Where is the soul?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So the soul is just an artifact of language and communication. I can dig that. It is someone's objectification of language, or simply, just language.

Asking "where" is basically to misunderstand how language occurs. But it could be Dee'troit.

 

[steve_bank]

So the soul is just an artifact of language and communication. I can dig that. It is someone's objectification of language, or simply, just language.

Asking "where" is basically to misunderstand how language occurs. But it could be Dee'troit.

But language expresses real feelings, emotions, and perceptions.

 

[fast]

So the soul is just an artifact of language and communication. I can dig that. It is someone's objectification of language, or simply, just language.

Asking "where" is basically to misunderstand how language occurs. But it could be Dee'troit.

Not exactly.

There are referring terms, and there are non-referring terms.

Whether a term is a referring term or not confuses people. Let’s say for the sake of argument that there are no unicorns. That doesn’t make the word, “unicorn” a non-referring term.

There are referring terms that are target oriented and succeed in referring, and there are target oriented terms that fail to refer. The issue is not one of existence. Some words are referring terms whether they suceed or fail.

A non-referring term is not target oriented. Examples of non-referring terms are “if” and “although.” There’s nothing to instantiate them.

But, there’s nothing to instantiate referring terms that fail either; that’s why people have a hard time with it. Think of it this way: if something purportedly exists and actually does exist, what would it’s form be like? In the case of unicorns, we would expect them to be material, just as material as an equine or horse. If we would expect a term to refer to something that exists but isn’t material, then it’s even more complicated—yet shouldn’t be said to not exist just because it might be immaterial. Consider the difference between a term that refers to all numbers that are both greater than five but less than 10. It would be a successful referring term to something immaterial ... as opposed to a term that refers to all numbers that are both below 5 AND over 10. No such number exists, and it’s a referring term, and it fails to refer to a number. The number doesn’t exist to simultaneously satisfy both conditions.

Let’s call a ‘pink elephant’ by some name. Let’s make a name for it. How about “perg.” If there is a perg in the room, then invisible or not, it’s in the room: If there are no pergs and never have been, then “perg” is still a referring term, just like “unicorn,” “God,” “Soul,” and “boat” are referring terms.

I don’t know if the soul is more like the stomach or more like digestion, but either way, concrete and material, or abstract and immaterial, the non existence of a referent wouldn’t mean it’s a non-referring term.

Whether the soul is an artifact of language or not simply depends on whether a soul would be more like a material thing like a stomach or immaterial thing like digestion. Not finding material proof only matters if souls are material. If they are immaterial, however, there is no force-guaranteed conclusion of nonexistence. I didn’t want for anyone to think that just because something is not materially somewhere that the likelihood of nonexistence has changed, especially for what may be immaterial.

 

[skepticalbip]

So the soul is just an artifact of language and communication. I can dig that. It is someone's objectification of language, or simply, just language.

Asking "where" is basically to misunderstand how language occurs. But it could be Dee'troit.

Not exactly.

There are referring terms, and there are non-referring terms.

Whether a term is a referring term or not confuses people. Let’s say for the sake of argument that there are no unicorns. That doesn’t make the word, “unicorn” a non-referring term.

There are referring terms that are target oriented and succeed in referring, and there are target oriented terms that fail to refer. The issue is not one of existence. Some words are referring terms whether they suceed or fail.

A non-referring term is not target oriented. Examples of non-referring terms are “if” and “although.” There’s nothing to instantiate them.

But, there’s nothing to instantiate referring terms that fail either; that’s why people have a hard time with it. Think of it this way: if something purportedly exists and actually does exist, what would it’s form be like? In the case of unicorns, we would expect them to be material, just as material as an equine or horse. If we would expect a term to refer to something that exists but isn’t material, then it’s even more complicated—yet shouldn’t be said to not exist just because it might be immaterial. Consider the difference between a term that refers to all numbers that are both greater than five but less than 10. It would be a successful referring term to something immaterial ... as opposed to a term that refers to all numbers that are both below 5 AND over 10. No such number exists, and it’s a referring term, and it fails to refer to a number. The number doesn’t exist to simultaneously satisfy both conditions.

Let’s call ‘a pink elephant’ by some name. Let’s make a name for it. How about “perg.” If there is a perg in the room, then invisible or not, it’s in the room: If there are no pergs and never have been, then “perg” is still a referring term, just like “unicorn,” “God,” “Soul,” and “boat” are referring terms.

