The Immaterial Mind

Not expecting a definitive answer here of course, the Mind-Body problem has been around in philosophy for hundreds of years, but I was just wondering what peoples' views were on whether there is such a thing as a 'soul' or whatever you want to call it.

I feel there may be a non-material element to our minds, it's certainly very hard to account for consciousness without it, but what are your thoughts?

I believe my conscious is a very complicated chemical reaction. Impossible to prove either way though.

"I used to think the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who's telling me that!" -- Emo Philips

Giving an metaphysical explanation for what you, or we, don't understand is not a good policy.

This is exactly the topic of my PhD thesis. No kidding. I know the answer, feel confident about it, and it has something approaching consensus in the modern philosopical community.

So I am banning myself from this thread. What's the point of me spending years and years of study to figure stuff out, if I just go and tell people, huh?

Mad Professor;544147 wrote:

I feel there may be a non-material element to our minds, it's certainly very hard to account for consciousness without it, but what are your thoughts?

It's just as hard to account for consciousness with it. "Non-material" or "soul" don't account for anything, they just put a label on the thing that isn't accounted for. It's like an accountant putting "other" on the books to make them balance.

You are God. There is no God outside of self.

Soul schmoul. No such thing.

There's hardware. (neurons, etc.)
There's algorithms. (behavior patterns.)
There's the database. (memories, acquired information.)

It all interrelates and each can modify the others.

Next!

"I cheated on my metaphysics final... I looked into the soul of the person sitting next to me." -- Woody Allen

I believe that my consciousness is a series of chemical and electrical reactions which are far simpler than they appear in concert. I think that a machine such as a clock is wondrous to behold in its precision and intricacy, and that the machine of the human mind is even more wondrous because it can understand itself. We may like to believe that there is more to sentience than what we can perceive but we are like Pinocchio; we look down at the wood and strings that make us what we are and wish to be a "real" boy, whatever that means. We can see what we truly are and are dissatisfied.

When I look around at the wonders that humanity has created I feel awe where others are disappointed. Human endeavors are far from perfect; there are problems with simple solutions that don't get fixed, and problems with no simple answers that could have been avoided with a little care. When you think about it though, what we have today was attained by *meat*. In the end our machines and tools, computers and intricate calculations, were set in motion by nothing more than bags of delicately salted water, clinging together in the most tenuous of balancing acts. Our most advanced technology was created by men standing on the backs of their forefathers, each of which was merely a collective of cells working in sequence, with each of those cells so frail that in anything other than the most ideal of conditions would wither and die nearly instantly. With all of our sophistication it is the height of arrogance to look back at all of this and deny it the praise it deserves.

Bravo, little cells. With what you had to work with, the outcome is astonishing.

I think you're all a bunch of stick-in-the-muds. :haha:

ZenGum;544188 wrote:

I know the answer

Oh don't ban yourself. Bring your most treasured findings. Let us in on what your deepest thoughts are. I beg of you.

Yes! Confess your sorcery to save your immortal soul.

[COLOR="White"]Then we'll kill him.[/COLOR]

I have no idea what it is...I suspect it is electrical activity.

I don't believe in the soul. Though my mind wants me to. The brain doesn't like the disconnection of here and then not here. It fills in the blanks and reaches instinctively for understanding. The person is here. Then the person is not here. But they can still be seen internally. They exist and do not exist. It makes no sense to us.

But without the framework of the brain there can be no consciousness. That's what I believe. The energy which animated our thoughts is expended, or changed in state (you can tell I'm no physicist right?:P) and dissipated, when the brain can no longer support it.

I am therefore I think. That smart guy from Europe had it backwards.

The "soul" is electricity, or energy, that goes back into the environment in some form when we pass. Some of us give back good energy that grows flowers and trees. Some of us give energy to mating slugs. We are all just more particles in the vast universe.

I'll have what Phage is having.....puff puff give

IMO, the awareness of your identity creates your soul.

So, the 'soul' is indistinguishable from consciousness?

