Hey "Soul" Sister!

[ryan]

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.

Why can't the soul just be a function of physical interactions (parallelism)?

After reading this entire thread, I have not seen Saint_of_Me claim what the soul's behavior is. Your concern doesn't really hurt the argument. I remember you trying to pull that one with me, but I didn't answer because it's not really a problem.

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.

Or how about a soul?!

It's just the little minds that need a little direction... getting distracted from the big mind by their supportive interactions with one another.

And exactly how is "big mind" reducible (please don't try to answer this). Everything is suppose to reduce down to the elementary particles. There shouldn't be a selection of particles; there should only be particles..

 

[Saint_of_Me]

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.

Yeah, there are many anthropologists who agree with this. Our minds are obsessed with finding "patterns" and "causes" for everything.

This of course served us well on the unforgiving African savannahs..."Hmm....we find wild bore dropping here every morning after it rains...so they must come to drink at night" or "that other hostile tribe seems to attack us when the moon is full."

But nowadays we do not need that so much, and therefore we have inherited some unnecessary and even detrimental by-products from our pre-frontal cortex's habit to seek "the big picture."

Conspiracy theories are an example. Our mind hates to accept randomness and chance. And mundane-ness. Ergo: it is difficult to fathom that an angry little communist wannabe who was spurned by his beloved USSR would take down a beloved American president in a matter of seconds on a winter days in Dallas.

Rather, we insist there must be some sort of pattern here. A bigger picture lurking. The CIA and the Mafia and our own Government did it!

Religion and the belief in Gods are other examples of the homo sapien sapien's mind's insistence on looking for patterns and causes and reasons when, alas, there are none.

 

[Kharakov]

Why can't the soul just be a function of physical interactions (parallelism)?

Something induced in spacetime by the presence of matter?

And exactly how is "big mind" reducible (please don't try to answer this). Everything is suppose to reduce down to the elementary particles.

Really. Isn't it simpler for everything to reduce to many interacting minds projecting and amplifying a more certain reality, while exchanging specific local information (gluons) with networked local minds (locality being projected and reinforced by individual minds) and being able to interact with minds focused and projecting similar interests?

Certain greater concepts might be projected by all minds, all levels, from electrons on up to spacetime.

 

[ryan]

Something induced in spacetime by the presence of matter?

If space-time is smooth, then there might infinite possibilities of information that can be gathered about any system - we would be in the magical world of infinity. There would be no obvious reason why strange things like the Banach–Tarski paradox couldn't be a reality.

And exactly how is "big mind" reducible (please don't try to answer this). Everything is suppose to reduce down to the elementary particles.

Really. Isn't it simpler for everything to reduce to many interacting minds projecting and amplifying a more certain reality, while exchanging specific local information (gluons) with networked local minds (locality being projected and reinforced by individual minds) and being able to interact with minds focused and projecting similar interests?

That's what we should expect. Except I can give you an example of why I believe that there is more to the universe than just particles.

Imagine you have 100 people together in a room. Each person has some different mental state. One is happy, one is sad, one feels guilty, one is reading, etc. Obviously we would think that there are 100 different mental states in the room at some point in time t. Except, somehow, you find out that there is another mental state; that would be 101 mental states in total. This "extra" state is not only unnecessarily in addition to the 100 states, it is also a collective state. It may or may not have any particular state that the states have. Either way, this state simply comes out of nowhere and is neither observable nor definable.

That is exactly what is going on with brains if each particle had its own elementary mental state. But somehow brains emerge minds/thoughts holistically and singularly from a collection of other entities (and you might as well call it the soul excluding the religious implications).

We are not used to seeing an apple appear out of nowhere when ten oranges are in a certain arrangement, but it seems as though this is the reality we find ourselves in.

 

[Kharakov]

If space-time is smooth, then there might infinite possibilities of information that can be gathered about any system - we would be in the magical world of infinity.

Who said we weren't?

Everything is suppose to reduce down to the elementary particles.

