Analysis of the soul.

[MANICHAEAN]

Some musings on the concept of the soul of Man.

Part 1:

1. Man we are told is composed of two elements: body and soul.

• The belief in the body is with us every day and hard to dispute, unless all our supposed senses are some kind of grand illusion.

• You could argue the non-existence of the soul on the grounds of logic and tangible proof in the mortal sense; although you could alternatively argue the existence of the soul using the “cause and effect” theory i.e if there is an effect for every cause according to the laws of physics, there must have been an original cause? The latter perhaps is more directly linked with explaining the existence of a God as opposed to a soul.

• I personally believe that there is a spiritual dimension, perhaps attuned to man’s imaginative or intuitive facilities that sense both a God and a soul.

2. One of the two elements is a material element, the other a spiritual one.

3. They are not two independent elements, but incomplete in needing each other to form a human person.

4. The two elements are made in the image and likeness of God.

• Presumably the body likeness has been a gradual evolvement over the ages. This would appear to make a mockery of many artistic interpretations.

• The image and likeness of the soul to God is difficult to grasp in any mortal sense, which is perhaps the whole point and intention?

[YesNo]

Earlier this morning it shocked me to think that both matter and spirit seemed beyond-my-reach transcendent. Matter went off to quantum reality that I could no longer objectify and my subjectivity got lost in whatever got this universe started.

And then it all popped back into place.

[MANICHAEAN]

A bit like a dislocated shoulder?

[YesNo]

Thankfully it didn't last long.

More specifically the view of body and soul you are taking seems dualistic. I'll admit it sort of looks that way. Who knows? In any case, I'm looking forward to read Part 2.

[Tammuz]

• You could argue the non-existence of the soul on the grounds of logic and tangible proof in the mortal sense; although you could alternatively argue the existence of the soul using the “cause and effect” theory i.e if there is an effect for every cause according to the laws of physics, there must have been an original cause?

The Materialists say that consciousness and its contents are mere effects of neural activity which is therefore the primal ontological reality and consciousness only a secondary one which has no reality in itself. Closely examined, this is an odd view of things.

Let us take musical phenomena as an analogy: according to the materialistic view, the sounds of music which enchant the listener, that is, the sounds which he/she actually HEARS, do not really exist - what exists is only the vibrations of the instruments, of the air molecules and of the tympanum, as well as the neuronal reactions in the listener´s brain. So the materialist denies the existence or reality of everything what cannot be measured by physical equipment. He denies the reality of music insofar as he raises the physical phenomena on the throne of absolute reality while that what actually matters (the hearable sounds) is degraded to mere phantoms.

So the materialists say: "The psychic exists only insofar as it is effected by physical activities". However, this argument is most reductionistic and not well considered. The point is that the transition from physical to psychic is a black-box within that argumentation. An argumentative ´black box´ is a premise that remains unproven and often unexpressed but is crucial for the thesis. As to the given issue, the materialist fails to prove or at least make plausible any explanation for the transition from material events to psychic events, or in other words, from matter to consciousness. Without that explanation, the materialistic thesis collapses.

One alternative view says that consciousness is not a mere function of matter but has an existence and reality on its own. In this view, it is completely implausible to assert that consciousness can howsoever arise out of matter. It can connect to material processes, yes, but it cannot grow out of them like a flower grows out of the ground. Anyway, the mode of connection is totally unclear. Probably we have to think of two different levels of ´materiality´ that can somehow get into contact. In Indian philosophy (e.g. Vedanta), psychic phenomena are thought to be material in a very subtle manner, let us say, billions of billions times more subtle than physical matter. In Vedanta, there are three ´bodies´ of a person: Gross Body (Sthula Sharira), Subtle Body (Sukshma Sharira) and Causal Body (Karana Sharira). The first is that sort of matter to which the materialists refer, the second is the psychic and the third is that part of a person which in most cases unconsciously participates in the cosmic spirit.

The most important argument against the materialistic view is the Qualia argument (see the Wiki article linked at the end of my article) as indicated above in the music example. To see the color Red is quite another thing than to measure the frequencies of Red. Materialists however don´t really perceive the difference. Red as a color is an experience of awareness that has nothing to do with the physically correlated light frequencies. When materialists say that the former completely stems from the latter, they commit a gross error of thought by forgetting or ignoring the´black box´ of transition, as pointed out above.