That sounds right.

Then what happens when you are unconscious? Or under anesthesia? Is your soul on hiatus?

Hmmm. What I meant was...consciousness = being, so then that is all 'soul' is.

I have nothing to add except that it would be awesome to talk to conjoined twins about this. If I step on one foot, can they both feel the pain? What if I poke just one ear? Can you knock one unconscious but not the other?

Depends on how their nervous system is shared.
The Bunker twins would have had a no-no-yes set of answers, while Lori and George Schappell might have a very different set of answers.

Pie;544514 wrote:

Then what happens when you are unconscious? Or under anesthesia? Is your soul on hiatus?

Even more interestingly, people with multiple personalities would have more than one soul.

I'm a quad-core brain! :nuts:

I think in terms of "essence" attached to a limited "Dasein".

TheMercenary;544258 wrote:

You are God. There is no God outside of self.

Namaste.

How do you explain when the soul leaves the body? Don't laugh,it's actually happened to me before.

And just where did it think it was going?

"Return to sender, address unknown.
No such number, no such zone."

I'll have to do some digging for the story, Sugar, but I read recently about a series of experiments in which the experience of leaving the body was recreated. I'm not sure if they were using chemical or electrical stimulation of the relevant brain area, but apparently it was a very strange experience for the subjects.

A friend of mine said that she believed in the soul as existing apart from the physical body until she had full anesthesia. Then, she said, "where do you go?" I remember what that was like when I had my wisdom teeth out, it was like a chunk of time just didn't exist. You'd think that if the drugs put your body to sleep, your soul would still be around - maybe not to feel pain, but maybe to be aware at least on some level. Of course there's no one to say that it isn't aware on some level and you just don't remember it, sort of like you dream at night and don't always remember your dreams. Or if your soul existed before your were born - another fun thing to think about - you don't remember that experience either, just your current life. But then why wouldn't you remember? What would the point be in having a soul in the first place, if you didn't remember everything and somehow learn from it? Unless the learning is done on a subconscious level, like subliminal programming. Which would explain why some people are just inherently wiser and more sensible than others, independent of their IQ; perhaps they are "old souls." GAH. Shove me in the shallow water before I get too deep.

Yeah, I think about this stuff.

My philosophy professor would just draw a payoff matrix. Like Pascal's Wager.

I was in a that drousy state between sleep and wakefulness, when all of a sudden I was above the couch looking down at my body. I had attempted to do it before on my own, but never had been able to do it. When it happened, it was cool but it also sort of freaked me out, and I rushed back into my body. It was a very weird experience. I wish I could do it again. I have known people who claimed they could do it whenever they wanted. I have no reason to doubt them.

Juniper;545104 wrote:

A friend of mine said that she believed in the soul as existing apart from the physical body until she had full anesthesia. Then, she said, "where do you go?" I remember what that was like when I had my wisdom teeth out, it was like a chunk of time just didn't exist. You'd think that if the drugs put your body to sleep, your soul would still be around - maybe not to feel pain, but maybe to be aware at least on some level. Of course there's no one to say that it isn't aware on some level and you just don't remember it, sort of like you dream at night and don't always remember your dreams. Or if your soul existed before your were born - another fun thing to think about - you don't remember that experience either, just your current life. But then why wouldn't you remember? What would the point be in having a soul in the first place, if you didn't remember everything and somehow learn from it? Unless the learning is done on a subconscious level, like subliminal programming. Which would explain why some people are just inherently wiser and more sensible than others, independent of their IQ; perhaps they are "old souls." GAH. Shove me in the shallow water before I get too deep.

Yeah, I think about this stuff.

My philosophy professor would just draw a payoff matrix. Like Pascal's Wager.

Juniper, a lot of children remember past lives, but they are taught to forget them, that they aren't real, that they are just dreams or something. But I know a couple of people who have visited places around the world, places they have never been or seen, and when they got there, they knew exactly where everything was. it wasn't deja vu, they knew things on an intimate level, things they would have no way of knowing. One of those people is a witch, the other is a skeptical Christian. I know a lot of people think I'm kinda nutty because of some of my beliefs, it kinda goes with the territory and I'm used to it by now, but I really do believe there is more to this world than people can imagine, much more.