Really. Isn't it simpler for everything to reduce to many interacting minds projecting and amplifying a more certain reality, while exchanging specific local information (gluons) with networked local minds (locality being projected and reinforced by individual minds) and being able to interact with minds focused and projecting similar interests?

That's what we should expect. Except I can give you an example of why I believe that there is more to the universe than just particles.

All right, don't know if you noticed, but I wasn't talking about particles.

This "extra" state is not only unnecessarily in addition to the 100 states, it is also a collective state. It may or may not have any particular state that the states have. Either way, this state simply comes out of nowhere and is neither observable nor definable.

Ok. What if instead of being completely separate, this state influences the 100 states in the room, or at least the individual states that were receptive to it?

That is exactly what is going on with brains if each particle had its own elementary mental state. But somehow brains emerge minds/thoughts holistically and singularly from a collection of other entities (and you might as well call it the soul excluding the religious implications).

Don't call it a soul. You'll cause a religiophobic inflammation. Just call it a human mind. That's good enough.

Elementary particles combine various effects- creating complex patterns of EM, and who knows what other information they are passing on other levels that we don't observe. Or at least I don't observe.

We are not used to seeing an apple appear out of nowhere when ten oranges are in a certain arrangement, but it seems as though this is the reality we find ourselves in.

I'm pretty much all right with apples not appearing out of nowhere. Now, watermelons, I could definitely stack a few oranges and have a watermelon appear. That would be an awesome trick. Hopefully get to keep the oranges too.

 

[bilby]

If space-time is smooth, then there might infinite possibilities of information that can be gathered about any system - we would be in the magical world of infinity. There would be no obvious reason why strange things like the Banach–Tarski paradox couldn't be a reality.

And exactly how is "big mind" reducible (please don't try to answer this). Everything is suppose to reduce down to the elementary particles.

Really. Isn't it simpler for everything to reduce to many interacting minds projecting and amplifying a more certain reality, while exchanging specific local information (gluons) with networked local minds (locality being projected and reinforced by individual minds) and being able to interact with minds focused and projecting similar interests?

That's what we should expect. Except I can give you an example of why I believe that there is more to the universe than just particles.

Imagine you have 100 people together in a room. Each person has some different mental state. One is happy, one is sad, one feels guilty, one is reading, etc. Obviously we would think that there are 100 different mental states in the room at some point in time t. Except, somehow, you find out that there is another mental state; that would be 101 mental states in total. This "extra" state is not only unnecessarily in addition to the 100 states, it is also a collective state. It may or may not have any particular state that the states have. Either way, this state simply comes out of nowhere and is neither observable nor definable.

That is exactly what is going on with brains if each particle had its own elementary mental state. But somehow brains emerge minds/thoughts holistically and singularly from a collection of other entities (and you might as well call it the soul excluding the religious implications).

We are not used to seeing an apple appear out of nowhere when ten oranges are in a certain arrangement, but it seems as though this is the reality we find ourselves in.

But we are used to seeing a car appear out of nowhere when various bits of metal, rubber and glass are arranged just so. None of the parts will get you to work on time. Disassemble my car, and I will feel that I have lost something of great value, despite still being in possession of all the parts. A pile of car parts isn't a car; it doesn't do any of the things expected of a car. The pattern is the car.

A bunch of compression waves in the air isn't music; but some particular patterns of compression waves are. The music is not hiding in any of the molecules of Nitrogen or Oxygen. It is the pattern that is music, not the substrate.

A bunch of neurons isn't a brain. But a pattern of neurons can be a brain. And a pattern of brain activity can be a mind.

A stack of oranges isn't an apple; but it might be a pyramid. Any greengrocer can make a pyramid of apples; and yet no apple is pyramidal in shape. Where did the pyramid come from?

