Hey "Soul" Sister!

[skepticalbip]

View attachment 2902

Wouldn't the soul being something separate from the brain make it difficult to explain how injury or removal of some of the brain would erase memory and change personality?

OK..I am going to make a bet here.

As a psych major...I am of course familiar with the story of Phineas Gage. You learn it in 101 class.

So I am gonna bet that is your link..which I swear on my brand new TAMA drum set (LOL) I have not opened yet, is about Gage and how he completely changed after that steel tamping rod was blasted through his skull.

Let me see now.......

Nope. I was talking about humans, in general, that experience brain injury or after undergoing surgery for brain tumors. Gage was just one of many, many thousands of people who have had brain injury change their personality or lost memories or had personality changes because of changes in the brain due to injury or surgery.

The image of the chimp was supposed to be humor, playing on your comment about what would inspire incredulity for you.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What exactly WOULD you consider to be evidence of a soul? What is it that you feel a soul does that a brain cannot do?

 

[Shadowy Man]

That's pretty much a textbook example of 'argument from incredulity.' The 'notion' makes no sense to you so you reject it in favor of one that does.

So be it.

But then: is that not the original state of mind that spurs men to search for the real truths? Like scientists?

One example would be Mickelson-Morley. They were "incredulous" of the Ether. So they proved it did not exist.

Or Copernicus, who was incredulous of the idea the Sun orbited the Earth. He believed it was the other way around.

So he proved it. That Earth orbit existed.

Like we proved germs exist.

Jenner proved vaccines

Or radiation.

Or proving the idea of your beloved IC chip. A person from 1950 would be incredulous that a chip of silicon the size of your fingernail could hold works in the entire Library of Congress.

With no incredulity would we not be stuck in our present state of knowledge? With no reason to learn?

Now you're just playing word games.

Copernicus didn't make the following logical argument:

"I don't understand how the Sun could move around the Earth; therefore, the Earth goes around the Sun."

However, you are making an argument following this format:

"I don't understand (or can't believe) X is true, therefore unsubstantiated Y must be true."

As Keith&Co stated, this is classic "argument from incredulity".

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's pretty much a textbook example of 'argument from incredulity.' The 'notion' makes no sense to you so you reject it in favor of one that does.

So be it.

But then: is that not the original state of mind that spurs men to search for the real truths? Like scientists?

Even if we accept that usage here, there's a big difference between, "I don't believe that so imma do some experiments' and
'I don't believe that so imma say it's not true.'


It's like the difference between a scientist who says 'god only knows' which means 'we haven't found out yet,' and a creationist who says 'god only knows' and that's the end of the discussion.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

I don't know what you mean by "classical sense", but assuredly many animals have self-awareness. Having spent the last two decades living with cats, I can safely say that these animals are sentient. They may not have the same "brainpower" that I have, but they are not 'machines' running solely on instinct.

Yeah, as a kid I remember how fascinating it was that our 2 pet dogs had such vastly distinct and different personalities from each other, and how much they even disliked each other personally, just like humans can and often do. Animals have individuality and are sentient and cognitive too, it is not just humans that are. With animals having distinctive personas, but also not having souls, then it is unnecessary to invoke souls or anything else magical or supernatural to explain human personas either. It is probably erroneous, even.

<Speaking as someone very glad to have lived after Darwin discovered natural selection, as well. So much more of life would have been more confusing before his breakthroughs.>

Brian

Darwin spoke nothing on the soul. Apples and oranges.

I am as big an Evolutionist as anyone, freindo.

Your dogs had "vastly distinct" neurotransmitter-fueled feedback loops. They did not posses the ability to, say, get misty-eyed or even cry at the beauty of a sunset or a newborn baby. Or mourn for famine victims. Or feel anger for global terrorism. They would eat food off your dead corpse for days if locked in the house and then warm-up to a new master in a matter of weeks. One who might also marvel at their different feedback and cognition loops.

To compare our minds and sentience with your dogs is to show little appreciation, nee, knowledge of our vastly more complex being.