Once I dreamt about some people I had never met. Two weeks later, I met them, and the dream I had came true, exactly as I dreamed it. I was 13 at the time.

sugarpop;545109 wrote:

I was in a that drousy state between sleep and wakefulness...

You know, I don't base my philosophical beliefs on my thinking when I am as close to being unconscious as possible. Personally I think that if you took someone and got them to drink until they were completely smashed, and just before they passed out took a snapshot of their metaphysical outlook on life, having them follow that stance for the rest of their lives is a poor idea. But hey, if you want to live as though the world conformed to your dreamland fantasies that is your prerogative.

OK. Neither do I. But I have extensive experience with trance states, and I mean while NOT using any kind of mind-altering substances. If you've never experienced anything like that, then respectfully, you can't really speak with an open mind about it. How can you? You can't, because you don't know. All you can do is draw on YOUR experiences and knowledge. I'm not trying to tell you what to believe or think, so I would appreciate a little respect in return.

And ftr, I am not discounting scientific explanations of my experiences. I am just saying, I believe there is more to the world than what science can tell us, at this time. I believe science and mysticism are intimately linked. Mysticism, as I am talking about it, is all about energy. Science is all about energy. Physics and mysticism are thought now by many scientists to be closely related.

sugarpop;545109 wrote:

I was in a that drousy state between sleep and wakefulness, when all of a sudden I was above the couch looking down at my body. I had attempted to do it before on my own, but never had been able to do it. When it happened, it was cool but it also sort of freaked me out, and I rushed back into my body. It was a very weird experience. I wish I could do it again. I have known people who claimed they could do it whenever they wanted. I have no reason to doubt them.

I forget what that is called, astro-something.

Could be a lot of things though.

sugarpop wrote:

Once I dreamt about some people I had never met. Two weeks later, I met them, and the dream I had came true, exactly as I dreamed it. I was 13 at the time.

Epilepsy runs in my family, and since puberty I have had partial temporal lobe seizures on a fairly regular basis. These seizures have no physical symptoms (i.e. muscle spasms)--instead the chief symptom is the most intense, convincing deja vu you could ever imagine. It is the memory of the dream which is false, caused by rampant electrical signals in the brain. I've seen it myself on the EEG printouts.

piercehawkeye45;545328 wrote:

I forget what that is called, astro-something.

Astral projection.

Beestie;545366 wrote:

Astral projection.

Thank you.

I'm a immaterial girl.

I've spent a fair amount of time reading and thinking about all that mystical hooha, and my current point of view is close to what clod said, that we can convince ourselves of some pretty amazing stuff. As much fun as it is to believe in dreams, past lives, astral projection, deja vu, etc., I require proof.

Now, if someone could PROVE they "remembered" something despite never having been there in this life, I might believe it. Say, there's some secret cache hidden behind a brick in the home where that person lived in a past life, so he hops on a plane from Texas to some little town in France and digs it up - saying exactly what was in the box before moving the brick -- ta-da! (And a really cool story idea, too.) But just to pop over and say "gosh, this looks so familiar!" Nope.

The trouble with memories is that we often can't remember how we acquired them. I may have read a book 20 years ago about something, then come into contact with it tomorrow and since I couldn't remember reading the book, believe I've *been there.*

My philosophy teacher spoke of a similar example in lecture last week. He said he was driving in the car with his wife, and suddenly it popped into his head to say "whatever happened to..." some celebrity that had dropped off the radar for a dozen years or so. And the next day he read in the newspaper that she had died. Ooh, was that some kind of psychic event he had? No, probably he heard a little blurb on the news but wasn't paying attention enough for it to register consciously. He also spoke of a really vivid childhood memory he had shared with lots of people, then his father heard his story and confirmed that it never happened that way, it was completely impossible. Memories are not trustworthy things.