You claim to be unfamiliar with the concept that an arrangement of objects can give rise to a new and fundamentally different object;, but the fact is you are so familiar with it that you can't see the wood for the trees - leading to dumb statements like "We are not used to seeing an apple appear out of nowhere when ten oranges are in a certain arrangement". We are not used to seeing an automobile appear out of nowhere when there are certain patterns of compression waves in air either. But both music and cars are, nonetheless, properties of the pattern, as well as the presence, of their parts.

 

[ryan]

Don't call it a soul. You'll cause a religiophobic inflammation. Just call it a human mind. That's good enough.

On that note, there isn't really much to argue about. To me, the mind is like a soul except that we don't know what happens to it after death.

 

[bilby]

Don't call it a soul. You'll cause a religiophobic inflammation. Just call it a human mind. That's good enough.

On that note, there isn't really much to argue about. To me, the mind is like a soul except that we don't know what happens to it after death.

The same thing that happens to the pyramid when the greengrocer un-stacks his oranges.

 

[ryan]

If space-time is smooth, then there might infinite possibilities of information that can be gathered about any system - we would be in the magical world of infinity. There would be no obvious reason why strange things like the Banach–Tarski paradox couldn't be a reality.

And exactly how is "big mind" reducible (please don't try to answer this). Everything is suppose to reduce down to the elementary particles.

Really. Isn't it simpler for everything to reduce to many interacting minds projecting and amplifying a more certain reality, while exchanging specific local information (gluons) with networked local minds (locality being projected and reinforced by individual minds) and being able to interact with minds focused and projecting similar interests?

That's what we should expect. Except I can give you an example of why I believe that there is more to the universe than just particles.

Imagine you have 100 people together in a room. Each person has some different mental state. One is happy, one is sad, one feels guilty, one is reading, etc. Obviously we would think that there are 100 different mental states in the room at some point in time t. Except, somehow, you find out that there is another mental state; that would be 101 mental states in total. This "extra" state is not only unnecessarily in addition to the 100 states, it is also a collective state. It may or may not have any particular state that the states have. Either way, this state simply comes out of nowhere and is neither observable nor definable.

That is exactly what is going on with brains if each particle had its own elementary mental state. But somehow brains emerge minds/thoughts holistically and singularly from a collection of other entities (and you might as well call it the soul excluding the religious implications).

We are not used to seeing an apple appear out of nowhere when ten oranges are in a certain arrangement, but it seems as though this is the reality we find ourselves in.

But we are used to seeing a car appear out of nowhere when various bits of metal, rubber and glass are arranged just so. None of the parts will get you to work on time. Disassemble my car, and I will feel that I have lost something of great value, despite still being in possession of all the parts. A pile of car parts isn't a car; it doesn't do any of the things expected of a car. The pattern is the car.

The car does what the particles do.

A bunch of compression waves in the air isn't music; but some particular patterns of compression waves are. The music is not hiding in any of the molecules of Nitrogen or Oxygen. It is the pattern that is music, not the substrate.

A bunch of neurons isn't a brain. But a pattern of neurons can be a brain. And a pattern of brain activity can be a mind.

These are all things that the properties of the particles add up to. Unless there is a mind property in each particle, the mind comes from nowhere, hard emergence as they say.

A stack of oranges isn't an apple; but it might be a pyramid. Any greengrocer can make a pyramid of apples; and yet no apple is pyramidal in shape. Where did the pyramid come from?

It is your mind that outlines a pyramid arbitrarily. I can see a pyramid in anything if I want to.

You claim to be unfamiliar with the concept that an arrangement of objects can give rise to a new and fundamentally different object;, but the fact is you are so familiar with it that you can't see the wood for the trees - leading to dumb statements like "We are not used to seeing an apple appear out of nowhere when ten oranges are in a certain arrangement". We are not used to seeing an automobile appear out of nowhere when there are certain patterns of compression waves in air either. But both music and cars are, nonetheless, properties of the pattern, as well as the presence, of their parts.

Do you really think that the mind is the same kind of emergence as a car? The car does not come in addition to the particles that are arranged as a car. The car is the particles, and the particles are the car. The rocks in your head are not your mind, and your mind is not the rocks in your head.