(...) there must have been an original cause? The latter perhaps is more directly linked with explaining the existence of a God as opposed to a soul.

The idea of an ´original cause´ in the sense of the ´first unmoved mover´ of Aristotle or the Creator god of monotheism is not really logic because such a thing cannot be observed in nature. Every physical object origins in other physical objects resp. develops through interaction between such objects. Such a thing like a ´first cause´ is purely abstract, not empirical. Even in the first Genesis chapter of the OT Elohim does not create everything out of nothing. Verse 1,2 shows that water and earth are supposed to be pre-existent. The ´pre-existence´ interpretation of the beginning of Gen 1 has gained acceptance during the last decades. The state of the universe described in verse 1,2 is pre-existent, that is, preceding the afterwards related creational process. Verse 1,1 is supposed to be a summary or something like a headline of the events in chapter 1. Verse 1,2 describes the pre-existent state of the universe without giving a hint on whether this state had any origin or was given since forever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

[desiresjab]

Some musings on the concept of the soul of Man.

Part 1:

1. Man we are told is composed of two elements: body and soul.

• The belief in the body is with us every day and hard to dispute, unless all our supposed senses are some kind of grand illusion.

• You could argue the non-existence of the soul on the grounds of logic and tangible proof in the mortal sense; although you could alternatively argue the existence of the soul using the “cause and effect” theory i.e if there is an effect for every cause according to the laws of physics, there must have been an original cause? The latter perhaps is more directly linked with explaining the existence of a God as opposed to a soul.

• I personally believe that there is a spiritual dimension, perhaps attuned to man’s imaginative or intuitive facilities that sense both a God and a soul.

2. One of the two elements is a material element, the other a spiritual one.

3. They are not two independent elements, but incomplete in needing each other to form a human person.

4. The two elements are made in the image and likeness of God.

• Presumably the body likeness has been a gradual evolvement over the ages. This would appear to make a mockery of many artistic interpretations.

• The image and likeness of the soul to God is difficult to grasp in any mortal sense, which is perhaps the whole point and intention?

Good post. In algebra there is a name for the soul--x. How we hang together is a great mystery I ponder every day. Progress is quite slow. We think a person talking to himself on the street while retracing small steps and peeing himself has not hung together as well as ourselves, but there is no proof that is correct. If there is life after death we could find ourselves in a state we would judge closer to his than our own. Madmen may have unwittingly held a key forever. Great progress may be had when we are finally able to penetrate the consciousnesses of those we institutionalize because they have not hung together well. In other words, studying the extremes would be likely to have benefit again for science. Average human psyches are perhaps only interesting for their stability in hanging together. More interesting phenomena might be obscured by this very stability.

I think our words and categories are pretty limiting, but they are what we have to try and understand with. A person meditating does not need words but a person communicating does.

* * * * *

I do not know your religious persuasion, but I see that you incorporate some Judaic-Christian terminology in your philosophy when you like something. I am historically a Christian, though I do not practice beyond an occasional prayer. Armchair philosphers like myself can wax ecstatic discussing what it means to be made in God's image. That idea is one of the most captivating in all literature and seems to me like the greatest single image constructed by mankind.

What is the relationship between soul and mind. These little categories seem quite ueseless, don't they? I could replace soul with spirit, mind with consciousness. Poetry often seems to edge closer.

* * * * *

Obviously, people cannot hang together very long. They are semi-stable in their little sliver of time, then every single one dies. About three people per second die across the planet, roughly averaged. One of those seconds is going to be your second, and one will be mine. How do we like it? How do we like the dying off of everyone we loved? All those deaths certainly point the way.

* * * * *

Fondest of all afterlife dreams is where the individual consciousness hangs together enough for reunions with loved ones. Suppose for a moment it is all malarkey--all our myths and religions concerning afterlife and God. There is no God, there is no afterlife. That still does not rule out the possibility that we will construct such a permanent "object," in the future. Extremely advanced computers might do this for us. Who are we to say what constitutes being alive? For what exactly is this existence we feel? How real are we, and how unreal are we, and what is the difference? No one can answer that in a way that gains everyone's confidence. Behind it all, if we could see, we might have to admit that, yes, by golly, we are artifical after all. Personally, I believe there is a pretty fair chance that we are artificial constructions, and that our universe is, too. If you make something, it qualifies as artifice. If we were created by God...