 

[Keith&Co.]

p.s. you really believe in reincarnation?

I find that interesting.

I used to. But then ran into some logic problems.

Like ghosts, it's something I had some personal, subjective experience with it that has influenced me.

I think it's real. I don't know what 'it' is, though.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

What exactly WOULD you consider to be evidence of a soul? What is it that you feel a soul does that a brain cannot do?

See my answer to Shadow Man's "dogs" comparison for examples of what it can do.

Or..I can post a hundred more?

Your call.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What exactly WOULD you consider to be evidence of a soul? What is it that you feel a soul does that a brain cannot do?

See my answer to Shadow Man's "dogs" comparison for examples of what it can do.

Or..I can post a hundred more?

Your call.

OK, why do you feel that the brain cannot do those things? How are our reactions, say, to newborn baby distinctly different from a dog's reaction to its puppies, other than being a more advanced form of the same emotions? I'm just trying to parse out how your argument is essentially different from saying "crocodiles can bite harder than chickens, so therefore you can't say that their jaws are what causes both animals to bite down". Crocodiles can do it better, therefore it must be a completely different thing as opposed to a better version of the same thing.

 

[RavenSky]

No. Therefore it is, I believe, far far easier to explain their "personalities" via merely neurological mechanisms.

Not so easy with us, though!

So, argument from complexity? We just have too much of an emotional range to not have souls?

Argument from inaccuracy, more like. Various other animals (dolphins, chimps, magpies are the best known) have been shown to be self-aware so his argument fails at the first sentence.

 

[Brian63]

Darwin spoke nothing on the soul. Apples and oranges.

Wow. I was just making an offhand comment about being glad to be alive in more modern times when more of biology is understood, particularly than was prior to the discovery and study of natural selection. It was somewhat related, but admittedly somewhat unrelated, but I had no idea it was going to be so misread and so misunderstood. Whether Darwin said anything about the soul has no relevance to any point I was making. I retract the comment that brought it up. Let's just focus on the more key area, here:

Your dogs had "vastly distinct" neurotransmitter-fueled feedback loops. They did not posses the ability to, say, get misty-eyed or even cry at the beauty of a sunset or a newborn baby. Or mourn for famine victims. Or feel anger for global terrorism. They would eat food off your dead corpse for days if locked in the house and then warm-up to a new master in a matter of weeks. One who might also marvel at their different feedback and cognition loops.

To compare our minds and sentience with your dogs is to show little appreciation, nee, knowledge of our vastly more complex being.

Seriously? It is okay to compare the minds and brains and abilities of different animals with each other. Doing so does not mean we are equating them, and doing so is not an insult to anyone anyway. It is just making an observation of characteristics that different animals have in common. If you think the statement is wrong, fine, you can make your point then. It is a bit excessive to also be making the personally denigrating comments though. If you want to stay on topic, that would be fine. Otherwise, I really do not feel like playing this game.

Brian

 

[RavenSky]

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/elephant_african_mourning

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dlife-film-maker-reveals-animals-like-us.html

 

[abaddon]

It’s always a big mistake when anyone goes on about what nonhuman animals can’t do. Pretty much all the ancient biases and their current phrasings about the limits of nonhuman animals will be demolished as animal studies continue to turn up new and surprising findings about how far more complex animal minds are than anyone had guessed.

- - - Updated - - -

About Souls:

There’s an ancient notion that the physical is “lower” that the non-physical or spiritual because it’s limited, as we can see when we jump off a cliff and fall instead of fly, whereas when we close our eyes and enter a nonphysical imaginal body we can fly.

The problem is mistaking the imaginary body as an entity separable from the physical body.

It’s an instance of going with what seems “intuitive” or “feels right” rather than setting that aside and trying to be more objective (to the extent that that’s possible).

What gets me though is the perpetual notion that the physical is incapable of doing anything extremely complex. “A mere brain can’t do that!”

Why aren’t we asserting instead that “A mere spirit or soul can’t do that!”