 

[bilby]

If space-time is smooth, then there might infinite possibilities of information that can be gathered about any system - we would be in the magical world of infinity. There would be no obvious reason why strange things like the Banach–Tarski paradox couldn't be a reality.

And exactly how is "big mind" reducible (please don't try to answer this). Everything is suppose to reduce down to the elementary particles.

Really. Isn't it simpler for everything to reduce to many interacting minds projecting and amplifying a more certain reality, while exchanging specific local information (gluons) with networked local minds (locality being projected and reinforced by individual minds) and being able to interact with minds focused and projecting similar interests?

That's what we should expect. Except I can give you an example of why I believe that there is more to the universe than just particles.

Imagine you have 100 people together in a room. Each person has some different mental state. One is happy, one is sad, one feels guilty, one is reading, etc. Obviously we would think that there are 100 different mental states in the room at some point in time t. Except, somehow, you find out that there is another mental state; that would be 101 mental states in total. This "extra" state is not only unnecessarily in addition to the 100 states, it is also a collective state. It may or may not have any particular state that the states have. Either way, this state simply comes out of nowhere and is neither observable nor definable.

That is exactly what is going on with brains if each particle had its own elementary mental state. But somehow brains emerge minds/thoughts holistically and singularly from a collection of other entities (and you might as well call it the soul excluding the religious implications).

We are not used to seeing an apple appear out of nowhere when ten oranges are in a certain arrangement, but it seems as though this is the reality we find ourselves in.

But we are used to seeing a car appear out of nowhere when various bits of metal, rubber and glass are arranged just so. None of the parts will get you to work on time. Disassemble my car, and I will feel that I have lost something of great value, despite still being in possession of all the parts. A pile of car parts isn't a car; it doesn't do any of the things expected of a car. The pattern is the car.

The car does what the particles do.

A bunch of compression waves in the air isn't music; but some particular patterns of compression waves are. The music is not hiding in any of the molecules of Nitrogen or Oxygen. It is the pattern that is music, not the substrate.

A bunch of neurons isn't a brain. But a pattern of neurons can be a brain. And a pattern of brain activity can be a mind.

These are all things that the properties of the particles add up to. Unless there is a mind property in each particle, the mind comes from nowhere, hard emergence as they say.

And by the same reasoning, unless there is a car property in each component, and a music property in each air molecule...

A stack of oranges isn't an apple; but it might be a pyramid. Any greengrocer can make a pyramid of apples; and yet no apple is pyramidal in shape. Where did the pyramid come from?

It is your mind that outlines a pyramid arbitrarily. I can see a pyramid in anything if I want to.

No, a pyramid is not arbitrary. It is a defined geometric shape. You can't see a pyramid in an orange. But you can see a pyramidal stack of oranges.

You claim to be unfamiliar with the concept that an arrangement of objects can give rise to a new and fundamentally different object;, but the fact is you are so familiar with it that you can't see the wood for the trees - leading to dumb statements like "We are not used to seeing an apple appear out of nowhere when ten oranges are in a certain arrangement". We are not used to seeing an automobile appear out of nowhere when there are certain patterns of compression waves in air either. But both music and cars are, nonetheless, properties of the pattern, as well as the presence, of their parts.

Do you really think that the mind is the same kind of emergence as a car?

Yes. Why wouldn't it be?

The car does not come in addition to the particles that are arranged as a car.

No. Because you just admitted that the arrangement is critical. "The car does not come in addition to the particles" is false, and yet "The car does not come in addition to the particles that are arranged as a car." is true. The whole is not just the physical parts; it is the arrangement too.

The car is the particles, and the particles are the car.

No. The arrangement cannot be ignored. A pile of spares on my driveway contains the EXACT same particles as the car contained before you set about it with your toolkit. But the parts (much less their constituent particles) are NOT a car.

The rocks in your head are not your mind, and your mind is not the rocks in your head.