Synchronicity.

DanaC;545088 wrote:

I'll have to do some digging for the story, Sugar, but I read recently about a series of experiments in which the experience of leaving the body was recreated. I'm not sure if they were using chemical or electrical stimulation of the relevant brain area, but apparently it was a very strange experience for the subjects.

Chemical always seemed to work well for me in the past.

There's a place in the brain that can be magnetically stimulated to create a feeling of 'oneness with the universe'. See here.

For that wonderful, out of body sensation, see here.

There is no spoon.

Some research.

Let's talk about consciousness vs essence. :)

"...is such a thing as a 'soul' or whatever you want to call it(?)"

not likely: at least not likely in the sense of an 'indwelling spirit'

as i self-inspect: i see no evidence of duality...no soul/body or mind/body or brain/body division

what i perceive is 'me' as a whole, as a unit, as separate and discrete from all of you; and as irreducible to parts and process and, therefore, indescribable by way of parts and process

certainly: i'm comprised of pieces, parts, and process but these parts, pieces, and processes fall 'beneath' me, fall 'within' me

the examination of parts and process can tell the inquisitive a lot about 'the flesh' but next to nothing about 'me'

to know about 'me' i must be inspected, interrogated, as 'myself'

so: i am not my brain, but my brain -- as locus for intellect and consciousness -- is a very important part of me

in the same vein: i don't have memories...i remember; i don't have a free will...i choose; etc.


"...there may be a non-material element to our minds, it's certainly very hard to account for consciousness without it"

i'm not sure i buy this, but, really: what bearing does it have on anything?

if i'm an embodied soul...so what?

if i'm a cobbled-together bio-machine...so what?

if i'm something else (mundane or supranatural) entirely...so what?

none of the above possibilities (or any others) have any real bearing on how i choose to comport myself in the world

if scientists, tomorrow, prove without a doubt that i'm just a bio-machine with no special relevance in the world, i should do 'what' because of this information?

i can't imagine such information having any effect on my life...my own, subjective, self-definition as 'henry quirk' trumps all objective definitions... --henry

henry quirk;548993 wrote:

..if scientists, tomorrow, prove without a doubt that i'm just a bio-machine with no special relevance in the world, i should do 'what' because of this information?

I, for one, would kill a lot more hobos. Without cause. :rolleyes:

henry quirk;548993 wrote:

'henry quirk' trumps all objective definitions... --henry

Except for solipsist.

Definition:

sol·ip·sism (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy
1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

"I, for one, would kill a lot more hobos. Without cause."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


"solipsist": a perspective having absolutely nothing to do with my own

read #47 again, within the context of the thread

*sigh*

Cicero;549034 wrote:

snip~ 2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

Yup, that's him.

"Yup, that's him."

if the 'him' you reference is cicero, then, i have no opinion not knowing the person

if the 'him' you reference is 'me', and if -- like cicero -- you believe me to be a solipsist, i have to ask how you come to this conclusion

nothing i've posted here, in this thread, in this forum, or on the net as a whole, could lead anyone to conclude i...

...believe knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified

or

...believe the self is all i know to exist

or

…confine reality to myself and my experiences

or

...believe nothing exists except my mind and the creations of my mind

or

...believe i alone exist or i alone am conscious

*shrug*

mayhap the best way to proceed: who is the 'him' you're talking 'bout?

"Watchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

The Immaterial Mind

Isn't that when
I say "I mind" and
she says "That's immaterial"

lol @ classic! :)

Well if all objective definitions have been trumped by henry quick.....And you talk about henry quick so much, all self......leads to solipsistic tendencies...But if you say "nay" then I will have to take your word for it! :)

Sorry, I need to go trump myself. Gotta run!