The second assertion seems to me the most right thing to do. I have a vague idea of the extreme complexity of the workings of the brain. But how does a soul work, what’s the complexity in its workings? Sounds like a homogeneous blob to me, for lacking the solidity of physicality.

I think people turn to it precisely because there’s nothing there to describe in detail, so all the details can just be passed over and there you go: an “answer”. And if they’re committed to defending the notion, they do it by attacking the physical (and the earth and its animals in general) for being dumb.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Your dogs had "vastly distinct" neurotransmitter-fueled feedback loops. They did not posses the ability to, say, get misty-eyed or even cry at the beauty of a sunset or a newborn baby. Or mourn for famine victims. Or feel anger for global terrorism. They would eat food off your dead corpse for days if locked in the house and then warm-up to a new master in a matter of weeks. One who might also marvel at their different feedback and cognition loops.

To compare our minds and sentience with your dogs is to show little appreciation, nee, knowledge of our vastly more complex being.

That two things lie on a spectrum need not mean they lie at the same place on that spectrum. "More complex" does not necessitate the supernatural.

 

[fromderinside]

But it got me wondering: How many of you believe in it?

That is to say: some sort of "life spark" or "divine animation" or "undefined energy source" that drives us and cannot be reduced to being of purely neurological and biological properties?

Don't believe it.

Seems we wouldn't need senses if we had souls.

But there ya go. We got senses apparently since life began to swim as multicellular stuff. We're not unique because our brains are connected differently (we stand on two legs they don't) than are those of dogs. We don't foresee what is coming so we don' predict, have freewill, and we we aren't some other supernatural being's creation given dominion over all other life forms.

Time for elsewhere.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

So, argument from complexity? We just have too much of an emotional range to not have souls?

Argument from inaccuracy, more like. Various other animals (dolphins, chimps, magpies are the best known) have been shown to be self-aware so his argument fails at the first sentence.

My argument fails nowhere, but is merely open to speculation.

And.. I think you are rating too whatever smattering of awareness animals might have. Sure, then know they are alive, but there has been zero proof offered that they posses any concept of "the big picture" or their place in the cosmos. They do not ponder life and death.

It seems like you’re taking a lot of assumptions into consideration. The fact that social animals have a hierarchy doesn’t necessarily imply that they are self-evident. First, I think you would have to disprove the idea that these social groupings are genetic.

It’s quite possible that through natural selection, these animals have adapted a trait which makes them social which makes sense because the animals who have a genetic predisposition to group together would have a higher chance of surviving. If this is the case, then the idea that these animals are social isn’t enough to suggest self-awareness. Also, being aware of other animals doesn’t necessarily imply self-awareness. It’s possible to be aware, unconsciously, of light but not be aware of your self in relation to light.

It seems almost far-fetched and hard to imagine because we live in our minds and can’t imagine a world without conscious thought; however, it’s been proven in humans who have had extreme damage to a certain part of their brain at a young age so that they can’t see, that although they are “blind,” when asked to “guess” visual things such as the shape of a book they are accurate above 80% of the time which is too high to be attributed to chance. In this example, they are unaware that they are aware of their visual abilities because their brain can’t process vision the same way a normal human brain can but they can still show what they see.

So.... although they are not self-aware of their visual abilities, their subconscious mind is aware of the world outside of it.

It’s these arguments which lead scientists to argue that not all mammals have consciousness; however, it is a “curse” of human self-consciousness to anthropomorphize.

Animals on the other hand cannot possibly do this--that is, whatever an animal version of "anthropomorphize" would be.

 

[RavenSky]

Argument from inaccuracy, more like. Various other animals (dolphins, chimps, magpies are the best known) have been shown to be self-aware so his argument fails at the first sentence.

My argument fails nowhere, but is merely open to speculation.

You said:

After all: they don't have self-awareness. Thus are not sentient beings...

This does not sound like you speculating. It sounds like you making statements. Your statements were factually wrong.

And.. I think you are rating too whatever smattering of awareness animals might have. Sure, then know they are alive, but there has been zero proof offered that they posses any concept of "the big picture" or their place in the cosmos. They do not ponder life and death.