Does that mean we are as real as God? Was Pinocchio as real as his maker, or was Pinocchio merely an artificial creation of Geppetto?

* * * * *

If there is a God, I believe that God is more real than we are, and that what is promised is a reality more like the one of God.

[MANICHAEAN]

Dear YesNo, Tammuz, desiresjab

Thanks for the feedback. Extremely interesting material there.

Best regards
M.

[MANICHAEAN]

Part 2:

1. The soul can exist apart from the body after death. Because the soul is spiritual, it is immortal.

2. But there is an incompleteness in this until reunited with the body at the end of the world i.e. our salvation and resurrection.

I would hopefully look forward to being reunited with my past body of 21 years old, but am quite prepared to accept the mental state of my 73 years !!

3. It is the condition of our soul at the end of mortal life that determines our eternal lot.

• It raises the existence of a transitional test during our mortal coil.

• Another interpretation that I came across, (A Jesuit I believe, teaching Grahame Greene) is that it’s not a question of what God forbids, but what he tolerates. This would be more in line with a forgiving God dealing with struggling mortals.

[YesNo]

The Materialists say that consciousness and its contents are mere effects of neural activity which is therefore the primal ontological reality and consciousness only a secondary one which has no reality in itself. Closely examined, this is an odd view of things.

Let us take musical phenomena as an analogy: according to the materialistic view, the sounds of music which enchant the listener, that is, the sounds which he/she actually HEARS, do not really exist - what exists is only the vibrations of the instruments, of the air molecules and of the tympanum, as well as the neuronal reactions in the listener´s brain. So the materialist denies the existence or reality of everything what cannot be measured by physical equipment. He denies the reality of music insofar as he raises the physical phenomena on the throne of absolute reality while that what actually matters (the hearable sounds) is degraded to mere phantoms.

So the materialists say: "The psychic exists only insofar as it is effected by physical activities". However, this argument is most reductionistic and not well considered. The point is that the transition from physical to psychic is a black-box within that argumentation. An argumentative ´black box´ is a premise that remains unproven and often unexpressed but is crucial for the thesis. As to the given issue, the materialist fails to prove or at least make plausible any explanation for the transition from material events to psychic events, or in other words, from matter to consciousness. Without that explanation, the materialistic thesis collapses.

One alternative view says that consciousness is not a mere function of matter but has an existence and reality on its own. In this view, it is completely implausible to assert that consciousness can howsoever arise out of matter. It can connect to material processes, yes, but it cannot grow out of them like a flower grows out of the ground. Anyway, the mode of connection is totally unclear. Probably we have to think of two different levels of ´materiality´ that can somehow get into contact. In Indian philosophy (e.g. Vedanta), psychic phenomena are thought to be material in a very subtle manner, let us say, billions of billions times more subtle than physical matter. In Vedanta, there are three ´bodies´ of a person: Gross Body (Sthula Sharira), Subtle Body (Sukshma Sharira) and Causal Body (Karana Sharira). The first is that sort of matter to which the materialists refer, the second is the psychic and the third is that part of a person which in most cases unconsciously participates in the cosmic spirit.

The most important argument against the materialistic view is the Qualia argument (see the Wiki article linked at the end of my article) as indicated above in the music example. To see the color Red is quite another thing than to measure the frequencies of Red. Materialists however don´t really perceive the difference. Red as a color is an experience of awareness that has nothing to do with the physically correlated light frequencies. When materialists say that the former completely stems from the latter, they commit a gross error of thought by forgetting or ignoring the´black box´ of transition, as pointed out above.

I agree with all of this. I also like the "black box" metaphor. Black boxes are assumptions hiding crucial parts of the argument.

Qualia are important. If one is arguing whether a deterministic-random (algorithmic) robot can be conscious assuming it passes some Turing test convincing observers that it is human, qualia can make one question whether fooling people is an adequate test of consciousness. There is still that underlying deterministic-random program running that is problematic. Some say that deterministic model implies that we are also deterministic-random machines. Others claim that the program's very existence implies that no real choice can be made by the robot and so the robot, as a robot, is not conscious.

