thread are doing that just now !) This has always struck me as a problem with the otherwise very tempting theory of epiphenomenalism: see my Conciousness: A Problem With Epiphenomenalism thread.
Wow, that's so much more rational as a proof - I have a soul because I say I have a soul !
That's not true - we do know what conciousness is, it's simply defined as our experience of our thoughts and feelings, day-in, day-out. Whereas the soul is defined as... what?

Thomas Ash

Actually, the name of that thread is The Relationship Between the Mind and the Brain, and it's
here.

Thomas Ash

Nope, it's not baloney, it's a pretty accurate definition fo the concept of conciousness, proving it's not a vacuous concept like 'the soul' is if it remains undefined.
Yes it is . You must have some concept of what a term means if you are going to claim it exists, otherwise you are making an essentially meaningless statement, akin to claiming that "blerg exists" when "blerg" is simply a nonsense word. If you can't provide any definition of what a soul is, how an earth can you say you know it exists???

Thomas Ash

Now this is actually quite a good definition, one which at least has some substance (other than just saying "well, the soul is that non-physical thing you have which isn't conciousness either" .) It does have the weakness that unlike either physical things or purely mental things like emotions, we never experience or are directly aware of the soul itself, only things build on its "substratum." This provides no reason for actually thinking the soul exists.
Could you explain to me what exactly 'bundle theory' is, please? It sounds fun !

Thomas Ash

Well, why do thought, emotions, etc. occuring in the same brain automatically create a unity of conciousness and get experienced by the same 'self.' I'm not disagreeing with you by any means, just posing this as a problem in need of explanation. You might also want to see my thread on The Relationship Between the Mind and the Brain.

SimplyAtheistic

The point is, consciousness can be controlled by thought, it is not some mystery a soul imposes upon the body.


Neuron firings control thought, so yes it does follow. And anesthesia interrupts the neruon firings, affecting the ability to think, affecting consciousness. This clearly shows consciousness originates from the brain and its workings. And you even admit we can control consciousness, so you are admitting the medicines can affect the soul? Funny.

Simple, he used his brain to calculate the problem and didn't process his input information. See, thats not so hard is it?

The laws of physics.

As it would be obvious to any man, you have failed to demonstrate the seemingly basic understanding of biology. You keep asserting your position and saying I am wrong, is it because you are lacking in factual data? You are becoming quite transparent.

Exactly, your documentation is fiction, with a lack of evidence. My evidence has clearly supported my position as many have concurred, especially medical experts.

The example you used previously works fine, medicines can interrupt the functions of the brain and affect consciousness, you even admitted this. If you want a more hands on approach, tear off a piece of your frontal lobe and tell me what happens.

True, but it is a plausible hypothesis.

This is very ill logic. A test should prove the existance of an entity, its existance should not be assumed beforehand. And since you can't even define a soul, good luck testing it. Seems you christians "know" so many things, like the earth was flat.

This shows me nothing.
Jake