I don’t know if the soul is more like the stomach or more like digestion, but either way, concrete and material, or abstract and immaterial, the non existence of a referent wouldn’t mean it’s a non-referring term.

Whether the soul is an artifact of language or not simply depends on whether a soul would be more like a material thing like a stomach or immaterial thing like digestion. Not finding material proof only matters if souls are material. If they are immaterial, however, doesn’t force guarentee a conclusion of nonexistence. I didn’t want for anyone to think that just because something is not materially somewhere that the likelihood of nonexistence has changed, especially for what may be immaterial.

It seems you are offering a false dichotomy. There is more than material or process that a noun could refer to. For example, I can talk about Tramalvadorians, a completely imaginary alien species, and give a detailed description of their appearance, habits, powers, etc. but they remain nonexistent. The soul can certainly be the same sort of imaginary (and non-existent) thingy.

 

[fast]

So the soul is just an artifact of language and communication. I can dig that. It is someone's objectification of language, or simply, just language.

Asking "where" is basically to misunderstand how language occurs. But it could be Dee'troit.

Not exactly.

There are referring terms, and there are non-referring terms.

Whether a term is a referring term or not confuses people. Let’s say for the sake of argument that there are no unicorns. That doesn’t make the word, “unicorn” a non-referring term.

There are referring terms that are target oriented and succeed in referring, and there are target oriented terms that fail to refer. The issue is not one of existence. Some words are referring terms whether they suceed or fail.

A non-referring term is not target oriented. Examples of non-referring terms are “if” and “although.” There’s nothing to instantiate them.

But, there’s nothing to instantiate referring terms that fail either; that’s why people have a hard time with it. Think of it this way: if something purportedly exists and actually does exist, what would it’s form be like? In the case of unicorns, we would expect them to be material, just as material as an equine or horse. If we would expect a term to refer to something that exists but isn’t material, then it’s even more complicated—yet shouldn’t be said to not exist just because it might be immaterial. Consider the difference between a term that refers to all numbers that are both greater than five but less than 10. It would be a successful referring term to something immaterial ... as opposed to a term that refers to all numbers that are both below 5 AND over 10. No such number exists, and it’s a referring term, and it fails to refer to a number. The number doesn’t exist to simultaneously satisfy both conditions.

Let’s call ‘a pink elephant’ by some name. Let’s make a name for it. How about “perg.” If there is a perg in the room, then invisible or not, it’s in the room: If there are no pergs and never have been, then “perg” is still a referring term, just like “unicorn,” “God,” “Soul,” and “boat” are referring terms.

I don’t know if the soul is more like the stomach or more like digestion, but either way, concrete and material, or abstract and immaterial, the non existence of a referent wouldn’t mean it’s a non-referring term.

Whether the soul is an artifact of language or not simply depends on whether a soul would be more like a material thing like a stomach or immaterial thing like digestion. Not finding material proof only matters if souls are material. If they are immaterial, however, doesn’t force guarentee a conclusion of nonexistence. I didn’t want for anyone to think that just because something is not materially somewhere that the likelihood of nonexistence has changed, especially for what may be immaterial.

It seems you are offering a false dichotomy. There is more than material or process that a noun could refer to. For example, I can talk about Tramalvadorians, a completely imaginary alien species, and give a detailed description of their appearance, habits, powers, etc. but they remain nonexistent. The soul can certainly be the same sort of imaginary (and non-existent) thingy.

We must remember that an imaginary thingy is not an actual thingy.

A distinction has to be made, and the substance of the distinction needs to be taken with greater importance than with the words I use to express the distinction: “fictional character” and “character of fiction.” The first does not exist; knowing that, there can be nothing to instantiate them; hence, there can be no instance in which we can find one; of course, people will disagree (but do so because they confuse the two) and speak of and describe characters of fiction.

People say Santa doesn’t exist, and it’s not because there is no such character that appears in fiction—but rather because no material Santa is Walking amongst us. Recall what I had said about form. If Santa did exist, he would be a material object. The character Santa is not. That character Santa is immaterial.