A similar Turing test can be set up for quantum phenomenon with this criterium: If a quantum particle can be observed to make a choice that cannot be explained by any hidden variables, then the quantum particle has enough consciousness to make that choice. That there exists no hidden variables, no underlying program, that would explain why a photon, say, would go through a window rather than reflect, one can say that this quantum Turing test was passed in the early 20th century.

Given this, the indeterminacy measured by the probability waves of a quantum particle can be interpreted as saying quantum particles make choices. Hence they are conscious. The other interpretations of a quantum particle's wave indeterminacy either avoid looking at the problem (Copenhagen's "shut up and calculate") or they are attempts to come up with ways to turn the probabilistic model into a deterministic model (many worlds and Bohm's pilot waves). All of these other interpretations have to find some way around the success of this test. They have to find something, like qualia does to the robot Turing test, to negate the success of this quantum Turing test.

The idea of an ´original cause´ in the sense of the ´first unmoved mover´ of Aristotle or the Creator god of monotheism is not really logic because such a thing cannot be observed in nature. Every physical object origins in other physical objects resp. develops through interaction between such objects. Such a thing like a ´first cause´ is purely abstract, not empirical. Even in the first Genesis chapter of the OT Elohim does not create everything out of nothing. Verse 1,2 shows that water and earth are supposed to be pre-existent. The ´pre-existence´ interpretation of the beginning of Gen 1 has gained acceptance during the last decades. The state of the universe described in verse 1,2 is pre-existent, that is, preceding the afterwards related creational process. Verse 1,1 is supposed to be a summary or something like a headline of the events in chapter 1. Verse 1,2 describes the pre-existent state of the universe without giving a hint on whether this state had any origin or was given since forever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Another way of looking at the impossibility of unconscious matter is to note that the universe had a beginning.

The Big Bang as a theory depends too much on Einstein's theory of gravitation which is probably false since dark matter cannot be found and black holes are of value only in the mathematical model. As an explanation of how the origin occurred, it is likely false, but that there was an origin is still true. Given that no unconscious matter comes from nothing and prior to the origin there was no unconscious matter this leads to the conclusion that after the universe began there is still no unconscious matter in the universe.

[Tammuz]

Qualia are important. If one is arguing whether a deterministic-random (algorithmic) robot can be conscious assuming it passes some Turing test convincing observers that it is human, qualia can make one question whether fooling people is an adequate test of consciousness. There is still that underlying deterministic-random program running that is problematic. Some say that deterministic model implies that we are also deterministic-random machines.

Yes, such materialistic mindgames are in a way very naive. The basic idea is that when a system gains a certain degree of complexity the result is the emergence of consciousness. This is in no way compatible with the fact of qualia in any form, e.g. pain feeling. A machine can be programmed to externally simulate such feelings by electronic cryings or wild-flashing bulbs, but how should it be possible that it really feels them the same way as a human or animal feels pains? Asserting this reminds me of the magical thinking of antiquity. See also John Searle´s argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

A similar Turing test can be set up for quantum phenomenon with this criterium: If a quantum particle can be observed to make a choice that cannot be explained by any hidden variables, then the quantum particle has enough consciousness to make that choice. That there exists no hidden variables, no underlying program, that would explain why a photon, say, would go through a window rather than reflect, one can say that this quantum Turing test was passed in the early 20th century.

This might theoretically be true for a quantum particle (yet very questionable), but one cannot deduce from there that a machine consisting of billions of billions of billions of particles has an individual consciousness as well. One cannot add individual (hypothetical) carriers of consciousness in the hope that the additive result is a carrier of consciousness, too. This reminds me of Thomas Hobbes´ concept of ´Leviathan´, that is, the addition of many individual minds to a complex new entity named ´political state´ which shows properties which are different from those of its elements (the humans). However, this new entity has not gained any own consciousness, at least there is no indication for that. A similar argument in the philosophy of mind against materialism is the so-called ´China Brain´:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain

Given this, the indeterminacy measured by the probability waves of a quantum particle can be interpreted as saying quantum particles make choices. Hence they are conscious.