"Well if all objective definitions have been trumped by henry quick"

folks who respond to posts in threads really, really, really need to keep the thread, the context of the discussion, in mind


"And you talk about henry quick so much, all self"

context, context, context


"leads to solipsistic tendencies"

i'm an egoist: there's no doubt of that

but, if i were a solipsist: i wouldn't waste my time having conversations with what i could only assume were the retarded parts of my own psyche


"go trump myself"

yes: 'trumping' yourself sounds like a good idea...

henry quirk;549693 wrote:

"Well if all objective definitions have been trumped by henry quick"

folks who respond to posts in threads really, really, really need to keep the thread, the context of the discussion, in mind



but, if i were a solipsist: i wouldn't waste my time having conversations with what i could only assume were the retarded parts of my own psyche


yes: 'trumping' yourself sounds like a good idea...

No seriously, you aren't clearly subjective if you trump all objectivity?

Your definition of solipsist looks screwy. Is it to obfuscate my portion of discussion? Yes?

Cicero;549034 wrote:

sol·ip·sism (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy
1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.

In the sense that I believe that cogito, ergo sum is the only conclusion that one can make with 100% certainty, I would probably technically count as a solipsist under definition one.

"God does not exist" is a different conclusion, so I obviously can't make it with 100% certainty. So I am also technically an agnostic.

In practice, though, I am an atheist who believes that other people exist.

I like the "I am" part....."I think, therefore" was attached later. It is a good qualifier, but I am still uncertain whether or not it needs one.

I agree with you HM, on all counts. ;)

"No seriously, you aren't clearly subjective if you trump all objectivity?"

did i post that?

no

this is what i posted, in part: 'if scientists, tomorrow, prove without a doubt that i'm just a bio-machine with no special relevance in the world, i should do 'what' because of this information?'

'i can't imagine such information having any effect on my life...my own, subjective, self-definition as 'henry quirk' trumps all objective definitions...'

context is everything...

Yah, I got that. But see, I lost interest when you got combative. Bored. lol!

if i bore you: don't waste your (or my) time responding... ;)

*sigh*

yes: i'm an asshole...sorry

i forget sometimes: all this, as substantial as angel farts and ghost whispers...and worth about as much... --henry

henry quirk;549726 wrote:

i'm an asshole...sorry
--henry

I got that after about post 3, but so am I whats yer point?

I rather enjoyed Henry's posts in this thread.

So have I.

DanaC;549952 wrote:

I rather enjoyed Henry's posts in this thread.

Me too, and I dont understand why all of a sudden he became a target.

Yeah, I'm not getting that either. I like Henry, and think he has a lot to add to the conversation.

I do hope he learns to use the quote tags, though. ;)

"whats yer point?"

my point: i don't need to be an asshole so early in the conversation

that is: nothing happened in this thread or forum to set off my assholism gland

that's why i apologized

i can take it back if you like... ;)

-----

"I rather enjoyed Henry's posts in this thread."

thank you, dana!

-----

"So have I."

and: thank you too, classic!

-----

"Me too, and I dont understand why all of a sudden he became a target."

it's very simple, pico/me: i'm an ill-fitting piece without tact

-----

"Yeah, I'm not getting that either. I like Henry, and think he has a lot to add to the conversation."

thanks, shawnee!

"I do hope he learns to use the quote tags, though."

HA! not bloody likely... :)

;) Aw come on, give it a try. It's FUN.

"Aw come on, give it a try. It's FUN"

my way is simpler, more fun, and more in keeping with 'me' (a bold and combative contrarian)

after all: my signature IS 'non serviam' ;)

SIMPLER? Dude, highlight text, hit quote bubble. You don't have to quote from a post. No more keystrokes than quotation marks and the value-added bonus that it's easier to read.

Or not, do what you want, henry quirk. ;)

"SIMPLER?"

for me

"do what you want"

...non serviam, non serviam, non serviam...

;)

Get on your knees, henry quirk. :lol:

Just kidding.

;)

on <my> knees: only to provide a service to a willing and worthy grrrl... ;)

Great! I'll take a cheeseburger and a coke. :lol:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

DanaC;549952 wrote:

I rather enjoyed Henry's posts in this thread.