Patterns are important. They are entities in their own right, but they cannot exist in the absence of the particles that make them. You can't find a mind particle in a brain, any more than you can find a music particle in the air. But you can't have mind without a brain, and you can't have music in a vacuum. In space, nobody can hear you scream. Without a brain, your mind simply does not exist.

 

[ryan]

It is your mind that outlines a pyramid arbitrarily. I can see a pyramid in anything if I want to.

No, a pyramid is not arbitrary. It is a defined geometric shape. You can't see a pyramid in an orange. But you can see a pyramidal stack of oranges.

Just because I haven't cut the orange into a pyramid does not mean that a pyramid does not exist in the orange. What universal judgement makes your pyramid of oranges anymore of a pyramid?

The car does not come in addition to the particles that are arranged as a car.

No. Because you just admitted that the arrangement is critical. "The car does not come in addition to the particles" is false, and yet "The car does not come in addition to the particles that are arranged as a car." is true. The whole is not just the physical parts; it is the arrangement too.

Okay, but nothing is added to the particles, unless the arrangement of a car takes up more space. Clearly something is added to the brain, namely the mind.

The car is the particles, and the particles are the car.

No. The arrangement cannot be ignored. A pile of spares on my driveway contains the EXACT same particles as the car contained before you set about it with your toolkit. But the parts (much less their constituent particles) are NOT a car.

But nothing extra emerges. The particles in a brain have arrangement too. There is another very distinct and uncommon property that comes with the brain; at least I know it is true in my case.

Patterns are important. They are entities in their own right, but they cannot exist in the absence of the particles that make them. You can't find a mind particle in a brain, any more than you can find a music particle in the air. But you can't have mind without a brain, and you can't have music in a vacuum. In space, nobody can hear you scream. Without a brain, your mind simply does not exist.

I would only be repeating everything that I already said in this post.

 

[bilby]

No, a pyramid is not arbitrary. It is a defined geometric shape. You can't see a pyramid in an orange. But you can see a pyramidal stack of oranges.

Just because I haven't cut the orange into a pyramid does not mean that a pyramid does not exist in the orange. What universal judgement makes your pyramid of oranges anymore of a pyramid?

The car does not come in addition to the particles that are arranged as a car.

No. Because you just admitted that the arrangement is critical. "The car does not come in addition to the particles" is false, and yet "The car does not come in addition to the particles that are arranged as a car." is true. The whole is not just the physical parts; it is the arrangement too.

Okay, but nothing is added to the particles, unless the arrangement of a car takes up more space. Clearly something is added to the brain, namely the mind.

By the same logic, a brain remains the same size whether its owner is conscious or not; and indeed whether he is alive or not.

Your argument is incredibly unconvincing. You have yet to come up with a single difference between the mind and the other emergent properties we have considered - cars, pyramids or music - other than your dislike of the idea that mind is no more independent of the arrangement of its components than any of these things.

Your desire for dualism to be true has no bearing on whether or not is is, in fact, true.

Given the complete absence of any reason to believe in dualism other than your desire, you can hardly be surprised that nobody is buying it.

Dualism makes as much sense as theism, witchcraft and moon landing denialism. It is just another daft and unsupported idea, rooted in the human tendency to logical fallacies and cognitive errors.

 

[bigfield]

I pretty much agree with this version. Though I believe there more be some sort of "spiritual" afterlife which is the result of that type of undefinable energy or "spark" the Soul provides. I think this may be a sort of merging with an Impersonal Creative Intelligence. I hesitate to call it God..as I think it to be non-caring; to be Deistic rather than Theistic; and definitely nothing at all biblical or Abrahamic.

Hmm..maybe something like this?

http://www.lance-rennka.com/article/5662-body-brain-–-soul-mind-–-universal-intelligence-god

That is some woo, right there.

 

[ryan]

Just because I haven't cut the orange into a pyramid does not mean that a pyramid does not exist in the orange. What universal judgement makes your pyramid of oranges anymore of a pyramid?