To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties. If you were to try and list properties of a horse, you would succeed in making a list, and the things on that list would be properties, but if you were to try and list properties of a unicorn, you would also succeed in making a list, but the list oughtn’t be called properties. So, while you can list the properties of a person in a Santa suit, one of which would be him having a beard, the fictional story (which is real and immaterial) isn’t containing any real beards (but rather fictional beards).

And again, a fictional thingy isn’t a real thingy. I’m not saying there is no story. That there is a story is true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So the soul is just an artifact of language and communication. I can dig that. It is someone's objectification of language, or simply, just language.

Asking "where" is basically to misunderstand how language occurs. But it could be Dee'troit.

But language expresses real feelings, emotions, and perceptions.

It also expresses false feelings, false emotions and false perceptions.

 

[skepticalbip]

It seems you are offering a false dichotomy. There is more than material or process that a noun could refer to. For example, I can talk about Tramalvadorians, a completely imaginary alien species, and give a detailed description of their appearance, habits, powers, etc. but they remain nonexistent. The soul can certainly be the same sort of imaginary (and non-existent) thingy.

We must remember that an imaginary thingy is not an actual thingy.

A distinction has to be made, and the substance of the distinction needs to be taken with greater importance than with the words I use to express the distinction: “fictional character” and “character of fiction.” The first does not exist; knowing that, there can be nothing to instantiate them; hence, there can be no instance in which we can find one; of course, people will disagree (but do so because they confuse the two) and speak of and describe characters of fiction.

People say Santa doesn’t exist, and it’s not because there is no such character that appears in fiction—but rather because no material Santa is Walking amongst us. Recall what I had said about form. If Santa did exist, he would be a material object. The character Santa is not. That character Santa is immaterial.

To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties. If you were to try and list properties of a horse, you would succeed in making a list, and the things on that list would be properties, but if you were to try and list properties of a unicorn, you would also succeed in making a list, but the list oughtn’t be called properties. So, while you can list the properties of a person in a Santa suit, one of which would be him having a beard, the fictional story (which is real and immaterial) isn’t containing any real beards (but rather fictional beards).

And again, a fictional thingy isn’t a real thingy. I’m not saying there is no story. That there is a story is true.

You are still conflating immaterial and imaginary. There is a major difference.

 

[steve_bank]

So the soul is just an artifact of language and communication. I can dig that. It is someone's objectification of language, or simply, just language.

Asking "where" is basically to misunderstand how language occurs. But it could be Dee'troit.

But language expresses real feelings, emotions, and perceptions.

It also expresses false feelings, false emotions and false perceptions.

Feelings and emotions are real, it is the basis that can be questioned. Did you cry or get misty eyed at the end of the movies Shane and Old Yeller? Ever been moved emotionally by a book like To kill A Mocking Bird?

It leads into philosophy and what is self? Are 'you' real or just a collection of interacting self referential thoughts with no reality just an illusion of a reality, as a Buddhist might say.

 

[fast]

It seems you are offering a false dichotomy. There is more than material or process that a noun could refer to. For example, I can talk about Tramalvadorians, a completely imaginary alien species, and give a detailed description of their appearance, habits, powers, etc. but they remain nonexistent. The soul can certainly be the same sort of imaginary (and non-existent) thingy.

We must remember that an imaginary thingy is not an actual thingy.

A distinction has to be made, and the substance of the distinction needs to be taken with greater importance than with the words I use to express the distinction: “fictional character” and “character of fiction.” The first does not exist; knowing that, there can be nothing to instantiate them; hence, there can be no instance in which we can find one; of course, people will disagree (but do so because they confuse the two) and speak of and describe characters of fiction.

People say Santa doesn’t exist, and it’s not because there is no such character that appears in fiction—but rather because no material Santa is Walking amongst us. Recall what I had said about form. If Santa did exist, he would be a material object. The character Santa is not. That character Santa is immaterial.

To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties. If you were to try and list properties of a horse, you would succeed in making a list, and the things on that list would be properties, but if you were to try and list properties of a unicorn, you would also succeed in making a list, but the list oughtn’t be called properties. So, while you can list the properties of a person in a Santa suit, one of which would be him having a beard, the fictional story (which is real and immaterial) isn’t containing any real beards (but rather fictional beards).

And again, a fictional thingy isn’t a real thingy. I’m not saying there is no story. That there is a story is true.

You are still conflating immaterial and imaginary. There is a major difference.