So do I. He is just the new kid on the block to be subjected to be bullied because 1) he is new 2) people want him to conform.

I'm not sure I'd class it as bullying. A difference of opinion and a possible clash of personalities. Nobody appears upset or overwhelmed.

I'm not sure what you guys are talking about, but this Mongolian beef tastes awesome!

Cic, I don't think I have even seen a place to get good mongolian beef since we lived in Hawaii in the late 80's.

well, just finally read through all the replies *mops brow*

it's been interesting to read everyone's points of view.

I realise I didn't phrase the start very well, my main point was about whether there is a non-physical aspect to the mind, such as how can we account for what it is like to perceive the colour red (just saying that's what light of a certain wavelength looks like doesn't seem to provide enough of an explanation), or what it is like to have a thought about something - to say it's neurons firing again doesn't seem to get us very far. It was misleading of me to mention the soul, as that's really a separate issue.

btw Henry I wasn't suggesting that the answer to any of these questions should change your life, I was simply interested in peoples' views. I personally have a fascination with philosophy/psychology but if you're not interested or don't care then fine.

...just the new kid on the block to be subjected to be bullied because 1) he is new 2) people want him to conform.

(((it's no big thing)))

(((i'm a big boy, with thick skin)))

(((i can take a hit or two...and dish it out just as well)))

(((so, again: no big thing...)))

-----

.....my main point was about whether there is a non-physical aspect to the mind, such as how can we account for what it is like to perceive the colour red (just saying that's what light of a certain wavelength looks like doesn't seem to provide enough of an explanation), or what it is like to have a thought about something - to say it's neurons firing again doesn't seem to get us very far. It was misleading of me to mention the soul, as that's really a separate issue.

(((my point, in response, is the mistake is to seek a duality or a division in the person)))

(((it's a wrong-headed to talk about the soul as it is neurons firing)))

(((in the first case: there's no evidence to suggest an in-dwelling spirit...in the second: what and who i am as henry quirk is not merely about brain, but about the totality of the flesh, from the top of my bald head clear down to the tips of my gargoyle feet)))

(((the human individual, to be understood as human individual, is irreducible to piece and part; indefinable as simply member of a species...to begin even scratching the surface of the human individual one must investigate the whole of the individual, as objective artifact AND as subjective entity...in other words: to suss out the individual one must approach him or her AS individual: singular, unique, idiosyncratic)))

(((and redness IS in the light, but the meaning of redness is only in 'me')))


...I personally have a fascination with philosophy/psychology but if you're not interested or don't care then fine.

(((i do care...deeply...i just have a different approach than you...*shrug*)))

if one conceives "soul" as something coexistent with Self and inhering therein, i can see no need for a separate word ("soul") and would thus want to borrow the razor to excise it as a superfluity. if, on the other hand, one conceives "soul" as perhaps something outside Self that simply reaches into Self temporarily, like water filling a crack, until a 'person' dies, i must wonder what distinguishes this from "life force" or "god" or whatever.
and, while the answer might be interesting, i doubt we are constitutionally equipped for answering it in a way that would satisfy any scientist. we may indeed gather more information as we extend our reach and our eyes with the tools we construct, but there may yet be mental limitations to contend with. just as the questions of quantum physics reduce to questions of an uncaused cause we cannot conceive, so too may we be unable to comprehend a "soul" greater than the individual.
as far as i can tell consciousness is an epiphenomenon of neural activity, achieving 'reality' only as does a virtual particle, when its existence is suspended (as a ping-pong ball might be 'suspended' on a cushion of air, not in the sense of 'suspended animation') by a certain threshold and concentration _of activity. 'self', then, would be a construct representing what consciousness 'controls' or finds most permanently attached (to it'self', haha). if there is a "higher" (greater) consciousness (universal 'soul') arising from the activity of All, we would have to comprehend All to comprehend _it. a part that can comprehend the whole seems a bit paradoxical.
hope that's not a thread-killer lol

__________________
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. --Emerson