The car does not come in addition to the particles that are arranged as a car.

No. Because you just admitted that the arrangement is critical. "The car does not come in addition to the particles" is false, and yet "The car does not come in addition to the particles that are arranged as a car." is true. The whole is not just the physical parts; it is the arrangement too.

Okay, but nothing is added to the particles, unless the arrangement of a car takes up more space. Clearly something is added to the brain, namely the mind.

By the same logic, a brain remains the same size whether its owner is conscious or not; and indeed whether he is alive or not.

The point was that an arrangement is an arrangement. The mind exists in addition to an arrangement. You can see a car and call it an arrangement. You can see a brain and call it an arrangement, but you do not see the other property that we call the mind.

Your argument is incredibly unconvincing. You have yet to come up with a single difference between the mind and the other emergent properties we have considered - cars, pyramids or music - other than your dislike of the idea that mind is no more independent of the arrangement of its components than any of these things.

I tried, but you conveniently cut that part out of my post.

 

[Kharakov]

@ryan: Dualism isn't necessary. You could say it's all minds interacting with minds. A thought doesn't interact with a thought- a mind interacts with thoughts, or minds with thoughts interact with other minds with thoughts.

By the same logic, a brain remains the same size whether its owner is conscious or not; and indeed whether he is alive or not.

I am not aware of evidence that this is true- in fact I think evidence may indicate the opposite. It seems reasonable to assume that brain size most likely changes slightly due changes in metabolic activity during conscious activities. Not by a large amount, but I would think that fMRIs have already shown that change in blood flow changes the "size" of brain structures by small amounts when they are active, due to changes in blood volume/pressure.

On a side note, I've never really noticed a sharp consciousness/nonconsciousness cut off- rather there is a sometimes slow focusing of the mind on the information the senses are presenting when I awaken.

Patterns are important. They are entities in their own right, but they cannot exist in the absence of the particles that make them.

Whether or not the "particles" are minds that share patterns they create with one another through highly evolved communication techniques.

But you can't have mind without a brain, and you can't have music in a vacuum.

In the case of fundamental particles which are minds, you couldn't have a human mind without many minds working in a coordinated manner. The creation of a human mind might reflect some understanding of their own minds.

I see the idea of a reactive non-mind being less justified than a reactive mind. I see the idea of a mind perfecting its interactions with other minds as.. well, the most natural idea ever.

 

[ryan]

@ryan: Dualism isn't necessary. You could say it's all minds interacting with minds. A thought doesn't interact with a thought- a mind interacts with thoughts, or minds with thoughts interact with other minds with thoughts.

Okay, then is there anything that isn't a mind, such as apples, cars, atoms, etc?

 

[fromderinside]

Mind is the name for what human fields do. It is seen everywhere human fields happen to be or to which they project.

 

[Kharakov]

@ryan: Dualism isn't necessary. You could say it's all minds interacting with minds. A thought doesn't interact with a thought- a mind interacts with thoughts, or minds with thoughts interact with other minds with thoughts.

Okay, then is there anything that isn't a mind, such as apples, cars, atoms, etc?

There are plenty of thoughts, and thought structures that aren't mind or minds, but instead parts of minds that don't exist without minds to contemplate them.

Without the light of mind, is a structure there-->

 

[ryan]

Okay, then is there anything that isn't a mind, such as apples, cars, atoms, etc?

There are plenty of thoughts, and thought structures that aren't mind or minds, but instead parts of minds that don't exist without minds to contemplate them.

Without the light of mind, is a structure there-->

Then why do my mental states change when nobody is around? We might as well just assume that there are entities that affect us that are not minds, at least until there is a better explanation. You seem to lean towards panpsychism where everything has a mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Then why do my mental states change when nobody is around? We might as well just assume that there are entities that affect us that are not minds, at least until there is a better explanation. You seem to lean towards panpsychism where everything has a mind.

Consider your need internal and external. They are always in flux or transition. No need to invent entities to explain Follow the thermodynamics.