That isn’t something I would ordinarily conflate. My insight is better than a little bit. My vocabulary may be lacking, but my understanding is pretty much spot on. “Immaterial” is 3-pronged while “imaginary” is 2-pronged.

If something is real, then at the very least, there is something. That’s not the case with “imaginary.” It’s not as if there is something. So, when we purportedly speak of something, either there is something we’re speaking of or there isn’t. 2-pronged; one or the other. A dichotomy. The two categories are collectively exhaustive and there is no third option.

“Immaterial” on the other hand is 3-pronged. This is harder to grasp, and it’s harder to argue. Even dictionaries lack the precision to help us grasp the subtle distinction. I use the term in a technical manner.

While “material” is opposite of “not material” and two-pronged in either something is material or it isn’t (and thus not material), I argue that while “immaterial” implies “not material,” the converse is not true. Wtf, right?

The logic I use is no different than what’s used to show “unhappy” and “not happy” are not the same. “Invalid” implies “not valid” yet not the other way around. That which is false is not true, but that which is not true is not necessarily false. Those are just more examples.

If something exists, it’s real and thus not imaginary. “Immaterial” says more than “not material” says. “False” says more than “untrue” does. “Unhappy” is more revealing than “not happy.” “Invalid” is more insightful than “not valid.”

If you tell me that an argument is not valid, I have no idea whether we’re talking about a deductive argument or not, but if an argument is invalid, then it’s a deductive argument, as no inductive argument is invalid (in the same sense). If a sentence is not true, it may or may not be a sentence that expresses a proposition, but if a sentence is false, then the sentence does express a proposition. The pots in my kitchen are either happy or not happy, but to say they are unhappy is to speak of them while making a category error. They are not the kinds of things that can be happy or unhappy and thus not happy.

If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not material.
However
If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not immaterial.

To say God is immaterial is to say 1) God is real and 2) God is not material. You may have a hard time seeing number 1 as true, but to say of something that it’s material or immaterial is to say there is something. There is no something to be either material or immaterial when it’s imaginary (or not real).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It also expresses false feelings, false emotions and false perceptions.

Feelings and emotions are real, it is the basis that can be questioned. Did you cry or get misty eyed at the end of the movies Shane and Old Yeller? Ever been moved emotionally by a book like To kill A Mocking Bird?

It leads into philosophy and what is self? Are 'you' real or just a collection of interacting self referential thoughts with no reality just an illusion of a reality, as a Buddhist might say.

Emotions and feelings are behaviors. No one is arguing that human behavior is not real. "Soul" is analogous in this sense because we can point to people who have "soul," the same as we can point to people who have "fear." But fear isn't an alien implant or a substantial being that gets abducted when we die and meets with an otherworldly organism to begin a life of its own.

Like other emotional expressions "soul" is probably an expression of the limbic system. One may even think of "soul" as actually being our limbic system, but it certainly isn't departing the rest of the body when it dies with the rest of us.

Limbic System

 

[skepticalbip]

You are still conflating immaterial and imaginary. There is a major difference.

That isn’t something I would ordinarily conflate. My insight is better than a little bit. My vocabulary may be lacking, but my understanding is pretty much spot on. “Immaterial” is 3-pronged while “imaginary” is 2-pronged.

If something is real, then at the very least, there is something. That’s not the case with “imaginary.” It’s not as if there is something. So, when we purportedly speak of something, either there is something we’re speaking of or there isn’t. 2-pronged; one or the other. A dichotomy. The two categories are collectively exhaustive and there is no third option.

“Immaterial” on the other hand is 3-pronged. This is harder to grasp, and it’s harder to argue. Even dictionaries lack the precision to help us grasp the subtle distinction. I use the term in a technical manner.

While “material” is opposite of “not material” and two-pronged in either something is material or it isn’t (and thus not material), I argue that while “immaterial” implies “not material,” the converse is not true. Wtf, right?

The logic I use is no different than what’s used to show “unhappy” and “not happy” are not the same. “Invalid” implies “not valid” yet not the other way around. That which is false is not true, but that which is not true is not necessarily false. Those are just more examples.

If something exists, it’s real and thus not imaginary. “Immaterial” says more than “not material” says. “False” says more than “untrue” does. “Unhappy” is more revealing than “not happy.” “Invalid” is more insightful than “not valid.”