I do not see a compelling case for both conclusions, as to (1) that they make choices, and (2) that, therefore, they are conscious. The random character of the particles´ behavior does not necessarily mean that there is such a thing like will at work. Moreover, there might be causes which science is simply not able to detect. One should also consider that it is problematic to construct an analogy between human will and the hypothetical ´particle´ will as long as there is no absolute certainty about the ´free´ nature of man´s will. That this will is ´free´ is just an axiom. There is much to suggest that human consciousness has no influence on decision-making which might be completely determinated from the unconscious. This makes an analogy to particles problematic, since under that (hypothetical) condition particles should have an unconscious or subconscious, too. I do not deny this possibility, and this view is actually part of ancient Indian philosophical thinking, but it´s ironic that those materialists who champion a machine consciousness by arguing with quantum particle consciousness are in this respect unknowlingly going in bed with their philosophical antagonists, the Indian vedantists and modern theosophists.

The Big Bang as a theory depends too much on Einstein's theory of gravitation which is probably false since dark matter cannot be found and black holes are of value only in the mathematical model.

Since the Big Bang Theory is originally the idea of a Jesuit priest named Georges Lemaitre (and not of Chuck Lorre) it can naturally be suspected of being a transformation of Catholic ideas into scientific language. The main contra-arguments are (1) that there is a appearingly more plausible alternative view of things, that is, the theory of the oscillating universe, and (2) that a creatio ex nihilo implied by that theory is a quite anti-scientific concept.

As an explanation of how the origin occurred, it is likely false, but that there was an origin is still true. Given that no unconscious matter comes from nothing and prior to the origin there was no unconscious matter this leads to the conclusion that after the universe began there is still no unconscious matter in the universe.

At the moment I don´t have a clue about what you mean. Why is it still true that there was an origin (in the sense of creatio ex nihilo?)? Why should it be theoretically impossible that "after the universe began" (what is hypothetical and in my view wrong in an absolute sense) such a thing like ´unconscious matter´ could not originate howsoever?

[Freudian Monkey]

I view soul as a traveler playing a "Choose your own adventure" -game. After the first game is over, he moves on to another game. The traveler grows through the decisions he makes playing the game, and the ultimate meaning of the traveler's journey is the journey itself - the development he goes through. The ultimate end goal of the traveler's journey is a mystery - and in my opinion, it's irrelevant.

[YesNo]

Yes, such materialistic mindgames are in a way very naive. The basic idea is that when a system gains a certain degree of complexity the result is the emergence of consciousness. This is in no way compatible with the fact of qualia in any form, e.g. pain feeling. A machine can be programmed to externally simulate such feelings by electronic cryings or wild-flashing bulbs, but how should it be possible that it really feels them the same way as a human or animal feels pains? Asserting this reminds me of the magical thinking of antiquity. See also John Searle´s argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

I think we agree on the above. To make sure that is the case, I will define a "Turing test" to be a test whereby we can claim that something has some form of consciousness, not necessarily human consciousness. The "robot Turing test" is the original test Turing constructed for AI machines. Here is a start for why the robot Turing test needs to be replaced:

1) Qualia imply that a robot does not feel although the robot can be programmed to simulate feeling.

2) Searle's Chinese Room argument implies that a robot does not understand the words the robot is using.

3) Human beings conducting these tests are not able to even differentiate when they have a human subject in a Turing test implying that the test is impractical.

This might theoretically be true for a quantum particle (yet very questionable), but one cannot deduce from there that a machine consisting of billions of billions of billions of particles has an individual consciousness as well. One cannot add individual (hypothetical) carriers of consciousness in the hope that the additive result is a carrier of consciousness, too. This reminds me of Thomas Hobbes´ concept of ´Leviathan´, that is, the addition of many individual minds to a complex new entity named ´political state´ which shows properties which are different from those of its elements (the humans). However, this new entity has not gained any own consciousness, at least there is no indication for that. A similar argument in the philosophy of mind against materialism is the so-called ´China Brain´:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain

This is the first I have heard of this thought experiment. I would agree with Block that it does not show the existence of consciousness. I also want to avoid a panpsychist approach to mind which claims there is a reducible psychic atom by which our consciousness can be explained. If anything consciousness is top-down not bottom-up.