It seems like you’re taking a lot of assumptions into consideration. The fact that social animals have a hierarchy doesn’t necessarily imply that they are self-evident.

I am not the one assuming anything here. I am simply looking at what scientific studies have shown.

First, I think you would have to disprove the idea that these social groupings are genetic.

Wrong. I don't have to disprove anything. You are the one positing the existence of a "soul", therefore the burden is on you to show evidence for your concept of "soul"

It’s quite possible that through natural selection, these animals have adapted a trait which makes them social which makes sense because the animals who have a genetic predisposition to group together would have a higher chance of surviving.

Oh my goodness!!!! Just like homo sapiens?!?!?

If this is the case, then the idea that these animals are social isn’t enough to suggest self-awareness. Also, being aware of other animals doesn’t necessarily imply self-awareness. It’s possible to be aware, unconsciously, of light but not be aware of your self in relation to light.

In other words, current research into animal self-awareness doesn't sit well with your belief in a human soul, therefore you will refuse to look at the research into it. OK

It seems almost far-fetched and hard to imagine because we live in our minds and can’t imagine a world without conscious thought; however, it’s been proven in humans who have had extreme damage to a certain part of their brain at a young age so that they can’t see, that although they are “blind,” when asked to “guess” visual things such as the shape of a book they are accurate above 80% of the time which is too high to be attributed to chance. In this example, they are unaware that they are aware of their visual abilities because their brain can’t process vision the same way a normal human brain can but they can still show what they see.

So.... although they are not self-aware of their visual abilities, their subconscious mind is aware of the world outside of it.

1. noticeable lack of citation/link to source 2. so what

It’s these arguments which lead scientists to argue that not all mammals have consciousness;

again 1. noticeable lack of citation/link to source 2. so what and 3. I never said "all mammals" nor even just mammals, unless you think magpies are mammals

however, it is a “curse” of human self-consciousness to anthropomorphize.

It is also a "curse" of human self-consciousness to imagine we are so very special that only we have "souls" and then create elaborate fairy-tales (a/k/a religions) around these imaginings

Animals on the other hand cannot possibly do this--that is, whatever an animal version of "anthropomorphize" would be.

How do you know?

 

[abaddon]

It’s quite possible that through natural selection, these animals have adapted a trait which makes them social which makes sense because the animals who have a genetic predisposition to group together would have a higher chance of surviving.

Oh my goodness!!!! Just like homo sapiens?!?!?

That one stood out for me.

Homo sapiens would have died out ages ago from their outstanding capacity for replacing reality with unworldly imaginations (though generally ones that act as “social glue”) if they weren’t evolved to be social animals.

 

[Kharakov]

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/elephant_african_mourning

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dlife-film-maker-reveals-animals-like-us.html

I read about some corvids mourning their dead as well.

 

[RavenSky]

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/elephant_african_mourning

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dlife-film-maker-reveals-animals-like-us.html

I read about some corvids mourning their dead as well.

In addition to using tools and problem-solving (and drinking beer LOL )

 

[Kharakov]

Dude, why does your soul end up in the same body when you wake up in the morning, when the sunup side of the earth takes 7 minutes to reach the spot where the sundown side is?

Are you saying that your soul is attached to the material in your brain by some type of tether? Maybe a strap? Could be some sort of webbing, perhaps. I bet every night, right before you fall asleep, Spiderman shoots soul webbing to attach your soul to your brain.


Just joking. Of course, in the vast universal mind, it's pretty easy to have a small portion of the beings calculate where certain things are supposed to appear when someone examines them. There are literally billions of souls in each of us: one for every particle, all trying to work out the kinks of making large scale permanently aware beings in the easiest possible manner.

Or I'm joking again. Of course if you look at the infinite amount of information that (smooth) spacetime holds within it, you could easily see that spacetiime could easily hold more information, such as love, the past trajectory of particles and their interactions, and lots of other stuff. It's just the little minds that need a little direction... getting distracted from the big mind by their supportive interactions with one another.

You know what a racist electron is? A positron.