If you tell me that an argument is not valid, I have no idea whether we’re talking about a deductive argument or not, but if an argument is invalid, then it’s a deductive argument, as no inductive argument is invalid (in the same sense). If a sentence is not true, it may or may not be a sentence that expresses a proposition, but if a sentence is false, then the sentence does express a proposition. The pots in my kitchen are either happy or not happy, but to say they are unhappy is to speak of them while making a category error. They are not the kinds of things that can be happy or unhappy and thus not happy.

If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not material.
However
If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not immaterial.

To say God is immaterial is to say 1) God is real and 2) God is not material. You may have a hard time seeing number 1 as true, but to say of something that it’s material or immaterial is to say there is something. There is no something to be either material or immaterial when it’s imaginary (or not real).

That is a hell of a lot of semantic bull shit to simply say, "Yes I was wrong to offer only the options for a soul as either material or immaterial. The soul could also be completely imaginary." As I said, there is a major difference between immaterial and imaginary.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The materialist basis for disregarding claims of the soul's existence could be Alzheimers. If anything demonstrates the necessity of a functioning brain supplied with oxygen and blood and a balance of chemicals for the continuation of consciousness, identity, agency...it would be Alzheimers. If you've had the misfortune to see a relative slip into it, it is the complete erasure of memory, skills, thought, identity...quite a leap of faith to suppose that somewhere in that ravaged human shell is a gleaming soul that preserves any sort of mentality.

 

[fast]

You are still conflating immaterial and imaginary. There is a major difference.

That isn’t something I would ordinarily conflate. My insight is better than a little bit. My vocabulary may be lacking, but my understanding is pretty much spot on. “Immaterial” is 3-pronged while “imaginary” is 2-pronged.

If something is real, then at the very least, there is something. That’s not the case with “imaginary.” It’s not as if there is something. So, when we purportedly speak of something, either there is something we’re speaking of or there isn’t. 2-pronged; one or the other. A dichotomy. The two categories are collectively exhaustive and there is no third option.

“Immaterial” on the other hand is 3-pronged. This is harder to grasp, and it’s harder to argue. Even dictionaries lack the precision to help us grasp the subtle distinction. I use the term in a technical manner.

While “material” is opposite of “not material” and two-pronged in either something is material or it isn’t (and thus not material), I argue that while “immaterial” implies “not material,” the converse is not true. Wtf, right?

The logic I use is no different than what’s used to show “unhappy” and “not happy” are not the same. “Invalid” implies “not valid” yet not the other way around. That which is false is not true, but that which is not true is not necessarily false. Those are just more examples.

If something exists, it’s real and thus not imaginary. “Immaterial” says more than “not material” says. “False” says more than “untrue” does. “Unhappy” is more revealing than “not happy.” “Invalid” is more insightful than “not valid.”

If you tell me that an argument is not valid, I have no idea whether we’re talking about a deductive argument or not, but if an argument is invalid, then it’s a deductive argument, as no inductive argument is invalid (in the same sense). If a sentence is not true, it may or may not be a sentence that expresses a proposition, but if a sentence is false, then the sentence does express a proposition. The pots in my kitchen are either happy or not happy, but to say they are unhappy is to speak of them while making a category error. They are not the kinds of things that can be happy or unhappy and thus not happy.

If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not material.
However
If God is not real, then God is imaginary. If God is imaginary, then God is not immaterial.

To say God is immaterial is to say 1) God is real and 2) God is not material. You may have a hard time seeing number 1 as true, but to say of something that it’s material or immaterial is to say there is something. There is no something to be either material or immaterial when it’s imaginary (or not real).

That is a hell of a lot of semantic bull shit to simply say, "Yes I was wrong to offer only the options for a soul as either material or immaterial. The soul could also be completely imaginary." As I said, there is a major difference between immaterial and imaginary.

I went back and looked. I had qualified my response regarding an artifact of language. Maybe that’s what prompted this.

But yes, the soul being imaginary is a possibility. If the soul isn’t real, it’s neither something that is material nor something that is immaterial. If we assume the soul is imaginary, and if our assumption is accurate, it would still be inaccurate to say that the soul is immaterial. Not material, sure, but not immaterial. Something that isn’t real is neither material nor immaterial, so (if imaginary), it’s not material and not immaterial.

 

[rousseau]

Just talked to a client at work who worked for, get this:

The Spiritual Care department.