I do not see a compelling case for both conclusions, as to (1) that they make choices, and (2) that, therefore, they are conscious. The random character of the particles´ behavior does not necessarily mean that there is such a thing like will at work. Moreover, there might be causes which science is simply not able to detect. One should also consider that it is problematic to construct an analogy between human will and the hypothetical ´particle´ will as long as there is no absolute certainty about the ´free´ nature of man´s will. That this will is ´free´ is just an axiom. There is much to suggest that human consciousness has no influence on decision-making which might be completely determinated from the unconscious. This makes an analogy to particles problematic, since under that (hypothetical) condition particles should have an unconscious or subconscious, too. I do not deny this possibility, and this view is actually part of ancient Indian philosophical thinking, but it´s ironic that those materialists who champion a machine consciousness by arguing with quantum particle consciousness are in this respect unknowlingly going in bed with their philosophical antagonists, the Indian vedantists and modern theosophists.

It is good when we find places where we disagree.

1) The choices are not human choices. What defines a "choice" is the absence of any hidden variables based on determinism or uniformly-distributed randomness. The particle does not have to be aware that a choice was made. One can use this concept to expand on the choices that we make that we think are "unconscious" but which we admit are our choices.

2) If something makes a choice it is outside of both a deterministic and a random framework. I am defining this to be basic consciousness.

3) If the randomness were uniform, that is, given two possibilities the probability of going one way or the other is always 50%, then there might be a path to unconsciousness. But that is not the case. The probabilities are not uniform.

4) I think the use of the word "unconscious" with respect to humans is inappropriate. We are "unaware" at times, but not unconscious. Our consciousness is not totally individualistic. It is also shared. I don't expect particles to be aware, but their behavior can be interpreted as making choices. This is the very thing that an AI robot is unable to do, because I can reduce any alleged "choice" made by the robot to the "hidden variables" in its programming. There are no hidden variables (no programming) at the quantum level.

5) Regarding human free will, I will assume we have it to some minimal extent to avoid determinism. I am assuming the common sense view of free will is correct since I see no data justifying that it is not true.

6) I don't think people supporting AI would argue that quantum particles are conscious. They need these particles to be unconscious. They are mainly interested in saying that our human consciousness is trivial or nonexistent and claim that their robots will prove this in the future. At the moment those robots aren't able to prove anything about consciousness.

Since the Big Bang Theory is originally the idea of a Jesuit priest named Georges Lemaitre (and not of Chuck Lorre) it can naturally be suspected of being a transformation of Catholic ideas into scientific language. The main contra-arguments are (1) that there is a appearingly more plausible alternative view of things, that is, the theory of the oscillating universe, and (2) that a creatio ex nihilo implied by that theory is a quite anti-scientific concept.

At the moment I don´t have a clue about what you mean. Why is it still true that there was an origin (in the sense of creatio ex nihilo?)? Why should it be theoretically impossible that "after the universe began" (what is hypothetical and in my view wrong in an absolute sense) such a thing like ´unconscious matter´ could not originate howsoever?

I don't know what people mean when they say "creatio ex nihilo" or something coming from nothing. My view is that nothing comes from nothing so I would be opposed to the creatio ex nihilo argument. Whatever our universe is made of has always existed. But what is our universe made of? My claim is that it is not made out of unconscious matter and that goes back to the quantum Turing test I outlined above.

I think Catholics can still use a "creatio ex nihilo" argument to describe what happened at the beginning of our universe if they define "nihilo" as nothing unconscious. The universe did not need unconscious matter to be created. Or, no unconscious matter was used in the creation of the universe because there is no unconscious matter.

I used to think the universe was oscillating from big bang to big bang, but I don't think that is the case any more. Our universe had a beginning, whether the big bang explains how that was done or not, and this probably happened many times in similar ways throughout eternity. For life to exist we need a big but finite universe. To fill out eternity, this creation of finite universes can happen over and over again. This is not the "multi-verse" idea which uses the anthropic principle to randomly pop out universes so that one of them will have life in it. In my view, all of these universes contain life. There is no need for randomness because consciousness controls the process.

[Tammuz]

Hi YesNo, thanks for your reply, I will answer soo.

[Tammuz]

Thanks for the reply, YesNo. I will answer soon.

[Tammuz]

The save-function didn´t work well, therefore the repeated posts. I don´t know how to delete them.